Money isn't there to keep things regulated, is it? It's there to give people an incentive to work, right?
Say a builder starts to build a house. He gets paid for this, and thus he can use this money to buy food, etc.
In a world without money, the builder does not want to build the house, but can just go and pick up food. However, seeing as there is no one to build the market, or grow the food for anyone but themselves, the builder has to grow his own food. However, this means he also has to build everything himself, and so does everyone else. However, not everyone is capable of accomplishing this, and their friends are busy with their own problems. These people die off eventually.
I'm probably just stating the obvious, and am just slow, but I thought I'd say that.
Money has a value and things have money value because it's calculated. it's a, as stated before by kasic, medium of exchange. it is an easy way to value our goods without having to go through painstaking bartering every time we want to sell or buy something.
also, with money, the pricing and worth of items is more accurate and is more responsive to the markets.
Money cause:Fighting(for money),job loss and house loss(Because getting laid off from the job),and un fairness(my bro would'nt have taken my 5 bucks if it did'nt have value)
people would just steal items of value. there would be more job loss, because you'd have to make your own things and trade for other things, and you wouldn't have the efficiency of a company.
money is just an item -- except it's not made into a good or service.
and way to blow things terribly out of proportion -------------------------------- money allows higher specialization. specialization allows goods to be worth more, and allows more trade (and trade makes everyone better off in an economy). goods being worth more leads to higher exchange for work, more money, higher living standards, stronger economy, stronger and more important nation, more (economically and attack-wise) secure nation.
I think we should just switch to the Kuwait Dinar so our money would be worth the most. Then laugh at the EU for putting gold and silver threads in their paper money.
people would just steal items of value. there would be more job loss, because you'd have to make your own things and trade for other things, and you wouldn't have the efficiency of a company.
No I meant like a new settlement.Everyone would help to build houses,buildings,and a food pandery.So you would'nt have to do everything alone.
Then if people steal iteams of value we say"You steal you don't eat"kind of like what that one guy said when they were starting the settlement of James town.
Basically money is nothing, just a piece of cloth with ink traded for things. If the world dropped this currency what would you rather have? One one hundred thousand dollar bill or 100 1 dollar bills? Of course 100 1 dollar bills. The extra cloth has more of a use rather than a different placement of ink. But to make the human economy work of course we have to have a currency, otherwise there is nothing to work for other than for self-respect, personal gain, or helping a friend or family member. About 3/4 of the population would just throw out working for self respect, and about a 1/3 for family and friends. So currency is needed otherwise the world is only left to the mercy of the decisions made by others. But it might be a good idea because the population and Co2 emissions are getting way out of control but it would not be fair to let the weak or injured die.
No I meant like a new settlement.Everyone would help to build houses,buildings,and a food pandery.So you would'nt have to do everything alone.
money doesn't prevent that at all. we have plenty of people building houses, buildings, and running and funding food pantries. they use money with their labor instead of only using labor.
Then if people steal iteams of value we say"You steal you don't eat"kind of like what that one guy said when they were starting the settlement of James town.
we could say that anyways, but it wouldn't get us anywhere. this thread is not about the legal system.
About 3/4 of the population would just throw out working for self respect
not true at all. just as many people worked when we didn't have currency, they just worked at their own goal, instead of working for a very specific goal and getting more out of their work (more money value than what is literally done in the former situation).
it might be a good idea because the population and Co2 emissions are getting way out of control
Currency was a nice boost to the economy, but you can't blame inventions and progress on it. Also, because currency allows us to exchange our items easier, it allows for quicker building of energy-conserving goods.
Money is good and convenient. Credit and Loans are bad, they just lead to to many complications and gives money a bad name. However loans and credit are necessary for large purchases over time.
any system without a form of currency or trading would fall in on itself in a matter of days, if not hours
This is true, tho I feel we could change our system to better suit the current wordwide situation.
We shouldnt need money for food, housing, communication or medicine. Perhaps a system that uses a currency or trade to get things that are not needed would better suit us.
Lets say I want an mp3 player, currency is a good way of people earning these uneeded items. I want food, and there is enuf to go around many times over, so money is an outdated way to get this, as it unfairly distributes such an important but overproduced necessity.
Its not the money itself that causes the problems, its the system we have in place for people to get what they need that is corrupt as it is made, changed and implemented by the people who benefit from it.
i guess its only important to us because its important to them. if not, trading posts would be in the place of shops and as everyone seeks to get the better deal the rich will remain rich and the poor will remain poor. winning the lotto doesnt seem that exciting anymore. money has its ups and downs.
Money has a set value. As someone on the first post stated, they gave us the definition. Something like ' A medium for circulation of exchange '
Sadly, the definition does not show the difference between trading paper vs. stuff.
Stuff. If you have food, someone only has food to offer you, you would only do what they want you to do for LOTS of food. Seeing as every bit of food has less value to you, because, well, you aren't really in need of it, are you?
Paper. If you have food, and someone offers you money, you will not overprice the issue or have a bartering inequality just because neither of you can really come to equal settings with each other. With the money being at its somewhat near valued price, You can pay with that money and use it as a medium to buy anything. The value of the money will not be based on how much you have and what you care for it, because money is just floating value, and everybody wants that.
And as for the Sparta reference (Are people ever going to get over sparta? ) I'm sure that coined/stone money wasn't very useful, but it was the setting foundations for using money today, Richer people probably had stockpiles of it. Therefore by me trading you 2000Spartan whatevers on a big truck (because I'm some badass noble of the time) your soldiers will fight for me. Etc.
