Why is barter a step back? It was a sophisticated system and it might also work better than money. Also it might be juggled so that people that provide the most, get the most.

Currency greatly simplifies trade.

Imagine paying some African guy for 5 diamonds in timber. Or trading Helicopter Gunships with Wheat.

It CAN be done, its just that the process will be so extensive that we just wont bother trading. So all the economies we have now will be destroyed.

But currency is the problem with trade. I prefer exchange and haggling.

barter doesn't work.

Imagine going to best buy to buy a stereo. What does the person at best buy want? You have some hay, some weed, a couple gallons of gas, and some web apps. He doesn't want any of that.

So you find someone, somewhere (a the local barter exchange?) that'll take one of you web apps in exchange for 10 pounds of flour. You go back to Best Buy....but the guy doesn't want flour. So you go back and trade your flour for 7 pounds of lobster meat. You go the best buy, and the guy want 9 pounds of lobster meat. You go back to the exchange, but the person with the lobster meat doesn't want what you have. you find someone with an AM/FM radio and trade them a gallon of gas for it. You then trade the radio to someone else for ......

anyway...you have to have a medium of exchange. It's a cornerstone of modern finance. You jump back to barter and you've undone thousands of years of financial evolution. With no medium of exchange, you can't have banks. You can't easily exchange goods across distance. And how would the company you work for pay you? My company doesn't create many tangible goods...some software, some hardware, but mostly it's service.

Why so?

Currency creates problems in that trade can be done using a fixed system. Instead of stealing items which may be harder, a person could simply steal a few hundred quid and buy some nice things for themselves. It can help create inequality with people that may have inherited their money, get advantages because they are rich, not because of talent.
Part of the problem with this argument is that we might not be capable to think outside our circumstances on this one. Money has been round for years and to come up with something that may work for us now and for it to be accepted is nearly impossible. Look at communism, ok forget about the problems involving corruption and the iron control in Russia from Stalin and later leaders, but the Marxist principle is that everyone, if they work and contribute to society should be provided for by the government. Its something we haven't tried because we feel vunerable and we are selfish. My argument isn't perfect but does everyone get my drift?

The advantages of currency greatly outweigh the arguments you give.
And yes, the Marxist principle is very nice, the only problem is that it doesn't work in reality. Period. It has been attempted by a lot of people and most of those attempts ended in millions of deaths. The only ones that didn't just didn't involve millions of people.

2 words: Star Trek

Which since I'm not a trekkie means FA to me. As for more advance tech, read an Iain M Banks book, i.e. State of the Art

Star Trek?

anyway, communism doesn't work. The problem with communism is that everyone is treated equally. But we're not equal. I'm better at programming than all you schmoes (with the exception of Pig). In fact, I may very well have a higher aptitude with computer-related shiznit than all you people.

In a capitalist society, people reward me for being creative and pushing the boundaries. I go out of my way and spend lots of free time doing stuff that improves productivity and makes everyone else's job easier. The reason I do it is twofold...one, I like doing it. And two, I'm recognized and rewareded for my efforts.

In communism, you aren't recognized or rewarded. There's no reason to step above your station, because there's no point. You work harder, you get 'paid' the same as some schmuck that shows up late every day, leaves early, and doesn't do squat.

If you look it up, in the Soviet Union they had the huge collective farms. At one point, they started letting people have their own little private vegetable patches. After awhile, these were more productive than the state-run communal farm. The reason was that people were rewarded for being really productive on thesem because they could sell the excess on the black market for money or for goods.

bleh, anyway, communism doesn't work. You can't treat people as equals, because they're not.

I agree that (moderate) capitalism lies closest to human nature (i.e. the will to overachieve or outdo others), while it's obviously still not perfect. But it's the lesser of all evils.

I don't really agree with your example tho Satis...in a communist state you'd still get assigned to do pc stuff if you're good at it. And have a career in it if you worked hard. And of course, the top shots in communism really were 1000x better off than 'regular' ppl.

There's definitely a difference with what your options now (much better now), just saying that there's a difference between theoretical communism and actual communism. (well duh Ox...that was a genius statement )

I don't care...in either state, my brilliance would shine. Aptitude is for losahs, I can do it all...or something.

lol....yea, in absolute communism there would be no top shots. But yes, in Soviet Communism, there were the party members or whatever, and they lived like kings. Or whatever. It's funny how communism made a 180 degree turn...from freeing the workers and the people to enslaving them. At least in Russia (and China..and N Korea).

Anyway, I believe the base assumptions of communism are flawed, thus the whole system won't stand. Capitalism is the opposite..it believes everyone wants to fight and compete, which also isn't true. But at least people are given a chance to succeed and be great.

Satis makes a good point but a counterpoint to capitalism is this(this is also a point for reasons to do away with money).

CEO's

Satis is right in that he gets rewarded for his efforts BUT thats not where the buck stops.

IE:

Satis works extra hard at programming and coding. He excels in his work and through his peers. Therefore he gets rewarded, a little.

Since Satis worked so hard, his company earns more profit but does Satis see that reward? No, his CEO does. The guy who comes in at 10am, bullshits with some office personal, takes a 2 hours lunch, then leaves at 4 to go golfing. Thats who benefits from a "money" system. Not satis.

See I agree communism doesnt work. But money or a means of exchange is bad for society. I mean there is a reason Jesus got pissed when he saw all the coins with Caesars face on them being exchanged and flip all the tables over. Because instead of rewarding the effort and the hard work, money takes its place.

Everyone has heard the old saying "money is the root of all evil". Well that because it is!

Why?

Because now Satis works hard not because he likes the work because he knows the harder he works the more money he can possibly make. Over years this turns what you like to do into something you just do for money because you’re good at it.

I myself love computers. I like to fix them, I like to build them. I like fixing people broke computers. So I figured I would take a job doing that because it was my hobby. Now, after about 5 years, my hobby has become my job. Something I have to do to make a living. And nothing is worse then hating your hobby. I hate fixing peoples computers now because I feel like I’m still at work.


If you took money out of the system what would you be left with?

People doing "jobs" they LIKE to do. Im sure you think if there was no money in the system people would just sit on there asses. Sure they would at first. But eventually they would get with the program.

Ill give you an example. hurricane katrina and rita. I lived and experienced rita. What happened during that time? People werent getting paychecks, people werent getting paid shit. But they still worked, they still did things that helped their community and society. People took chainsaw, got in their vehicles and drove around looking for trees to cut up, clean up the rode, etc. All for free.

Thats the system that is "supposed" to be in Star Trek. People taking occupation for jobs they like to do. Thats why I used that example. When you have a society of people working because its the job they like to do because they are good at it and people need them to do that job, then that society excels.

Imagine the carpenter, who builds a houses because he enjoys his work and prides in his skills. That would be one well build house.

Look at Satis and the programming community. Some of the best program ever written where written by people in their free time making no money. Linux is the best example.

We have to take money out of the system.

I could keep writing but I need to stop there

but I want a Lotus. How can I get a lotus if I have no money?

Or a gaming laptop.

For the free (open source) programmers, they still make money. Either corporations invest in their projects, they get donations, or they have a 'real' job that pays their bills.

I do free development. I develop for this site all the time. It's my hobby. For that reason, I'm mildly hesitant taking a programming job. I don't want to end up hating programming like I hate fixing peoples' computers now. (I'm in the same boat as 11b)

bleh...we still need some form of income. Even if all basic necessities are accounted for (ie, provided for free), I still want luxuries. I want a 5,000 square foot house. I want a yacht. I want a Lotus and a Hummer. How would I get these things in Star Trek, or do they even exist?

Thats a good point you make. You want that stuff because thats is how society is today. Thats how we are raised.

To want more possessions.

The media and corporations constantly feed the people with images and ideas that owning big houses and big boats and fast cars and having loads of money is happiness or leads to happiness. Or that its the dream your trying to catch. the cheese in front of you so you can continue to put effort in turning the wheel that keeps putting more money back in the system. The corporations and rich people hold that cheese out there for you to try to get so you turn the wheel that keeps them on top and keeps you putting energy in the system to make it work.

I mean, thats the American dream is it not?

Get a job -> make money -> buy stuff -> get a better job -> make more money -> to buy more -> stuff.

Thats not how life is supposed to work. Your not here to make money and buy stuff.

We , society, have been turned into consumers. We live and work to buy more shit.

So what happens then? More products are made available to buy.
Eventually you have people working to make shit for more people to buy. And they make shit for you to buy.

We are making each others stuff so we can buy it!

So, when you take away the money

And you stop chasing cheese what are left with?

People living to "live" and enjoy life that doesnt require possessions.
People working for enjoyment and to benefit one another.
More people focusing on education and learning and discovery for the betterment of civilization.

Instead of so much energy going into making and buying more crap.



As to your hummer in a no money system? I dont know. My guess is by the time civilization has made it to a point where we dont use money, Hummers and huges houses wont be of anyones concerns. We would have evolved past material possesion and consumerism.


See Satis, your still thinking in the box of a money system. Because in a money system those items are the pinnicale of finacial success.

In a no money system, money and possession would not be the sought after thing. It would be something else. When their is no money invovled what is the valued enitiy for success?

I mean if you and 5 other people built a house making $50 and hour, whats the value or reward for building the house? making the money.

But if you and 5 other people built a house, and no money is involved, whats the vaule or reward for building the house?


Think about this. Pretend you believe in life after death for a moment.
Lets say you die and your in the after life. Your having a conversation with 2 other dead guys. 1 dead guy ask you
"So what did you do in your past life?"

and you answer

"Well, I made alot of money, and bought alot of stuff. I had a 5,000 sq foot house, 2 yahts, 5 hummers, and something else"

then the one dead turns to the next one and ask

"What did you do in your past life"

and he answers

"I learned 5 languages, obtained 3 Masters degrees, a PH.d in phycis, and I taught 5th grade science class or something"

Which dead guy sounds more accomplished?