|
|
Post by Elmach on Jul 12, 2011 5:26:44 GMT
That is, would it be better for there to be no money, or for money to exist.
I'll state my viewpoint in a couple posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by priok on Jul 12, 2011 5:45:28 GMT
I do not think it is really a bad thing, it all depends on the way currency is used, and also how everything works. I do not think it is really good, either, but it is really kind of deeper than if having currency is good, or not, it depends on other things.
|
|
|
|
Post by -The Universe- on Jul 12, 2011 14:09:45 GMT
Having too much money, I think is a bad thing. We just need money to buy needs.
|
|
|
|
Post by nmagain on Jul 12, 2011 14:38:03 GMT
>get alot of money
>buy russia
>dominate the world
can't see how too much money is a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elmach on Jul 12, 2011 18:39:51 GMT
*cough*
This isn't what I mean...
Would it be better for there to be no money, that is, say, for Dan-Balls to be abolished and people working because they want to, or for money to exist (aka, how the forum is now).
|
|
|
|
Post by priok on Jul 12, 2011 19:05:38 GMT
I think there is more than just that, you need to realize that there is a lot more. I do not think either is really that good, if you want to just measure it like a bonhome, then not having any currency is good. But really, things can still go well with it, it all depends on the other things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elmach on Jul 12, 2011 21:17:38 GMT
I think that getting as much money as you deserve is good, but if you get money you don't deserve or don't get money you do deserve, you have a problem... Read my last post. That was not the question I was asking... But maybe its because I don't know how to ask the question. |
|
|
|
Post by priok on Jul 12, 2011 21:41:11 GMT
I know I have said this, already, and I am not trying to be pushy, but it is more than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elmach on Jul 12, 2011 23:01:29 GMT
I know I have said this, already, and I am not trying to be pushy, but it is more than that. How is it more than that? |
|
|
|
Post by endy123 on Jul 12, 2011 23:15:11 GMT
it's a needed means of exchange for now.
I like to look at it as bartering on steroids.
you still only ever exchange goods and services but money allows you the option to delay that exchange until a more convenient time.
eventually I think we'll get to a more all inclusive system.
It will be Money 2.0, at that point more than just "Price" will be taken into account. There'll be social and environmental factors considered as well.
we're starting to get there, but still have a long ways to go.
As for the idea of a totally free goods and services, I think it can work for some things but not others.
there still needs to be some kind of self benefit involved even in any kind of "free" release.
This may not be any form of cash, it could be self satisfaction or increased social status.
as long as that benefit exists it can work, otherwise it will require something more concrete(real/virtual cash).
|
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Jul 12, 2011 23:34:27 GMT
No.
|
|
|
|
Post by priok on Jul 12, 2011 23:57:11 GMT
It is more than that, because it is not just whether having currency is good or not, it depends on the way the rest of the system works. Something can have currency and still be great, even though it is kind of bad in a lot of today's examples, but it is just because of the other things. If you do not understand what I mean, then you really should think about this more clearly, because it is obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty333 on Jul 13, 2011 0:01:41 GMT
I think that getting as much money as you deserve is good, but if you get money you don't deserve or don't get money you do deserve, you have a problem... I was just thinking about this subject yesterday, but I agree with that. Some people, however, have more money than is ever necessary, like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. |
|
|
|
Post by Elmach on Jul 13, 2011 2:23:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Jul 13, 2011 5:46:32 GMT
Yes and yes.
First of all, it's better than plain barter because it provides a central trade good for those who dont have needed things for a barter. Let's say someone is bartering apples and oranges. SOmeone wants to barter but doesn't have oranges, so too bad for him. The barterer doesn't get oranges until someone shoes up who wants apples, and that may take a ery long time indeed, or one may settle upon a different trade although he doesn't get what he wanted in the first place. However, with money involved, the first guy can trade with the apple maerchant, who then spends his money getting oranges from the orange merchant. The first person, and everyone gets what they want, the first guy gets his apples, the apple merchant gets his oranges,a nd th eorange merchant spends his money o whatever he wants.
Secondly, a "everyone gets everything free" society cannot exist for multiple reasons. The first is that without barter, many individuals would quite possible be motivated to do nothing and simply leech off of an individual who does work, without contributing at all. Indeed, it may become a majority. The second reason is that many merchants would quite possibly refuse to sell because there is no reason for them not to use it on theirselves. And now, the reason which proves thsi kind of society is untenable even if everyone decides to happily work and give away. Supply and Demand. With no price to control the amounts of a stock taken, the demand for new items might increase so rapidly that the merchant could not supply the consumers, taking time as he needs to get supplies from other merchants and put together his craft, who, after much of this ould have problems themselves from too many merchants asking for suplies, taking even much longer time as they get it from merchants or supply it themselves. This chain of delaying would remove the possibility of getting a popular item from the market fast, and may even result in starvation with such items as food.
|
|
|
|
Post by vaconcovat on Jul 13, 2011 6:13:53 GMT
I know that we're supposed to want for everybody to be equal, but frankly that's not how things work. When y
|
|
|
|
Post by Alonso on Jul 13, 2011 19:31:01 GMT
Money is the root of all evil, but I don't think so, money is evil because of greed, money itself as a subject can not be blamed evil, so thats just to get rid of the good evil existance, now in theory, without money , we would be trading, like we used to and are still doing, but money is able to be changed to somethig else like english money to japanese yens. Also it is easy to have, I mean, instead of trading 3 chickens for a membership, you give money, also, people also may not want a chicken, where as money, as a whole is accepted, if you count stuff like checks, holding money, rather than a alternative. Howver it can also be stadted it would be fairer if we didn't give everybody different amounts of green, but just gave it out as items, the chinese for example may work each day for rice rather than gettying money for rice, although genereally it is they give money to buy food, but sometimes this happens, I am beleiving we should keep it, otherwise, how can I bribe people for the Royal Family's phone number.
|
|
|
|
Post by priok on Jul 13, 2011 21:26:56 GMT
I think I agree with shkids. The idea of money by itself is really not too bad, but it is just the things that factor into it make it good or bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alonso on Jul 14, 2011 14:41:55 GMT
Thank you, I mean, if you are greedy for money, is that money's fault? No, it is theirs, for giving into temptation.
|
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Jul 16, 2011 0:45:34 GMT
Money has no value. Its just paper, fabric, or metal, nothing more. My real problem is people use money to try to assign a numerical value to things. Everything and everyone has value, and you can't just assign something a number to make it appear more valuable to than something else. Every ditch digger is just as important as every doctor. One thing really screwed is that the richest of people do the least. As certain occupational pay more than others, people are driven to those occupations more than others. As some people want money, people need to earn money in order to pay for stuff, so they need to demand money in return. Studies have shown that passion is a greater motivator than money, but why can't we live off of passion? What happened to people working because they enjoy working, because they want to make the world a better place, or just because what needs to be done needs to be done? If something needs to be done, it will be done, as it needs to be done and people like living. Because of money people can't work for no pay, as people need to eat, thank yous don't buy bread, and the people who sell bread also need money. Money just creates a viscous cycle, where money is power, and the powerful gain more wealth than others. Yes, money is more convenient than trading, which I also find unnecessary if we just give stuff to each other, but money's convenience is also what makes it so suspectable to greed and corruption, and its easier to gather a large sum of it to one place and its easier to trade with anyone. Overall money just makes it so that the lucky people get everything, and everyone else is left in the dust. You can't buy happiness, but with money its a whole lot easier. After going to a certain place and having a great time, but reflecting on how it cost a ton of money to get it, I realized that money is just NOT right. There is a lot of good people who can't go because they are too poor, and poor people are stuck being poor because they can't afford a proper education, and by proper education I don't just mean college. I mean everything. Many a bastard is now a politician just because there daddy had a lot of money and they could afford law school and prey off daddies reputation. Then the cycle repeats. Money begought many an evil: consumerism, corporations that a legally bound to value money above ethics, bribery, intense greed. Its money and the whole psychology that goes with it that has messed up this world. I also think the laws should not exist, and rather a council of judges that settle disputes using ethics should replace them, using similar reasoning. |
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Jul 16, 2011 19:09:49 GMT
It only has value because we agree it has value. If we didn't agree that it had value, it would have no value.
|
|
|
|
Post by priok on Jul 16, 2011 19:12:25 GMT
Yeah, Satar is right. Money is just paper, we give it value, but really it is not worth anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alonso on Jul 16, 2011 19:56:38 GMT
Money is defined by who we are, it is our own opinions which define us, those who are greedy will say no, those who are good may say yes, it depends on alot of factors.
|
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Jul 17, 2011 0:04:18 GMT
We agree that it is worth something, so it is. By our belief it gains its value. So it is not worthless, as we believe it not to be so. If all money stopped, then I doubt you would have any large corporations either. We wouldn't have Microsoft, or Apple, or Google or a thousand other things. These corporations form because they can afford to pay people to work for them. Also, I seriously doubt, for example, that Bill Gates would've made Microsoft if there was no money in it for him, and so I wouldn't be having this conversation. Thats part of the reason is bad, as large corporations are inherently evil. |
|
|
|
Post by Anonymousperson5 on Jul 18, 2011 14:38:45 GMT
Ahem.
It is WANT of money that is evil, as stated in the Bible. Not trying to start a religious debate here.
I think if the world was just absolutely perfect where there was always understanding money would be the ideal. But in our current imperfect world where there is hate, greed, etc., I find that money is not so ideal. Sure, we'd advance at a slower pace, but yeah.
The reason I think DBs should stay on the forum is that no one here really hates anyone others guts out and attempts to destroy them or take their money, or have an inherent greed for DBs at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Jul 18, 2011 15:30:17 GMT
Not really... Anyway, without those corporations, you wouldn't be using your computer right now. Could you just explain HOW they are inherently evil? I feel I must be missing something here... It's the legal structure behind them. They are forced to put profits before all other things. We could have computers without corporations, it would just take different structure ti make them . . . AND the ov reason why the grammar and stuff on the last pasty of my message via so bad is because if I try deleting a few characters my iPod deletes everything. |
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on Jul 21, 2011 22:39:17 GMT
If we didn't have money how would we survive like we do? Believe it or not, not all people can live equally. Some are destined to starve and others to live lavishly. It's the cold hard truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Jul 22, 2011 0:00:47 GMT
We aren't supposed to live like we do.
Anyway, I'm going for a system were people just help. If you have bread and someone is starving, you feed them.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShiningSilver on Jul 22, 2011 3:08:36 GMT
Though that system is for a perfect world, but in a perfect world, would someone be starving?
Money is just such an integral part of our lives that it would be hard to deviate away from it. Though I am not saying that we should have money, neither am I currently saying that we should not have money.
Another question is with is similar, though different, but related. Should things have value? What is money? Maybe money is just things that have value. Should objects even have value? Just a few little neat questions to think about. Am I making sense?
|
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Jul 22, 2011 15:09:38 GMT
No, things should not have value, at least not numeric value.
Also, regarding money, because are culture has developed so that money is so important, we now need it, even if it is a bad thing. I compare it to the co-evolution between man and the immune-system reducing parasite. Once man had a lot weaker immune system, but it still did its job. Then there was a parasite. The parasite needed mans immune system to be weaker in order to survive, but it didn't hurt him in any other way. Because the parasite was weakening mans apparent immune system man was evolving to have a stronger absolute immune system, which caused the parasites to evolve to weaken mans immune system farther, so mans apparent immune system strength stays the same while the absolute power of the immune system is much stronger. Now, if you remove the parasite, mans apparent immune system will be so powerful that it will destroy the man, so man needs the parasite in order to survive, even though the parasite is at heart, detrimental.
|
|
|
