Money: The worst idea since murder.

[Housebroken Lunatic]

In Star Trek, Jean Luc Picard once mentioned in one of the films that Earth had stopped using a money system. This allowed the federation to be born.

So to all you nay sayers I say this, how could Star Trek possibly be wrong?

Possible Star Trek fandom aside, this actually makes sense.

If the entire world was united under one government, then much better efforts could be made in space exploration. Primarily because no individual countries would have to spend such ridiculous amounts of money on military defense and war efforts against other countries.

Capitalism is the ultimate obstacle against a united earth, basically because the very foundation of capitalism demands that different people are in competition against eachother rather than working together for the greater good.

 

[Pipotchi]

Heres what we need: Socialism.

Everyones so against socialism for uninformed reasons but its a great thing in the right hands. For example, why does a man who lugs around heavy boxs all day, works all day, and comes home tired make less money than a man who sits at a desk all day? Socialism would make it so all men were truly equal. Capitalism give false equality, socialism gives real equality.

I didnt spend 6 years getting a degree and my PHD so that I could earn the same amount of money as a box mover

 

[Hitman 43]

Money can be both good and bad.

At the moment I'm too tired to say anything else on the matter.

 

[Nickolai77]

I didnt spend 6 years getting a degree and my PHD so that I could earn the same amount of money as a box mover

I don't think any Socialist system has totally equal pay. Even in Stalinist Russia there where wage differentials. By the 1960's and 1970's in the USSR some people where making fortunes. The Soviet economy did not prevent people from advancing and bettering themselves, it was the Soviet politics that led to the USSR's demise.


Both capitalist and socialism have their strengths and weaknesses. In a pure capitalist system people can make their own fortunes and wealth with little government interference. This comes at the cost of those less capable in society, or those who are plain unlucky. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In a socalist system the government acts to prevent this inequality by raising taxes to pay for income support benefits to society's more weaker members and as well as maintaining various public services and creates laws which protect other people and the environment from other peoples greed. However, this does in a way encourage people to live off benefits, and discourages productivity. It also means that it is harder to make a profit in business due to restrictions to prevent environmental damage or unfair exploitation.

So, i lie between socialism and capitalism, the problem is where do i draw the line?

 

[Ventuquies]

Money is a reward system. Have fun replacing an always wanted and needed reward.

 

[The_Prophet]

Oh shut up you brainwashed yankee twats.

Looking at their profiles the first person you quoted is Australian, the other two don't list theirs. So you're wrong about one, and have no way knowing about the other two.

So what made you assume they're American? Your belief that anyone who doesn't agree with you is American? Was it your bigotry?

Uhmm, no. It's just that people who yell "SOCIALIST COMMIE BULLSHIT!" are often American.
Also: How do you know that he is from Australia? He may be lying.

 

[DraftPickle]

Its an unfortunate thing that so many people are hooked on it, I don't really know where we go from here but it sure as shit doesn't work.

If you asked me the USA needs to become open minded you think universal healthcare is communist, as soon as someone suggests some thing, you don't like, you immediately think your right because the US does it? I'm sure there lots of sensible, open minded intelligent people, but you Republican lovers are cunts, don't say all the rich people got there themselves because of free market etc. Mark Zuckerberg is worth billions because he stumbled on an idea and had the backing of a rich family, that is not fair.....funny though, your country is supposed to be founded on freedom?

 

[zuluking187]

Uhmm, no. It's just that people who yell "SOCIALIST COMMIE BULLSHIT!" are often American.
Also: How do you know that he is from Australia? He may be lying.

So you're admitting to judging people by your preconceived notions? Thanks for agreeing with me about your bigotry.

What reason would he have to lie?

 

[GrinningManiac]

What socialist crap is this? We need legal tender, our economy revolves around it, and any proposed economic changes would be based around money-systems. The only other option is going back to the barter system and the dark age economies.

You are in the wrong place, posting socialist shit that no-one is agreeing with. You sir... HAVE FAILED!

Ahh, pointing out trolls is fun. ^^^^ Trolls.

No you are! but seriously he had it coming with his illogical poo'yness.

Uh...no

What the HELL does "no money" have to do with Socialism?

When, in the history of ideology, has Socialism advocated "No more Legal Tender"?

I agree with you in that he's talking gibberish, but please, don't call it socialism, it's embarrasing

 

[The_Prophet]

Uhmm, no. It's just that people who yell "SOCIALIST COMMIE BULLSHIT!" are often American.
Also: How do you know that he is from Australia? He may be lying.

So you're admitting to judging people by your preconceived notions? Thanks for agreeing with me about your bigotry.

What reason would he have to lie?

Yes, I am judging people because I am human. Tell me you never judge. Also, I have evidence, just look around on any thread that mentions communism and you'll see what I mean. Now on the bigotry issue..... Nope, I don't seem to be a bigot as I didn't really show any hatred towards those people. I merely stated that they need to shut up and that they are probably brainwashed Yankee twats.
What reason does he have to tell the truth?

ALSO: You may notice that I've been around longer than you, so trust me I know what I'm saying.

 

[Player 2]

I think the OP should post his bank details and give us his money if he doesn't want it.

 

[Toaster Hunter]

Oh, great, another socialism/capitalism thread. Yay.

Ok, here's my 2 cents on the matter. Money exists because it is way more convenient than barter. It will continue to exist until some sort of worldwide Utopia appears, and I honestly don't see that happening any time soon. money represents labor to be accumulated for a later time. For example, I work for $10 an hour, for 6 hours. That's $60. If I want to buy something for $80, the cash represents my labor. Instead of working for Best Buy for Assassin's Creed 2 (very excited about this), I simply give the money instead. The money I give represents my previous labor.

Is this a perfect system? No. Is there anything better (realistically)? Not really

And, yes, money cannot buy happiness, but if you are going to be miserable anyway, you might as well be rich.

 

[Agema]

Money is just a very, very convenient way of recording ownership and transaction worth.

In a primitive society, people barter, giving goods directly for goods. If a fletcher wants wheat, but the farmer doesn't want arrows, you've got a trade problem. Maybe the farmer wants pots, so the fletcher needs to trade arrows for pots, but the potter wants furs, so the fletcher has to trade arrows to the hunter for furs, which he exchanges for pots with the potter, and finally he can get his wheat from the farmer. That's a lot of effort, when you can simply have money as an exchange system instead.

Capitalism or socialism is irrelevant. Money is just a useful way of sorting out trade.

 

[GyroCaptain]

Where is that darn quote...? Ah, there it is!

Money is only a tool. I will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver

I could sit here all day long, quoting Ayn Rand, but I really don't have the time...

I'm no Objectivist (partly because I think self interest shouts out enlightened self interest every time), but damn if Rand didn't hit it on the head from time to time.

The obvious response to this thread in general is a facetious "West Africa needs HDTVs for all! Now!", but that might be trollish to expound further.

 

[LeonLethality]

The majority of money as I understand it is a computer variable.

I heard somehwere that around 90 percent of the money on earth is just in computers and doesnt ACTUALLY exist in like paper/coin form

 

[Seanchaidh]

Heres what we need: Socialism.

Everyones so against socialism for uninformed reasons but its a great thing in the right hands. For example, why does a man who lugs around heavy boxs all day, works all day, and comes home tired make less money than a man who sits at a desk all day? Socialism would make it so all men were truly equal. Capitalism give false equality, socialism gives real equality.

Because if those men traded places, the man who originally had the desk job would be able to carry boxes just as well as the other man, and the other man would likely have no fucking clue how to do whatever it is that the man with the desk job did.

Socialism and communism are fundamentally flawed in the way that they look at human beings. All men are not equal. All men have equal potential, but ultimately their worth is up to their choices and actions. That's the beauty of capitalism; you have the opportunity and incentive to better yourself.

Capitalism too narrowly construes what 'potential' and by extension 'merit' mean. For instance, let's imagine an island where there are three people. Two of them can produce enough food/shelter/whatever for all three to survive and be fairly secure and comfortable (this is not a historically grounded example by any means.) The third turns his pursuits to music, and works even harder than the other two creating the sounds of [your favorite band here.] This is a standard division of labor, with one of the three focusing on entertainment. And let's give this third guy the full benefit of doubt: the other two like his music enough such that he can buy just as comfortable and secure a lifestyle as the other two without any additional work. That turns out to be quite a lot of payment for a market of just two people; 1/3 of the production of each of the two others is bound up in paying for music. We might imagine that it would be quite a bit less in reality, at least in terms of market logic (market logic often flies out the window when there are only a small number of people people with strong solidarity, such as in a family.) But let the details of the example be as they may: this island is discovered by the rest of the world and remarked upon for the musical genius of the one musician on the island. He is offered a record deal and becomes rich beyond his wildest dreams, gaining royalties for his music from a substantial subset of the world population through his distributor (though by no means anywhere close to 1/3 of anyone's income.) The other two remain basically as they are, with somewhat cheaper music.

All that changed was exposure to the outside world; merit made the smallest difference.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

You're confusing material value with the more abstract concept of value.

Am I? The abstract value tends to alter the material value as well. Spiderman #1, for instance, while starting at 50 cents(?), is now worth a million dollars, which gets more everytime a Spiderman film comes out, and less if it's naff.

Material value is very abstract, because an EC comic from the same time with a similar story would only be in it's thousands, despite being made of the same materials.

Beyond that, you've heard of inflation, I presume?

Which only makes things worse as inflation is based on another abstract value (Governmental Responsibility) which is based on the abstract value of Trade which is based on...

So money is only as much as what it's worth at the moment you spend it. Ask the pre-NASI germans how many Deutschmarks they paid for their loaf of bread and then equate that to any material value.

Problem is, to paraphrase Churchill, Money is the worst idea except for all the other ideas that have been tried.

 

[SultanP]

Heres what we need: Socialism.

Everyones so against socialism for uninformed reasons but its a great thing in the right hands. For example, why does a man who lugs around heavy boxs all day, works all day, and comes home tired make less money than a man who sits at a desk all day? Socialism would make it so all men were truly equal. Capitalism give false equality, socialism gives real equality.

A good bet is that the guys carrying boxes can't do what the guys behind the desks do. Maybe they aren't smart enough, or don't have the right education, and the guys behind the desks need something in return for all the money they spent on an education so they can sit behind the desk.

 

[pantsoffdanceoff]

Saying that there's a problem but actually providing no solution just makes you look like someone who's trying to pass off whining as deep intellectual thoughts.

 

[knight56]

Actually the worst idea in human history is farming. When we were hunter-gatherers, we could always find our food, we ate a much healthier diet, and we lived 10 times longer.

10 times longer? Really? How do you figure? Cultures that switched over to agriculture did so because they couldn't find enough food. Why do you think it happened? You have absolutely no idea how much effort it is to hunt and gather your food(at least in most climates). Go out into the woods with eight or so of your pals and neolithic tools and see how long before you try to plant some food.

Cultures switched over to farming due to overpopulation and they had to feed a larger amount of people. They traded the healthier diet of the hunter-gatherer to the high carbohydrate diet of grown crops.

It is a very large misconception that the hunter-gatherer life was difficult and uncertain. If you and I were to be thrown into that world we would starve to death because we do not know the land nearly as well.

Humans have been at this for 3/4 of our existence on this planet.

Human life span with down through the change in nutrition and other uncertainties such as then unpredictable climate changes that destroyed crops.