A World Without Currency

[Merkavar]

so what will we do? go back to bartering? we used to do that before money. cause money is superior. its a means of exchange. its divisable and you can save it and has an accepted value. you cant normally trade pig leg for a loaf of bread cause you once you cut the leg of the pig wont last much longer.

so what are the other option for no money? credits like in most sci fi show. its just non paper money.

I can not see any complex society like there are today working with out currency.

Like people said above the only way you can get a world like this is through world peace where everyone works and get what they want. sort of like a good version of communism. but also like someone said there are a million little reasons to cause conflicts.

 

[Dragonpit]

It's actually much simpler than all this. If we didn't have currency, we would probably just end up trading goods...or stealing them from others. We'd either be forced to help others alongside ourselves, or ruin other for our own sake. The man who has the most possessions would quickly become the most powerful. It's as simple as that.

 

[Lyx]

It's actually much simpler than all this. If we didn't have currency, we would probably just end up trading goods...or stealing them from others. We'd either be forced to help others alongside ourselves, or ruin other for our own sake. The man who has the most possessions would quickly become the most powerful. It's as simple as that.

That doesn't sound so different to be honest.

Still, you're ignoring one of the big advantages of a commodity that can universally and without "decay" store wealth. The two major issues with having not standardized commodity to store wealth are this:

1. Decay. Take for example foodstuffs. For its value to not decay, you need to trade it for something else, before it becomes worthless. This runs pretty much contrary to your argument as the one with the most possessions becoming the most powerful: Unless his power is mostly based on something that doesn't decay quickly, "savers" would actually be the least powerful people. In principle, what you'd get with no efficient value-storage commodity, is high inflation. Then again, that too doesn't sound so different to the state of things nowadays....

2. A universal value-storage commodity, you can trade for almost anything. A commodity that only has use in specific situations, you can only trade with people who need that commodity right now (or know others who need it). Thus, "incompatibility bloat" arises... either the one you trade with has to have need for your good in the short-term, or he needs to engage in complex back-and-forth trades to make it work.

 

[midknight129]

Not money nor barter but self-discipline

Sounds more like group discipline to me.

What's a group but a collection of "self's"? There's two kinds of discipline: the kind that's imposed upon you and the kind you impose upon yourself. Self-discipline is the preferred kind. I define Discipline as "The ability to do what needs to be done regardless of preference."

 

[DefunctTheory]

Not money nor barter but self-discipline

Sounds more like group discipline to me.

What's a group but a collection of "self's"? There's two kinds of discipline: the kind that's imposed upon you and the kind you impose upon yourself. Self-discipline is the preferred kind. I define Discipline as "The ability to do what needs to be done regardless of preference."

'Work random jobs or the world will collapse' sounds like a rather imposing discipline to me.

 

[SirDoom]

The only way a no-currency system would work is if we had access to unlimited resources.

It's been brought up before, but think Star Trek. They have matter replicators. No matter what kind of house you have, you can get by very comfortably if you have one of those.

The thing is, even in that scenario, that replicator can't make more land and put a mansion on it for you. Resources are still limited, and thus it wouldn't work. As long as there is a better alternative to what a person has, there needs to be some form of currency to allow him or her to attempt to obtain said alternative.

(Giving everyone the exact same resources wouldn't work, because they know there is a better alternative. They know they have less than what they could, and will still have a desire to try and obtain more, which will upset the balance and end up ruining the whole system.)

So, as long as we have even a single resource that isn't unlimited, it won't work.

 

[TheXRatedDodo]

How would such a world work? How would goverment's run? How would jobs work?
I could write a full wall of text to bore you guys, but instead I want to see your opinions on it. I personally think a world without currency would have MAJOR ups and downs but I believe we could run it smoothly after getting used to it.

I'll wait for your opinion before I write one.
Night.

There is always currency. But it may not be coins, it may be rice, or bread, or grain, or hugs, or sex, whatever.
And I am a supporter of such ideas but on a large scale I could never see it working. People wouldn't take to the idea, considering how conditioned we are to be materialist little shits.

 

[TheMatsjo]

Snip

The central flaw remains the same as in communism though, and that's what I was pointing out. You suggest an "honor system," which would only work if all parties involved are in mutual agreement to what constitutes as work and services rendered. In an ideal communist society, people would want to think that their work is not more than the work of others, and that they are getting the same as every other person for the simple fact that they are doing the same workload as every other person.

I understand what you mean to say, however Communism does not imply that everyone's work is equal or the price for everything should be the same. Moreover I don't suggest an honor system, I was merely remarking that all societies make use of transactions, they simply may or may not involve money.

Even in what is now colloquially known as communism some goods are scarcer than others and require different transactions to achieve; the actual salary made by a worker is only one aspect of price and value.

I'm at risk of mixing two things in this topic: 1) the actual question, which regarded a world without currency and 2) whether or not the lack of money is a necessary aspect of "communism". I'm trying to stick to 1), but it's tempting to digress.
To 1) I say: I think we can move towards a world without money, and I would welcome it; but that does not take away the need for a method of transaction.
To 2) I say: Communism is a very small word which is applied to a great deal of phenomena, usually inaccurately. Communism as a political theory makes no statements about money or its uses or lack thereof; what the USSR did in this regard does not pertain to it. One can argue that communism necessarily leads to obsolescence of currency, but this is a highly disputable point which would need its own topic.

If I came off as rude before, that was not my intention and I hope I did not seem aggressive, it's kind of a peeve for me that a complex theory like communism/socialism is so easily caricatured.

Cheers,
Matsjo

 

[midknight129]

All this talk about "unlimited resources" is ridiculous. First and foremost, there is no such thing as "unlimited resources". Second, this is all based on the presumption that all people are incapable of living on sufficiency and always strive for overabundance. A person doesn't need a mansion or 47 cars or a private jet. There are far better things to strive for; knowledge, wisdom, understanding. The problem is that people establish material, concrete, and transient goals; foremost among them is "money". There are certain people who don't see money as a goal. Money is a tool; a tool for doing a specific job. When that job becomes obsolete, so does the tool. The job is external motivation of people to work. When that is replaced with internal motivation to work, the tool of "money" will no longer be needed. This isn't about replacing it with another form of the tool: paper money, gold coins, barter chickens; they're all the same thing essentially. We're talking about taking that system as a whole and chucking it in favor of people working for the simple, uncomplicated, and self-motivated concept of "it needs to be done; I'll do it". There are people in the world right now who already possess that mentality. To say that it's impossible because of human nature is a colossal fallacy. What makes it difficult is the proportion of people that have realized the potential of such a system and are willing to do it and the people who ignore the potential and refuse to do it. Yes, under such a system, not all work is equal; the work of a doctor is harder than that of a janitor. But the work is equitable. Janitorial work may be easy but it's no less important than Medicine. Why shouldn't a Doctor get more social benefit than a Janitor? Why should he? A Doctor practices medicine and keeps people healthy, but the Janitor keeps us from living in filth. Neither job is more or less important than the other. The brain, heart, and lungs are all important to life and if any one of them fail to function, the organism dies. The same way with society.

Work random jobs or society collapses is rather harsh... but it's always been that way. Moreover, society is collapsing with the economic system we have now. So how, exactly, is it any worse to have a world society that runs, not on money, but on good will?

 

[DefunctTheory]

All this talk about "unlimited resources" is ridiculous. First and foremost, there is no such thing as "unlimited resources". Second, this is all based on the presumption that all people are incapable of living on sufficiency and always strive for overabundance. A person doesn't need a mansion or 47 cars or a private jet. There are far better things to strive for; knowledge, wisdom, understanding. The problem is that people establish material, concrete, and transient goals; foremost among them is "money". There are certain people who don't see money as a goal. Money is a tool; a tool for doing a specific job. When that job becomes obsolete, so does the tool. The job is external motivation of people to work. When that is replaced with internal motivation to work, the tool of "money" will no longer be needed. This isn't about replacing it with another form of the tool: paper money, gold coins, barter chickens; they're all the same thing essentially. We're talking about taking that system as a whole and chucking it in favor of people working for the simple, uncomplicated, and self-motivated concept of "it needs to be done; I'll do it". There are people in the world right now who already possess that mentality. To say that it's impossible because of human nature is a colossal fallacy. What makes it difficult is the proportion of people that have realized the potential of such a system and are willing to do it and the people who ignore the potential and refuse to do it. Yes, under such a system, not all work is equal; the work of a doctor is harder than that of a janitor. But the work is equitable. Janitorial work may be easy but it's no less important than Medicine. Why shouldn't a Doctor get more social benefit than a Janitor? Why should he? A Doctor practices medicine and keeps people healthy, but the Janitor keeps us from living in filth. Neither job is more or less important than the other. The brain, heart, and lungs are all important to life and if any one of them fail to function, the organism dies. The same way with society.

Work random jobs or society collapses is rather harsh... but it's always been that way. Moreover, society is collapsing with the economic system we have now. So how, exactly, is it any worse to have a world society that runs, not on money, but on good will?

What a wall. Let me break it for you.

First, we know there is no such thing an an infinite resource (except for heat).

Second, it IS human nature to hoard, and to strive for as much as possible. We hoarded food whenever we could before could even write.

Three, equality that ignores the individual (Such as rewarding a janitor the same as a doctor) is a system I'm reasonable sure no one wants, unless you're the janitor.

What I'm trying to say is, screw hippy nonsense, long live capitalism. Equal rewards for equal skill level/work done are what got us here, and it will continue to strive us forwards.

 

[Toaster Hunter]

Good idea in theory, but in practice, it wouldn't work. It may be good on paper, but you are discounting human nature. many people need some sort of incentive to do things, and money is a great incentive.

 

[shiny_elmo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg

 

[midknight129]

@ Generic Gamer:

Who'd want do do all that? Discipline is all about doing what needs to be done; regardless of whether you want to or not. Do you realize how many useless and redundant jobs we currently have in society? By removing competition and replacing it with cooperation, you increase efficiency. This means that a person doesn't need to work 8 hours a day; more like 8 hours a week. If it means society operates smoothly, don't you think it's worth 8 hours out of your week? There are some people who like farming; it's practically recreational for them. One man's meat is another man's poison; just because you can't conceive of someone doing it for free without a problem doesn't mean that such a person doesn't exist. I speak from personal experience when I say 'Money gets in the way more than it helps'. How many times does a company short-staff because it doesn't want to spend the money for sufficient help? Take money out of the equation and replace it with a simple willingness do do what needs to be done, and that problem solves itself.

A society without money is not difficult. That's just the problem; it's easy, simple, and un-complicated. Simple to the point that people can't un-learn all the complicated BS they've been brainwashed with to accept it as a better system. Tell me; who told you that human nature is to be selfish and greedy? Human nature is to progress and evolve. Human nature is to do better than we are currently doing. By stagnating at this stage in social evolution and clinging to money-based economics out of fear of what comes next, we aren't adhering to human nature but rather acting against it.

 

[zehydra]

@ Generic Gamer:

Who'd want do do all that? Discipline is all about doing what needs to be done; regardless of whether you want to or not. Do you realize how many useless and redundant jobs we currently have in society? By removing competition and replacing it with cooperation, you increase efficiency. This means that a person doesn't need to work 8 hours a day; more like 8 hours a week. If it means society operates smoothly, don't you think it's worth 8 hours out of your week? There are some people who like farming; it's practically recreational for them. One man's meat is another man's poison; just because you can't conceive of someone doing it for free without a problem doesn't mean that such a person doesn't exist. I speak from personal experience when I say 'Money gets in the way more than it helps'. How many times does a company short-staff because it doesn't want to spend the money for sufficient help? Take money out of the equation and replace it with a simple willingness do do what needs to be done, and that problem solves itself.

A society without money is not difficult. That's just the problem; it's easy, simple, and un-complicated. Simple to the point that people can't un-learn all the complicated BS they've been brainwashed with to accept it as a better system. Tell me; who told you that human nature is to be selfish and greedy? Human nature is to progress and evolve. Human nature is to do better than we are currently doing. By stagnating at this stage in social evolution and clinging to money-based economics out of fear of what comes next, we aren't adhering to human nature but rather acting against it.

It is very very difficult to reach the kind of society you describe.

And while it is Human Nature to progress and evolve, it is only in the sense of the progressing and evolving the self, not the species.

 

[zehydra]

@ Generic Gamer:

Who'd want do do all that? Discipline is all about doing what needs to be done; regardless of whether you want to or not. Do you realize how many useless and redundant jobs we currently have in society? By removing competition and replacing it with cooperation, you increase efficiency. This means that a person doesn't need to work 8 hours a day; more like 8 hours a week. If it means society operates smoothly, don't you think it's worth 8 hours out of your week? There are some people who like farming; it's practically recreational for them. One man's meat is another man's poison; just because you can't conceive of someone doing it for free without a problem doesn't mean that such a person doesn't exist. I speak from personal experience when I say 'Money gets in the way more than it helps'. How many times does a company short-staff because it doesn't want to spend the money for sufficient help? Take money out of the equation and replace it with a simple willingness do do what needs to be done, and that problem solves itself.

A society without money is not difficult. That's just the problem; it's easy, simple, and un-complicated. Simple to the point that people can't un-learn all the complicated BS they've been brainwashed with to accept it as a better system. Tell me; who told you that human nature is to be selfish and greedy? Human nature is to progress and evolve. Human nature is to do better than we are currently doing. By stagnating at this stage in social evolution and clinging to money-based economics out of fear of what comes next, we aren't adhering to human nature but rather acting against it.

another thing is that in this society, all non-essential commodities would cease to exist. If the society relies on self-discipline and the willingness for people to get things done, then there will be absolutely no incentive to make things which are unnecessary, like nice cars. Or nice anything really.