|
15 Feb 05 - 12:47 PM (#1410601) Subject: BS: Why do we need money? From: Little Hawk In this day & age why do people still feel the need for money? I really am interested to know the thoughts of mudcatters on this subject. WHY OH WHY OH WHY????????????????? Eh, Guest? Why? |
|
15 Feb 05 - 12:48 PM (#1410603) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Jim Tailor mostly just to buy stuff. |
|
15 Feb 05 - 12:53 PM (#1410612) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Little Hawk Yes, but we have to buy stuff because of the money! We could just go and get the stuff we need whenever we need it, as on the Star Trek Next Generation show. This would result in a society where people do not feel the necessity to hoard 500 pairs of shoes (assuming they have enough money to buy that many shoes). In such a society, why would a person want more than, say, 3 or 4 pairs of suitable shoes for different situations? |
|
15 Feb 05 - 12:54 PM (#1410617) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Layah I think money is useful in and of itself. I mean, doesn't everyone want little peices of paper that feel like cloth, or little pieces of cloth that feel like paper with fancy printing all over them? What could be better than that? And then if you're Canadian you get really colorful stuff, British comes in different sizes, Euros are pretty. Plus it's very useful. You can wipe your counters with it, use it as kindling for fires, metal money is good for weighing things down. THe possibilities are endless! |
|
15 Feb 05 - 12:57 PM (#1410620) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Jim Tailor don't misunderestimate the importance of stuff. |
|
15 Feb 05 - 12:57 PM (#1410623) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Little Hawk That is a very perceptive post, Layah. I like the way you think. :-) The Indians who killed Custer and his men took a whole lot of paper money and coins off those soldiers, and they used it in some of the ways you suggest! Bravo! |
|
15 Feb 05 - 12:57 PM (#1410624) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Mooh Why do we need monkeys? Oh... Well, there's that pesky mortgage, the kid's education, my guitar lust, not to mention food, overdue library book fines, fishing trips, insurance, dog food...and keeping up with the Joneseseseses. Peace, Mooh. |
|
15 Feb 05 - 01:00 PM (#1410630) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Layah "The elites had monkeys" Honest to goodness quote from my history teacher. I have no idea what she was talking about because I wasn't listening, that one phrase caught my attention, then she moved on to another subject. To this day I wonder why the elites had monkeys. But if you find some elites, I'm sure they could tell you why we need monkeys |
|
15 Feb 05 - 01:00 PM (#1410631) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Little Hawk Yes, your guitar lust would probably have to be more limited in a moneyless society. But, maybe not. Penguin lust is better. It's not as costly. |
|
15 Feb 05 - 01:01 PM (#1410632) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Jim Tailor "Monkeys and booger jokes are always funny" -Dave Barry |
|
15 Feb 05 - 02:40 PM (#1410777) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Les in Chorlton It's this loose Trotskite talk that is bringing our countries to its/their knees |
|
15 Feb 05 - 04:29 PM (#1410918) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: radriano Don't know, but why do we need another silly thread from Little Hawk, eh? |
|
15 Feb 05 - 04:35 PM (#1410925) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Donuel this is why http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/money3.jpg |
|
15 Feb 05 - 04:37 PM (#1410930) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Piers Trots don't talk about a moneyless society, they would prefer state ownership of capital. Money is necessary in market-based economies to act as an interchangable commodity to exchange commodities, including labour. With labour, employers pay less in wages and salaries tham they get from selling the products of that labour, to return a profit. The productive process is thus exploitative and driven only toward the maximum extraction of surplus resulting in many people unnecessarily going without things they need, wars over resources, miserable working conditions etc, etc. But this isn't the way it has to be: the productive processes are now so efficient there is the possibility of abundance in all necessary things. There is no need to ration goods and services as there could be enough for everybody. A moneyless society is possible through common ownership and democratic control of production. You don't need money because you could have world socialism. |
|
15 Feb 05 - 06:19 PM (#1411083) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Little Hawk Yes, indeed you could. We could easily have a moneyless society at this point, and an end to poverty and want, but it would require a much more democratic system and a basic change in people's philosophical understanding of life. |
|
15 Feb 05 - 06:23 PM (#1411088) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Peace "Why do we need money?" Bribe politicians, IMO. |
|
16 Feb 05 - 04:39 AM (#1411603) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Piers Quite so Little Hawk, all we need now is to persuade enough people. |
|
16 Feb 05 - 06:41 AM (#1411646) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: GUEST,Davetnova Money is extremely handy for weighing small amounts of herbs. A 2pence piece weighs one quarter of an ounce, a one pence piece weighs one eighth of an ounce and two ten pence pieces plus a five pence piece weighs one ounce. Of course you need considerably more than a handful of small denomination coins to purchase the said herbs. |
|
16 Feb 05 - 06:43 AM (#1411647) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: GUEST,Wolfgang The tragedy of the commons. That's why. Another bunch of well meaning idealists without enough knowledge of economy and the human psyche dreaming of an Utopia that in reality would lead to disaster and death for millions. Wolfgang |
|
16 Feb 05 - 09:50 AM (#1411708) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: GUEST,JennyO "This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy." - Douglas Adams, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. |
|
16 Feb 05 - 10:15 AM (#1411725) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: GUEST,Amos Jenny: Thanks for the grin!! I love that whacky guy. This question is unrealistic; the notion of a society based on free production and free distribution demonstrates a very limited understanding of how people work. People strive to get something they desire, They don't get far when they are given everything, with rare exceptions. Furthermore there is no provens ystem for managing such a method of distribution. But barter is a brake on any organization or expansion, because it gets very bulky. We need money so we don't have to carry around tons of raw goods or complex journals of interlocking trade agreements every day. A |
|
16 Feb 05 - 10:21 AM (#1411727) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Layah The hitchhikers quote suddenly got me thinking. I'd always sort of asumed that Douglas Adams was writing for a British audience (I'm sure the radio show at least was) and British money isn't green. Was it previously green? Is there some other significance to green? Did it get translated for American's, and if so, what does the British version say? The first few Harry Potters were translated for American release. It was kind of amusing reading the British version, where Duddly's first word was "shan't" while in the American version it's "won't" |
|
16 Feb 05 - 10:45 AM (#1411756) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: GUEST,JennyO Maybe the following passage has something to do with why Douglas Adams decided to make it green. I love this part of the story where he draws a clever analogy between the fiscal policy of the Golgafrinchams and our monetary system - the point being that the paper money has no intrinsic value, and its relative value is very much dependent on many different circumstances, some quite arbitrary and contrived. 'How can you have money,' demanded Ford, 'if none of you actually produces anything? It doesn't grow on trees you know.' 'If you would allow me to continue...' Ford nodded dejectedly. 'Thank you. Since we decided a few weeks ago to adopt the leaf as legal tender, we have, of course, all become immensely rich.' Ford stared in disbelief at the crowd who were murmuring appreciatively at this and greedily fingering the wads of leaves with which their track suits were stuffed. 'But we have also,' continued the management consultant, 'run into a small inflation problem on account of the high level of leaf availability, which means that, I gather, the current going rate has something like three deciduous forests buying one ship's peanut.' Murmurs of alarm came from the crowd. The management consultant waved them down. 'So in order to obviate this problem,' he continued, 'and effectively revalue the leaf, we are about to embark on a massive defoliation campaign, and... er, burn down all the forests. I think you'll all agree that's a sensible move under the circumstances.' The crowd seemed a little uncertain about this for a second or two until someone pointed out how much this would increase the value of the leaves in their pockets whereupon they let out whoops of delight and gave the management consultant a standing ovation. The accountants amongst them looked forward to a profitable autumn. |
|
16 Feb 05 - 11:01 AM (#1411778) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Little Hawk Your "tragedy of the commons" example is exactly what happens, Wolfgang, when people are lacking in intelligent and inspired leadership. If you don't have leaders who are capable of looking at the whole situation and understanding all its factors, then you have the equivalent of a ship that is lacking an experienced captain, a navigator, an engineer, and other required personnel and merely has a whole bunch of uninformed passengers. That ship will undoubtedly come to grief, probably causing the deaths of most who are aboard it. It is not, however, a refutation of a well-led society which does not utilize money as a motivating factor in people's lives. Not at all. You could have a society where the motivating factors were: accomplishment, promotion to a more interesting and satisfying job through that accomplishment, creativity, respect, and challenge...accompanied by a responsible approach to managing resources and ecology and population growth. For a dramatic demonstration of such a society in action, view a series of episodes from the 80's TV show, "Star Trek Next Generation". It was quite advanced in concept, and made our present society appear to be exactly what it is: a horribly primitive competitive mess based on individual greed, violence, and acquisition. We are capable of better than we are doing. Not Utopia, just better. |
|
16 Feb 05 - 11:21 AM (#1411814) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Amos Pound notes did in fact look green at one point. Of course, that could have been just me... :D A |
|
16 Feb 05 - 11:31 AM (#1411842) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Little Hawk Well, if you leave them in the damp long enough that happens... |
|
16 Feb 05 - 11:57 AM (#1411889) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Piers Wolfgang dear chap. The tragedy of the commons is flawed because it assumes not the complete absence of property rights over productive resources generally but an absence of such rights over one particular resource (grazing land) while the others (the cattle, produce and so on) are privately owned and also that their owners are motivated by the desire to maximise their short-term economic gain. The parable, as so often with defenders of the capitalist status quo, transposes the behaviour of those making decisions about production under capitalism into a quite different historical context. In socialism, where there will be no property rights over land, the sea or any other natural resource, there would not be any no property rights over instruments of production either. The cattle as well as the land would be commonly owned. In these circumstances those responsible for looking after the cattle would not be under any pressure to behave in the way he presumes. They would merely be carrying out a particular function on behalf of the community in a social context where the aim of production would be to satisfy needs on a sustainable basis and not to make profits. The community would democratically draw up a programme for the use of the grazing land, which would obviously take steps to avoid overgrazing. This is also the case concerning the psychological/human nature arguments against socialism. They observe the way that people behave in capitalism and say that is the way humans always behave, irrespective that for the vast majority of human history there has been no money. |
|
16 Feb 05 - 12:01 PM (#1411898) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Wolfgang people are lacking in intelligent and inspired leadership (Little Hawk) No, the problem why it won't work lies far deeper. The history how the socialism in East Europe has failed shows that. Wolfgang |
|
16 Feb 05 - 12:10 PM (#1411909) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Piers Wolfgang - was there any moneyfree societies in Eastern Europe? |
|
16 Feb 05 - 03:33 PM (#1412180) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: *Laura* Isn't money just a sophistocated sort of 'IOU' that has become valuable in it's own right? Or something like that. xLx p.s. Ford Prefect is a LEGEND! I LOVE HIM! He is unbelieveably WICKED! yeah! woop woop! |
|
16 Feb 05 - 06:18 PM (#1412407) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Amos Regardless of its form money is an idea back by reciprocal confidence. It is a way to crystallize credit, basically. A |
|
16 Feb 05 - 09:17 PM (#1412596) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Little Hawk Eastern Europe was run by a privileged elite, consisting of Communist Party bigwigs and military bigwigs (also in the Communist Party). That is not democratic socialism, it's a one-party dictatorship over the many by the few. It failed because it was undemocratic and because it attempted to maintain a military spending spree which was beyond its means, thus condeming its civilian society to unnecessary shortages and austerity. That is not socialism. Real democratic socialism has rarely been attempted in this World in modern times. It does not require political parties. Neither does our mixed capitalist/socialist society of today. Political parties are, in my opinion, an aberration. One party is probably the worst way to go, since it leads directly to dictatorship. 2 is the next worst. Several is next after that. None is best of all. |
|
17 Feb 05 - 01:49 AM (#1412730) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Kaleea So, we don't really need money--what we actually need is the stuff money can buy. |
|
17 Feb 05 - 02:45 AM (#1412750) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: dianavan I once lived on an island where very little money changed hands. Of course you needed money if you left the island but largely it was a barter system on the island. example: I baked bread. I would trade the bread for coffee, butter and sugar. The fisherman would let me choose in salmon in the hold for a loaf of homemake bread. In turn I would take it home and smoke it. I would then trade it for more coffee, butter, oil or what have you. Times have changed and now the island (population 350) has its own mint. Oh Canada! http://www.eligi.ca/lasqueti/ |
|
17 Feb 05 - 02:54 AM (#1412754) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: s&r £5 notes are mainly green Stu |
|
17 Feb 05 - 01:15 PM (#1413080) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: number 6 Why do we need money? For one .... it allows us to have internet service. No money to pay for the service, no service. If we had no service we would not have the capibility to access the Mudcat and answer such thought provoking questions as this. Then again, do we really need internet access?? And then again, and again .... do we really need money????? sIx |
|
17 Feb 05 - 01:49 PM (#1413121) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Wolfgang One can learn from failed experiences even if not everything was perfect. The East European socialism has failed not because it didn't go far enough or because it had the wrong elite or an elite at all, it has failed for more systematic reasons and would fail again even with some details changed. A very small community could be run without money, but a larger cannot. Wolfgang |
|
17 Feb 05 - 02:17 PM (#1413153) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Piers But Eastern European state capitalists projects were not moneyless societies. Whether a bureaucratic elite of the state effectively owns and controls the means of production or private individuals do it means that most people don't. Socialism is social ownership and thus democratic control and free access to goods and services, those things didn't happen and couldn't happen in east europe. I think a moneyless society could only operate on a world scale, as the money society opereates, and small scale attempts would be bound to fail. Piers |
|
17 Feb 05 - 02:43 PM (#1413187) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Blissfully Ignorant Why do we need money? Simple, it's so some people can have more than others. |
|
18 Feb 05 - 01:20 PM (#1414099) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: *Laura* That's what I meant - 'a way to crystallize credit' - but Amos put it better. |
|
18 Feb 05 - 03:30 PM (#1414247) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Little Hawk Perfectly stated, Blissfully Ignorant! Bravo. In most North American Indian societies one found that certain people had more honor and prestige than others...or more expertise...but certainly not more money. They managed fine with a society that was basically pretty egalitarian in a material sense. And such a society is far just and less crime-ridden than a society divided into rich and poor. I've seen the example in Cuba...as opposed to Trinidad. You've got a case of two very nice islands. One has socialism, and a fairly equal share of material things across the board...and very low crime and excellent health standards. The other (Trinidad) has the typical capitalist division of a few very rich, a middle class, and many desperately poor. Because of that division, Trinidad also has a VERY high crime rate, streets that are totally unsafe at night, and hundreds of thousands of people with no health care at all. I know which way I like better, although I like both Trinidad and Cuba. Cuba is a society which has attempted to achieve social justice. Trinidad is a society which has attempted to exploit the land and the people for all the money that a few could get...with disastrous results for the people and the land. They both have money, however. The prevailing $ySStem in the World today will not ALLOW a society to exist without money. That is unfortunate. |
|
18 Feb 05 - 04:05 PM (#1414275) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Piers I don't know quite in what sense Cuba is socialist. The pioneers of socialist thought (well before the Cuban revolution) described socialism as a moneyless society. Whether the state controls capital or private individuals do it is capitalism and is based on exploitation and minority power. I highly recommend this article on Cuba. You are correct to point out that capitalism is a nearly worldwide integrated economic system, and so must be socialism - a society of common ownership democratic control and free access to goods and services. Nations are part of the capitalist infrastructure. That is why socialist parties have formed the World Socialist Movement. |
|
18 Feb 05 - 07:36 PM (#1414447) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Little Hawk Thanks for the links, Piers. On just a quick look (don't have much time right now)...yes, I'd say that's an excellent article on Cuba. It is no paradise. It is far from perfect. What it is though, is a tremedous step up from the grotesquely corrupt conditions that preceded Castro's successful revolution on that island. While visiting there I met many people who supported the revolution and many who did not...all for their own particular reasons. The ones who did not tended to be young men...people with no memory of life under the Batista government or of the Revolution. Castro is all they have ever known, and like most young men they are tired of the "old men in charge" and restless for a change. They have little or no idea what the Revolution gave them...but they do long for DVD players and stuff like that. There is quite a lack of modern consumer goods in Cuba. You can buy anything you want in Trinidad at the fancy shopping centres...if you can afford it. Of course, somebody may kill you for it on your way back home...or break into your house and take it. That's why so many people in Trinidad have guard dogs on their property...and broken glass on top of their walls, and stuff like that. |
|
18 Feb 05 - 08:25 PM (#1414486) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: McGrath of Harlow There are a whole range of activities where it would be much easier to dispense with money, and just have things freely available. Public Transport and supermarkets could operate perfectly well on some basis where people would take what they required, perhaps with some credit limit - modern technology woudl make that relatively simple. I imagine that at some time there will be a society operating on that basis - Little Hawk's quoting of the imagined world of the Star Trek Next Generation is relevant here. It sees to me that money is a phenomenon of a certain phase of society we are going through - there was a time before money, and there will be a time after it. The pseudo-socialism of the 20th century came a few generations too eary, before the technology was there to make it practicable. Wanting more than you conveniently need is a reflection of a sense there isn't enough to go around, and you might need it tomorrow. It's a bit crazy really, but it's a crazy world. |
|
18 Feb 05 - 10:36 PM (#1414568) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Little Hawk Yup. Hoarding is based on 2 things: Sytemic inequality...and fear of present or future scarcity. In a family where some of the children ate well while others ate very poorly, precisely the same thing would happen...plus a lot of anger and probably violence. A society IS a very large family. |
|
19 Feb 05 - 01:59 AM (#1414678) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: hesperis Even in Star Trek, some people had things that others didn't have. The elite and the non-tech had hand-made things rather than generated things. The hand-made things increased in value because they were unique. They could be copied perfectly, but to have the original would add to the status of the individual. I definitely know I'd be capable of more real work if I had more of my basic needs covered and wasn't spending all my time on trying to find low-cost dental work and doctors... and if I'd had a chance to go to college. |
|
19 Feb 05 - 07:14 AM (#1414831) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Piers Thanks Little Hawk, I do get rather wound up over the use of the word socialism, I apologise. It is about defending an idea as much as etymology, the movement has decided that whatever word we use for a moneyless society people will want to corrupt it so we stick to the S word. I nearly got a job in Trinidad but was put off by reading the local newspaper on-line. Now everyone is agreed that a moneyless society is a practical alternative to capitalism you can start campaigning for socialism and even join one of the WSM companion parties (UK, USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia). We are standing for Vauxhall in the coming UK general election. We have no leaders and all activities are voluntary. We are the only political parties working for own demise. |
|
19 Feb 05 - 07:28 AM (#1414842) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: GUEST,Soma Frozen Desire |
|
19 Feb 05 - 08:15 AM (#1414873) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Blissfully Ignorant Actually, i think the initial question is flawed. The only people who need money are those who don't have it... |
|
19 Feb 05 - 11:35 AM (#1415002) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Little Hawk Oh. Well, I originally started this thread as a satirical response to another thread called "Why do we need religion?" My first post was tongue in cheek. I didn't realize at the time that it would result in a serious discussion developing... We obviously need money right NOW, because society is organized around it at the moment. If Hesperis were in Cuba, she could have had free and good dental care all her life, and free University education as well (but would have to buy the textbooks, that's all). Many young Cubans who would like to go to university have a hard time with the carrying costs (the books and feeding and maintaining themselves while taking their courses). Some have to put it off because of that...or they do it bit by bit. Nevertheless, the country has made a genuine effort to provide free higher education to all its citizens, and that is a very smart thing for a society to do, in my opinion. The Cuban revolution was driven by very intense social idealism. It ran onto the rocks of total rejection by the USA (due to kicking out the rich American business concerns in Cuba). That made survival as a society much more difficult in an economic sense. They were shut out of North American and South American trade to a great extent. They then turned to the only other game in town...Russia. The USA, in order to placate its business people, basically drove Castro into the arms of Soviet Russia, thus creating a Communist military base in their own backyard. Dumb. Seriously dumb. They should have made friends with Castro from the beginning...but they never would...because Big Business runs the USA and does not forgive revolutionaries who take away their monopoly and spread it out among the common people. No sir. They kill people who do stuff like that. Castro has proven quite hard to kill. He's a tough one. |
|
20 Feb 05 - 04:24 PM (#1415775) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Wolfgang All the affirmative responses seem to me in near complete ignorance of human nature. This experiment should not be tried for it would end in disaster and loss of wealth and human lives. One can learn from the experiments tried so far even if none of these has tried to get rid of money altogether. Beware of the well meaning idealists. The chaos they would create is far worse than the present not always pleasant alternative. Wolfgang |
|
20 Feb 05 - 05:09 PM (#1415801) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: McGrath of Harlow It'll come in time. Gradually we'll get to a situation where the hoops we have to jump through to run a money system in circumstances where free availability makes more sense will just get too complicated, and the system will just fade away. There are aspects of the Internet experience that presage that. There's no automatic link between a money system and "human nature". As I said, there was a time before money, and there'll be a time after it. We were humans before money, and we'll still be humans after money. But the change probably won't happen in our time. |
|
20 Feb 05 - 05:40 PM (#1415833) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Little Hawk I'm not suggesting an abrupt changeover, Wolfgang. I'm just suggesting a gradual transition...which is exactly what we have seen happening anyway over the last few centuries. We have progressed from a World of robber barons to a World of relatively peaceful societies with some fairly good social services. That's not bad. I'm saying there is further progress yet to be made. |
|
20 Feb 05 - 07:57 PM (#1415992) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: dianavan BTW (thread drift) - Just saw the Motorcycle Diaries. Not a great flick but interesting and well worth it. Helped me understand how the young Che evolved into the notorious and much-loved, Che. |
|
20 Feb 05 - 09:03 PM (#1416046) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Peace Why do we need money? So that we know when we're broke; that's at the same time we don't have any money. |
|
20 Feb 05 - 11:04 PM (#1416107) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: GUEST As of January debt cards have become accepted throughout the EU (it was about time)unfortuantely the UK still clings to an archaic system (that long ago forgot what the value of stearling was.) |
|
20 Feb 05 - 11:08 PM (#1416109) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: GUEST,.gargoyle I believe James Jones established JONESTOWN is the South American wilderness for Nirvana on earth. Music, God, Music, Work, Music, Food, God and more Music. No bills, no bill collectors - just drink the kool-aide when it is distributed. Sincerely, Gargoyle |
|
20 Feb 05 - 11:30 PM (#1416118) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: number 6 LH .... I'm afraid we are regressing back to a society of robber barons, with the relative deterioration of our socials services. Worker's wages are eroding to a level we're we exist on and are controlled by debt. Debt, yes we are becoming a society were money is irrevelant, but were debt is the source of barter. sIx |
|
20 Feb 05 - 11:48 PM (#1416125) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Little Hawk Yes, there is a tendency that way. Gargoyle, your using the example of Jamestown in this discussion is like me making a general statement about long-haired young people in the late 60's, and using Charles Manson as the standard by which to judge them all. Pointless, provocative, and of no help whatsoever in discussing the subject. All it sheds light on is your own great satisfaction in being prejudiced and thoroughly negative. |
|
21 Feb 05 - 04:47 AM (#1416227) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Piers Dear Wolfgang, I can entirely understand how the state capitalist countries of eastern europe have coloured you judgement against anything to do with socialism. But I implore you to understand that the only similarity between that and what is being talked about here is the name. The conception of socialism as a moneyless society precedes that of socialism as state ownership. I am talking about a society without property, where the means of living are actually controlled democratically by workers. Unlike others here I don't see it just happening (it would of happened by now and despite the optimism of some the world is in fact becoming more unequal) it has been be brought about by the concious action of people, and when a majority want it to happen we can make socialism happen. As for your assertions about human nature, it is a common objection to socialism but what facts are there behind this? Have a look at this article on human nature. |
|
21 Feb 05 - 10:44 AM (#1416402) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Piers I have just come across abolishmoneynow.com via this which contains some criticism. Piers |
|
21 Feb 05 - 11:44 AM (#1416464) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Little Hawk Human nature comprises any and all possibillities, as has been amply demonstrated already throughout history. :-) |
|
21 Feb 05 - 12:04 PM (#1416482) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Pied Piper There may not always have been money but there has always been trade between individuals and groups. The fundamental relationship of any organism to the biosphere is an economic one. We have to eat to survive, so food and in dry areas water, has many of the social properties of money. I don't see how you could abolish money in a society were wee need so many specialists. Without money (as a standard means of exchange) how does a brain-surgeon get to eat? I know the system is far from perfect but money has some good aspects 1 It's not Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, or Religiously bigoted. 2 It rots more slowly (most of the time) than food. 3 A large amount takes up a small space. 4 It can be easily hidden, so your wealth does not have to show. I mean this in terms of being robed. I can walk down the street with £10,000 in my pocket (I should be so lucky) and it does not show; a train of Oxen is however harder to hide. PP |
|
21 Feb 05 - 12:21 PM (#1416512) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Little Hawk Good points, Pied. Money is certainly handy stuff in a lot of ways. No doubt about that. It would be possible, though, to organize a society where all the material needs were taken care of automatically...and people concerned themselves more about activity, accomplishment, personal satisfaction in playing out a part in life, so to speak. That was the situation portrayed on the Star Trek Next Generation show. The good thing about that society was: 1. Everybody's material needs were met, so there was no poverty. 2. Things were done not for an artificial imperative (dollar profit), but for actual result. One of the reasons our society is way off track in certain areas is that silly or harmful things are being done simply because they yield a short-term dollar profit. That, in the long run, is a very dangerous way to organize a society. |
|
21 Feb 05 - 12:45 PM (#1416527) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Jim Tailor wealth is not = to money. Wealth, to a much greater and more meaningful extent, contains elements of skill, knowledge, geography, luck... If you were able to take all the "money" away from everyone and distribute it equally on a per capita basis, you would somewhat alter who was and was not the wealthy among us -- but only somewhat. ....and only temporarily. |
|
21 Feb 05 - 05:19 PM (#1416793) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Little Hawk True, Jim. But why should life even be about wealth? Why not make it about accomplishment, happiness, and creativity? Or honor? Or something else non-material? Why wealth? There are better things in life than wealth. |
|
21 Feb 05 - 06:14 PM (#1416842) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: annamill " If you were able to take all the "money" away from everyone and distribute it equally on a per capita basis, you would somewhat alter who was and was not the wealthy among us -- but only somewhat. ....and only temporarily." JT, I think this was done already by Carl Marx. Didn't work, either. No, I never read the book! Did anybody?? Just wondering. I don't even know what it was called. Utopia? or something like that. You'd think THAT would be something that is common knowledge, wouldn't you. Maybe it is to some! Sorry, rambling... Tra la la.. Love, Annamill |
|
21 Feb 05 - 06:19 PM (#1416847) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: annamill BTW, I don't know why, but I need money.. If anybody doesn't want theirs please PM me. I'll be able to help. ;-) Love, annamill (just joking today) |
|
21 Feb 05 - 06:37 PM (#1416871) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Little Hawk Are you taking dogs as well, Annamill? |
|
21 Feb 05 - 06:41 PM (#1416883) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: annamill No thanks, LH. I have enough, though small, of that particular commodity. |
|
21 Feb 05 - 07:48 PM (#1416953) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: McGrath of Harlow "I think this was done already by Karl Marx." No it wasn't. He wrote lots of stuff, lived and died in London as an exile, and spent a lot of time in the British Museum Library. Wrote a book called Capital. "Utopia" - that's the book written by Sir Thomas More back in the 16th century. Much shorter, well worth reading. |
|
21 Feb 05 - 08:13 PM (#1416969) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: annamill McGrath, I'm sorry. I've always been under the impression that Communism was based on the book written by (K)arl Marx. Am I wrong then? Drat! Now I'll have to go lookup these misconceptions I have and discover the truth. From movies and other books I've read I always thought that the whole idea of taking from the ones who have much and spreading it evenly to everyone, in other words: "If you were able to take all the "money" away from everyone and distribute it equally on a per capita basis, you would somewhat alter who was and was not the wealthy among us" was based on Karl Marx's book and some called it Communism, which didn't work. So, I have been wrong on this idea? Of course I am strongly simplifying it. I was just playing and not taking the whole thing seriously at all. So Sorry. Thank you for the info. Would I be able to find "Capitol" in English? Or would I be arrested for reading it? Ooohh, theres a good question. I'll look up "Utopia" at the library. Maybe I'll stay away from "Capitol" right now and do it another time. Look what's happening to us. Love, Annamill |
|
21 Feb 05 - 09:09 PM (#1416995) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Little Hawk I think there are 2 seminal books for the Communist revolution: "Das Kapital" - by Karl Marx "The Communist Manifesto" - by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels I am not recommending Communism when I suggest creating a society without money. :-) But I do think that both Communism and Capitalism have had some worthy ideas worth preserving and combining in a social system that would be better than either one of them. |
|
22 Feb 05 - 04:05 AM (#1417157) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Piers I am in no way a defender of every dot and cross that Marx wrote where did he suggest that money be redistributed equally? Was it Das Kapital vol. II?: 'In the case of socialised production the money-capital is eliminated. Society distributes labour-power and means of production to the different branches of production. The producers may, for all it matters, receive paper vouchers entitling them to withdraw from the social supplies of consumer goods a quantity corresponding to their labour-time. These vouchers are not money. They do not circulate.' No. Was it in the Critque of the Gotha Programme?: 'What is "a fair distribution"? Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? . . . Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; . . . Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case . . . But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal. . . In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!' No, not there either. Perhaps it was in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844? 'Even the equality of wages, which Proudhon demands, would merely transform the relation of the present-day worker to his work into the relation of all men to work. Society would then be conceived as an abstract capitalist. Wages are an immediate consequence of estranged labour, and estranged labour is the immediate cause of private property. If the one falls, then the other must fall too. (2) It further follows from the relation of estranged labour to private property that the emancipation of society from private property, etc., from servitude, is expressed in the political form of the emancipation of the workers. This is not because it is only a question of their emancipation, but because in their emancipation is contained universal human emancipation. The reason for this universality is that the whole of human servitude is involved in the relation of the worker to production, and all relations of servitude are nothing but modifications and consequences of this relation.' Well I guess not. Maybe he never wrote it at all. But do people still regurgitate the old myths that Marx suggested state capitalism for Russia, they followed his plan and it didn't work. Yes, they do. |
|
22 Feb 05 - 04:29 AM (#1417170) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Piers Pied Piper, Yes, '[t]he fundamental relationship of any organism to the biosphere is an economic one.' in a broad sense. But that does not necessitate trade. Does a cow trade for the grass it eats, or a fox for lambs it takes, or, indeed, did the europeans trade anything for ownership of America when they arrived? A moneyless society is possible only when private property is abolished, why pay for what you already own? If the means of producing wealth are held in common, then what is produced will also be commonly owned. Economics can be a question of how to distribute stuff rather than trade. In socialism a brain surgeon would go to a store and take what he needed, because we have the technology to produce enough for everyone there is no need to ration. You say money is not 'Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, or Religiously bigoted', of course it isn't, but do not these things arise from the unequal, competitive, repressive capitalist system of which money is a neccesity. |
|
22 Feb 05 - 05:54 AM (#1417234) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Jim Tailor "...money is not 'Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, or Religiously bigoted', of course it isn't, but do not these things arise from the unequal, competitive, repressive capitalist system of which money is a neccesity. (?)" no. |
|
22 Feb 05 - 06:36 AM (#1417261) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Piers Why? |
|
22 Feb 05 - 07:09 AM (#1417285) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: GUEST,Raggytash Cos I don't want to be paid in cabbages |
|
22 Feb 05 - 07:23 AM (#1417300) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: McGrath of Harlow With small change in Brussels Sprouts. .. |
|
22 Feb 05 - 09:07 AM (#1417406) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Jim Tailor Why? Do you really think that bigotry boils simply down to nothing more complex than economics? |
|
22 Feb 05 - 09:14 AM (#1417414) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Rapparee Does a cow trade for the grass it eats, or a fox for lambs it takes... Well, actually, yes. Grass, like all plants, requires carbon dioxide (which the cow breathes out) for photosynthesis. Also, the cow excretes nutrients vital to the continued existence of the grass and when it dies returns what it took from the grass (for the continued existence of the cow) to the grass by its decomposition -- just as you and I will. You, me, and the fox are a bit more complicated, but carnivores (the fox) eat herbivores (the lamb). Ultimately, we all thrive on the grass, and we all "pay back" to the grass by our excretion and eventual decomposition. |
|
22 Feb 05 - 10:15 AM (#1417460) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Piers Rapaire, you are correct to point out that all organisms are related chemically, but we are talking about trade, that is, buying and selling, which is dependent on human will, the ability to make decisions and so on, whereas what you are talking about is independent of humans. Jim Tailor, it is the case that most bigotry has a material basis. For example, the Rev Dr Ian Paisley is a famous religious bigot. His religious views are entirely rooted in the political, thus economic, competition over who controls the industrial north of Ireland. Adolf Hitler is well known for enacting racist policies, they were based on the conception that Jews were all very rich with disproportionate control of industry which he wanted to control. Racism amongst working people has its basis in fear of competition for jobs. The examples could go on, do you want to suggest that bigots wake up in the morning and randomly pick a type of people to castigate? |
|
22 Feb 05 - 11:04 AM (#1417505) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Jim Tailor "...do you want to suggest that bigots wake up in the morning and randomly pick a type of people to castigate?" No. |
|
22 Feb 05 - 11:14 AM (#1417520) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Rapparee The give and take of nature is reflected in humans. I think you should read Andrew Carnegie's essay "On Wealth." |
|
22 Feb 05 - 11:54 AM (#1417569) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Piers Andrew Carnegie! ROFLMAO, I hope that was supposed to be ironic. It's pure ideology, the apologetics of a man who spent most of his life living the life of reilly off the backs of others: ' . . . the millionaire will be but a trustee for the poor; intrusted for a season with a great part of the increased wealth of the community, but administering it for the community far better than it could or would have done for itself.' Can anyone take this anti-social crap seriously? He was saying you and I are too stupid to look after ourselves. His 'gospel of wealth' was know your place, don't step out of line, work for me and I'll use the surplus I get from paying you less than what you make for me for 'good causes', yeah right, he owned estates in Scotland and the US. Even if all capitalists had philanthropic tendencies, materially they possess the means of living which the majority doesn't, and thus have power over us. Carnegie obviously wanted to keep it that way. |
|
22 Feb 05 - 12:38 PM (#1417604) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Rapparee How about if you read the damned thing? In toto? Here are a couple of extended excerpts. Under republican institutions the division of property among the children is much fairer, but the question which forces itself upon thoughtful men in all lands is: Why should men leave great fortunes to their children? If this is done from affection, is it not misguided affection? Observation teaches that, generally speaking, it is not well for the children that they should be so burdened. Neither is it well for the state. Beyond providing for the wife and daughters moderate sources of income, and very moderate allowances indeed, if any, for the sons, men may well hesitate, for it is no longer questionable that great sums bequeathed oftener work more for the injury than for the good of the recipients. Wise men will soon conclude that, for the best interests of the members of their families and of the state, such bequests are an improper use of their means. It is not suggested that men who have failed to educate their sons to earn a livelihood shall cast them adrift in poverty. If any man has seen fit to rear his sons with a view to their living idle lives, or, what is highly commendable, has instilled in them the sentiment that they are in a position to labor for public ends without reference to pecuniary consideration, then, of course, the duty of the parent is to see that such are provided for in moderation. There are instances of millionaires' sons unspoiled by wealth, who, being rich, still perform great services in the community. Such are the very salt of the earth, as valuable as, unfortunately, they are rare; still it is not the exception, but the rule, that men must regard, and, looking at the usual result of enormous sums conferred upon legatees, the thoughtful man must shortly say, "I would as soon leave to my son a curse as the almighty dollar," and admit to himself that it is not the welfare of the children, but family pride, which inspires these enormous legacies. The growing disposition to tax more and more heavily large estates left at death is a cheering indication of the growth of a salutary change in public opinion. The State of Pennsylvania now takes -- subject to some exceptions -- one-tenth of the property left by its citizens. The budget presented in the British Parliament the other day proposes to increase the death-duties; and, most significant of all, the new tax is to be a graduated one. Of all forms of taxation, this seems the wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives, the proper use of which for the public ends would work good to the community, should be made to feel that the community, in the form of the state, cannot thus be deprived of its proper share. By taxing estates heavily at death the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life. It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction. Indeed, it is difficult to set bounds to the share of a rich man's estate which should go at his death to the public through the agency of the state, and by all means such taxes should be graduated, beginning at nothing upon moderate sums to dependents, and increasing rapidly as the amounts swell, until of the millionaire's hoard, as of Shylock's, at least " ---- The other half Comes to the privy coffer of the state." This policy would work powerfully to induce the rich man to attend to the administration of wealth during his life, which is the end that society should always have in view, as being that by far most fruitful for the people. Nor need it be feared that this policy would sap the root of enterprise and render men less anxious to accumulate, for to the class whose ambition it is to leave great fortunes and be talked about after their death, it will attract even more attention, and, indeed, be a somewhat nobler ambition to have enormous sums paid over to the state from their fortunes. |
|
22 Feb 05 - 01:35 PM (#1417655) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Piers Yeah, so what? It is ideology for the continuation of the capitalist system, the preservation of Carnegie's privileges over others and riches whilst he was alive. Even if it was workable, which it isn't as it based on the flawed belief that some moral code of conduct can be lauded onto the economic basis of production, it is a utopia for the rich to relieve their guilt of living as parasites on the rest of us. Whatever excuses you make for the capitalist/market/money system it only recognises the efficiency of producing profit. That is why ideas like heavier taxation for capitalists and fairtrade only ever amount to palliatives at the very best and we are still lumbered with the inherent problems of the money system. |
|
22 Feb 05 - 02:06 PM (#1417689) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: annamill To start a new one... Has anyone read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"? There is a great dissertation on the goodness of money. It's my day off and I'm too relaxed right now to go find some quotes, but I though she had some good arguments. Love, Annamill |
|
22 Feb 05 - 03:20 PM (#1417776) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Piers Ayn Rand, allow me, she wrote: 'The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism [yeah, take me back to the good old days, people dying in the street, abject poverty and all those ideals]. It is a system where men [she obviously didn't have much regard for her own sex] deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit [it isn't free and it isn't a mutual benefit, the majority of the world have no choice but to sell their labour to those that own the means of production, you 'volunteer' your labour or you starve and seeing as capitalists make a surplus on labour the benefit isn't mutual]. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others [yeah, there have never been any wars, robbery with violence or mugging in capitalism??]. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights [it seems to be doing the opposite at the moment]; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders [oh yeah, right??]. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church [yeah, fuck anyone who can't help themselves??]. |
|
22 Feb 05 - 03:57 PM (#1417804) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Wolfgang Piers, I've read your links and more from that socialist site (of course, they are the 'true' socialists). It sounded to me as if it was 20 years old and then I found that some bits actually were twenty years old. I do not have they impression that the writers have added anything to their knowledge since their university days of old. No source from, for instance, Evolutionary Psychology is mentioned. What puzzles me about your argumentation is that you paint a money using system in the blackest of colours with the worst of examples from the history of capitalism as if there could be only one type of capitalism, whereas on the side of socialism you dismiss any bad examples by saying that was not the socialism you are talking about. A money using system has not to be identical with a no-reins capitalism. Wolfgang |
|
22 Feb 05 - 04:02 PM (#1417808) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: annamill Ideal is the main word here. As it was in Karl Marx's writings. |
|
22 Feb 05 - 04:40 PM (#1417837) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Jim Tailor Ideal"istic" |
|
22 Feb 05 - 04:52 PM (#1417847) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: annamill I've been called worse. ;-) *BG* Back to the original question. Let's say we have a whole village of people and all of them are tomato farmers. Maybe even a little corn thrown in. Maybe a couple of them can write computer programs, or cobble shoes. Maybe a couple of them can tan leather and everyone has a cow or two, a couple of pigs, some chickens. Where the heck are they going to get Smarties, with or without the tube??? That's why we need money, sillies! Love, Annamill |
|
22 Feb 05 - 05:02 PM (#1417864) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: annamill Ok, so here is more from Ayn: Ayn's speech |
|
22 Feb 05 - 05:40 PM (#1417904) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: McGrath of Harlow I think if the idea is to to turn people against capitalism, it's probably better to quote Ayn Rand than Karl Marx. |
|
22 Feb 05 - 05:46 PM (#1417914) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: annamill Ok, I don't want to fight. It's too nice a day. I've made money, and I've not made money. It really depends on what you do with it. Do you use it or does it use you? I had a lot of fun with it when I had it, and I'm having a lot of fun now that I don't have it. I guess you'll be the same person with it or without it. Either you like yourself and life or you don't. Me, I like myself and life, with or without money. Love, Annamill |
|
22 Feb 05 - 06:06 PM (#1417935) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Piers Wolfgang, thanks for taking the time to read our stuff, I appreciate some of it is a bit old. Apart from that the efficiency of production has been allowed to increase to a point where the basic needs, at least, could be met and in much of the world there is a democratic structure where socialists can democratically bring in socialism I don't think it has much going for it. We stick to our definition of socialism, common ownership of the means of production, democratic control, free access to goods and services which has never existed, this is not to try and get round the fact eastern european state capitalism, it has been the party's position since 1904. Incidentally we are [in]famous on the left for denouncing the Russian revolution as not socialist within forty-eight hours. This is because unlike the other 'socialist'/'communist' parties that supported Russian state capitalism our analysis is based on Marxian principles of the materialist conception of history, class analysis and the labour theory of value whereas Leninist theory consists of trying to interpret Marx in ways that would justify running state capitalism as Marxist. So we are not idealists because our analysis is based evidence based. We have a booklet called 'Are we prisoners of our genes?' which is more up-to-date but it isn't on-line. Have you read 'Alas, poor Darwin' edited by S and H Rose, it is a collection of essays critcising evolutionary psychology? Annamill, they could get their smarties from a smartie factory, and the people in the smartie factory could get their tomatoes and computer programs from them. It's what happens now with a major differences - production is based on need (e.g. the amount of tomatoes produced is based on the amount of tomatoes that are consumed, whereas the market system only responds to signals of monetary demand and supply), production is democratically controlled (workers make decisions on how much land they will grow tomatoes on and how much corn they will need) and access to goods and services is free (so if it is a bad year for tomatoes they don't face poverty they can still get what they want). |
|
02 Mar 05 - 05:41 AM (#1424736) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: GUEST why do we need money? well..our needs are our choices !! :) sugandh india |
|
02 Mar 05 - 02:30 PM (#1425132) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: annamill NEVER has the phrase "Get a life" been more meaningful then right now. Love, annamill 101 WOW! |
|
02 Mar 05 - 09:52 PM (#1425504) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: jimmyt I have tried the no money part for 30 years I have tried the money part for 26 years. It is much nicer to have than to not. I can help a hell of a lot more people, institutions, touch more lives take care of my needs as opposed to when I did not have the stuff. I have a staff of people who work for me who appreciate it and me very much. I can see the evils of the worst of capitalism but I can also see the wonderful parts of societies that are based on capitalism and how vastly superior to the ones where other government and economic systems were in force in the eastern bloc 15 years ago. You may be able to make some cases on theory only but reality makes money seem to be a pretty good idea. |
|
03 Mar 05 - 08:45 AM (#1425844) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Piers Dear Jimmy, As I, and others, have stated below. We are not talking about comparing living in society today with and without money. Whether it is mainly private capitalism (like most 'western' countries) or mainly state-owned capitalism (like the eastern bloc 15 years ago). Money is a facet of a society where the vast majority of people do not posses the means of living but have no choice but to trade their labour with those who do own the means of living for the ability to live. There are examples of how a moneyless society could work now. A library for instance, from the point of view of distribution. It has many books and users are allowed to take out books from that library, up to their allowance of borrowings (in some libraries it is effectively unlimitted). There can be millions of books available, with tens of thousands of users chasing them. If many users need a book, additional copies are bought. If there is still hot competition, loan periods are reduced to increase circulation. Users may check the catalogue, to see if a book is held by the library, or a different library. They can see if it is available, or on loan. If it is on loan, they can see when it is due. They can request it, if it is on-loan, and require its return. They can see if it is on order, and put their name down to receive it when it arrives. They can suggest a purchase. None of this requires exchange of money, it is all done through direct signals and co-operation between librarians and users. This is the way socialism, a money-less society would work, without distribute books, this is reality. In bookshops on the other hand, which attempt to fulfill the same function as a library, you can only have a book if you can afford it. And as everybody knows the shelves in most high street bookshops are only stacked with the latest most profitable titles. If it's not there you have to wait. Unless it is a text or reference book, once you've read it it's useless. The supply of goods and services already occurs on a moneyless basis. Books are just one example of the means of living, apply the library method to food, clothes, entertainment etc. and we are all laughing. So instead of coming out with meaningless generalisations (You may be able to make some cases on theory only but reality makes money seem to be a pretty good idea) why don't you become a socialist? |
|
03 Mar 05 - 08:52 AM (#1425860) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: jimmyt Well, for one, let me see,,,,,,,,,,,,,Who pays the librarian? Who buys the books?????????who builds the building????? Oh, I remember, as it seems in America they were endowed by Andrew Carnege. Makes my generalization seem less meaningless I think. |
|
03 Mar 05 - 12:00 PM (#1426021) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Piers Well if you get everything in the same way you get library books, the librarian wouldn't need to be paid, no one would need to buy books and no one would need to pay for the building. As I have said before, we are not talking about a moneyless system acting alongside a money system. We are talking about abolishing the money system and replacing it with a moneyless system. I have given an example of moneyless distribution in reality, thus disproving your generalisation that: You may be able to make some cases on theory only but reality makes money seem to be a pretty good idea. What do have left now but to throw your lot in with the socialists and put an end to war, poverty, alienation, the tyranny of the rich over the poor, sham democracy, banks, cash machines, accountants, tax inspectors, tanks, employment, unemployment, insurance, cashiers and the like? Think how much more efficient it would be. We could concentrate on producing useful things and have some much needed time off to be creative. At the turn of the last century Paul Lafargue though it possible to have a three-hour day and for everyone to have all their needs met and then some, think now about how much more efficient we are at producing things. From the world of 'no profit, no production, can't pay, can't have' shall spring a world of near infinite possibilities. |
|
03 Mar 05 - 02:50 PM (#1426144) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: jimmyt Piers, I commend you for your belief system and think it sounds great on paper. The reality of it, in my opinion, is that every time I see a system based remotely on your system, I see massive abuse of the system. I believe there are people out there, you being one of them, that would act with 100 percent integrity when it came to the pulling your fair share. I believe there are a majority who would not exactly pull their weight, and another group who would lie, cheat, steal, etc to beat the system entirely. What would you do with them? I own a business, and every now and again, I feel pretty lousy when I get up in the morning. I have a cold, I have a headache, for some reason or other I couldn't sleep well the night before, etc. I get ready and go to work. That is what I do. My staff counts on me being there to work otherwise their livelihood would suffer. I see patients every day. If i didn't go to work they wouyld be suffering or othertwise inconvenienced. The local health dept dentist doesn't go if she feel even a slight headache. SHe has sick days. She hardly works when she is there. She is lazy, and beats the system. Her patients suffer. My belief is that many people will do or not do whatever they can get away with. Our present system, although corrupt, is at least full of checks and balances to help keep people on track. Just my opinion. Again, I agree with much you say, but reality is somewhat different than theory. |
|
03 Mar 05 - 03:19 PM (#1426160) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: hesperis So instead of inconveniencing people by not showing up, you inconvenience people by distributing your cold all over the place, or by working at much less than a healthy capability but charging them the same amount of money as if you were working at a healthy capability. Hard to say which is worse, really. |
|
03 Mar 05 - 04:58 PM (#1426248) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Piers Hi Jimmy, I reckon even if there are the same number of 'people cheating the system' in socialism as there are now, it is not a good enough reason not to make it happen. I don't think socialism will be a utopia but will be a many times better way of doing things than they are done now. However, I believe we try and cheat the system because it is gloriously unfair: work - that should be a pleasure - is often drudgery. I mentioned earlier the extra labour that could be available because so much of it is used now in maintaining the capitalist system (i.e. doesn't actually produce anything) and is not utilised because of capitalism (unemployment). The workload itself is reduced, thus even if a job is really unpleasant, like cleaning the sewers no one will have to spend all day doing it, just some of the day and low skilled tasks such as that can be spread around. The present system means that there are overworked dentists and underdentised (I made that word up but you get what I mean?) workers. Healthcare being a drain on income, an undesirable cost, but dentists have got to chase the patients. You say that the present system acts as a check and balance against laziness, i.e. the threat of poverty forces workers to work. Isn't being forced to do something enough to inspire cheating, that aside, the corollary of that is that the >800million malnourished people worldwide are hungry because they are lazy. I'd guess you don't believe that and recognise people go hungry because it is not profitable to produce food for them. Whilst I'm sure in the day-to-day running of a dental practice in capitalism you are very glad that your staff are so compelled to come to work, but as a basis for the controlling the production of goods and services and having a fulfilling life I reckon capitalism is to us, what gingivitis is to your gums. |
|
03 Mar 05 - 05:00 PM (#1426250) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: Little Hawk Why do we need money? See the thread on "Why Do We Need Religion?" (grin) |
|
03 Mar 05 - 05:39 PM (#1426301) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: jimmyt I appreciate your opinions, I have said my piece and will bow out. Except Hesperis, I think I need to address you. I practice barrier defense, ie washing hands, wearing gloves and mask and charge a fair amount for the services I render. Once or twice a month I spend the evening at the local health department donating my services to the underpriveledged. I was once on Medicaide and food stamps and had three children, but instead of pissing and moaning about how the damn system is so unfair like a crybaby, I got my ass in gear and went back to school so I could provide for my family. I give away more charity work and spend more of this evil capital for worthy causes than you can possibly imagine and I find your remarks and attitude reprehensible. |
|
03 Mar 05 - 10:11 PM (#1426464) Subject: RE: BS: Why do we need money? From: hesperis I'm sorry that you found my attitude reprehensible. I have worked in an office environment where people did NOT practice any sort of defense against spreading their contagious diseases around and I ended up catching it all, as did the children we worked with. My coworkers had an attitude that going to work was the most important thing they could do, which was frankly wrong in that situation. I also ended up doing a lot of their work when they were too sick to do it themselves. Then when I was sick, the acting boss for that week (the real boss was away) encouraged me to go home early rather than costing the company money due to my temporary incapability... thus getting me in trouble with the real boss when she returned. Just what I needed in my first job ever where I depended on the advice of my superiors in order to understand what was going on... but I guess sabotage is common in office work. It looks like your situation is quite different, so I apologize for judging you by my own experiences with working while sick and the expectations thereof. |
