If we didn't have money, people would just harvest all the world's resources without paying something in return. The earth's resources would be mined out, and we would eventually end up killing each other over the remaining resources.
If we didn't have money, people would just harvest all the world's resources without paying something in return. The earth's resources would be mined out, and we would eventually end up killing each other over the remaining resources.
No, you could trade different resources or goods in exchange.
Gold has been used as a currancy for thousands of years and is mutch more conveniant then lugging around trade all day
Good point, however the incans had an efficient way of working that out, even if it was unfair. (You could check that out on the internet if you want. So yes, I think that money is still bad.
No, you could trade different resources or goods in exchange.
You could, but most people wouldn't. They would probably just kill each other instead. Without money, people have no reason to work, and with no work, people can't really be successful; which means they have nothing to lose, so they would be willing to kill someone over something.
There are a lot of people who are very good people who literally have billions of dollars.
How do you not literally have billions of dollars? That's puzzling me at the moment.
How do you not literally have billions of dollars? That's puzzling me at the moment.
Large numbers are an analogy for a lot of something. There's literal and figurative versions of large numbers.
You could, but most people wouldn't. They would probably just kill each other instead. Without money, people have no reason to work, and with no work, people can't really be successful; which means they have nothing to lose, so they would be willing to kill someone over something.
How do you not literally have billions of dollars? That's puzzling me at the moment
It could be used as a hyperbole...
Good point, however the incans had an efficient way of working that out, even if it was unfair. (You could check that out on the internet if you want. So yes, I think that money is still bad.
If memory serves, they had the priests and esteemed worriors at top, then the king, then the worriors, then the traders, then the other workers, then the slaves.... Not very effective if you ask me, and the social system behind it leaves you open to invashion, as it did whith the spanish.
You could, but most people wouldn't. They would probably just kill each other instead. Without money, people have no reason to work, and with no work, people can't really be successful; which means they have nothing to lose, so they would be willing to kill someone over something.
Humans existed a long time before they invented currency. They still have a reason to work, without work they would have nothing. To live they need to work, whether they have a farm and make their own food or someone pays them in food, they still work.
"No, you could trade different resources or goods in exchange."
no, bartering fails you need some kind of tender to make trades easier, because sometimes you can get ripped off easily.
I swear this is the main reason why I dont come into the world events/religion part of the forums... I get dumber each time I visit.
"Good point, however the incans had an efficient way of working that out, even if it was unfair. (You could check that out on the internet if you want. So yes, I think that money is still bad."
no. ok so say I want to buy a house, but the person only wants elephants in turn, how am I going to lug 50 elephants from africa to beverly hills prime real estate district? how am i going to pay the pilot who will be doing 90% of the lugging? in corn starch? I mean are you serious? "I say money is bad. It makes people corrupt." money doesnt make people corrupt, greed makes people corrupt.
"Without money, people have no reason to work, and with no work, people can't really be successful" again false. people could be paid in goods and services.
google =/= answers
this question =/= good question.
I also hate it when teachers say, oh there is no such thing as a stupid question. well hate to break it to ya teach, youre wrong.
"which means they have nothing to lose, so they would be willing to kill someone over something." your life is still worth something whether you think so or not.
The use of money or legal tender makes it so that our society moves away from the bartering aspect of life. and any advanced society uses currency. unless you are talking about money as something of value, but everything needs value because everyone values something whether they like it or not.
so basically what Im saying your question is a load of fail in the nicest possible way, and I died a little on the inside reading it. I'm not discouraging you or anything, but cmon seriously ask a better question or something or at least put some thought into your question.
Humans existed a long time before they invented currency.
Before the neolithic era, people had no problems killing each other. As far as they were concerned, people were basically expendable. There is no evidence to prove or disprove this, however, so it's a rather unarguable claim.
They still have a reason to work, without work they would have nothing. To live they need to work, whether they have a farm and make their own food or someone pays them in food
Sure, they could grow their own food, but wouldn't stealing the resources of others be a lot easier and quicker? Besides, as a farmer with nothing to lose, killing another person would take no effort at all.
again false. people could be paid in goods and services.
Again, they could, but not many people would actually want to carry various things around, just to see if someone wants to trade it for something else. The thing about having a currency is that everyone wants it, and everyone is willing to spend it on other things they want. Plus, it's usually very easy to carry, even in large quantities, so people wouldn't have to haul around big batches of food to trade.
