Could the World Function Optimally Without Money?

One thing that is extremely influential in today’s society is money. Many times people’s entire lives depend on it and the success of their careers to bring in as much money as possible. But just imagine what the world would be like it without it. Would the world turn to madness and have to structure or economy? Or would we function off of trade and favors out of generosity and the willingness to help others?

Personally, I believe the world really would be a better place if money never developed. I believe that most people who do some of the hardest most taxing job often get less appreciation and get paid much less than those in positions of less taxing jobs. It’s just the way our society has developed. Due to the high interest in more material things in life and the need for so many jobs in the electronic or technological field of advancement, a lot of times people forget about the “little people” who keep the rest of the world running like it’s supposed to. Maybe our world shouldn’t rely so much on these advancements. I’m not saying they never should’ve developed, but I don’t agree with how high of a demand our society has for these things. Like cell phones. I love my phone, but one time I went an entire summer without a cellphone and instead of working at my moms graphic design office answering phones, I volunteered at a children’s center and helped with daycare and keeping the facility clean. Its jobs like that and other manual labor jobs that should be among the most important. And not having my phone for that entire summer was honestly kind of refreshing.

There are many different opinions on this particular subject, on man in a post I read says “…society would split itself into various Groups/Sects based on Profession and then there would be exchange of Raw Material, Grocery, Clothe, Precisions Stones and Goods…. It would be a world that would justify certain social inequalities that exist today…” One thing we could identify here is “social inequalities”; what are these social inequalities? Are these in terms of recognition for hard work? Funding for more unnecessary projects rather than necessary projects? For example, would the farmers and construction workers success tower over the computer IT guys, or the founders of programs such as Microsoft or Apple, or maybe ever cellphone companies?

One thing that could be left up to dispute in this statement however, is “society would split itself into various Groups/Sects based on Profession”. How do we know that would actually happen? Would people break off into groups based on what they are already doing or would they instead break away and try accepting and learning new skills given this new opportunity in society? Would they maybe experience something new in light of being able to have greater and easier access to being able to lean a new profession? This statement isn’t really absolute, there is no actual way to predict how people would react in terms of productivity when it comes to a huge societal change.

A man named Richard Luster claims “Our technology is now at a level where we can comfortably provide for everyone without the need for hard labor… We don’t need money to build machines, we can just build them. Tasks that can’t be automated can be rotated among a populace who would be more than happy to dedicate a small portion of their time to a community that sustains them.” One term to evaluate here is “comfortable provide” a lot of times in our society, what one person believes to be “comfortable living” may not necessarily be the same thing for another. Due to the extreme differences in income and lifestyles of our society it would most likely be hard for people to agree upon a common standard of what “comfortable living” is. People are always going to have varying standards and desires for their way of living.

One statement that could raise question or add complication to the general idea is “…rotated among a populace who would be more than happy to dedicate a small portion of their time to a community that sustains them.” Would people really be that easily persuaded and motivated to work for free or just for the good of society? Would there have to be other compensation or incentive given for people to actually get up and out and work and do their necessary jobs? Would a trade system have to be put forth in order to maintain a natural balance of what does what and who is owed what?

In general, the idea of a world without money could potentially be an amazing and easier way of living. It could allow people to do more of the jobs they want to do instead of the ones they feel they “need” to do because of the income it brings. However, there are many aspects of living in a society like this that would have to be handled and carefully accessed to create a specific set of rules or a system for exchange and trade in order to keep order within the society. I believe there is much potential for a society with such values and standards, it would just require extreme enforcement.

Sources:

http://www.ted.com/conversations/6688/with_recent_worldwide_monetary.html

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130813045031AAEba9w

http://www.quora.com/What-would-a-world-without-money-be-like

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/roots_of_money.asp

http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.php?lid=750&type=student

What is Money’s Connection to Humanity

In society, we have a major dependency on money to keep this economy afloat. Often times, money causes such stress in people’s lives for those who don’t have much of it. My inquiry groups question was, “what is money’s connection to humanity?” I guess what we are really asking is more so, what and why, money has become so important to our society. My two focus points in entering this large question are: What would happen if money never developed in our society? And If we still used trade system how would that affect our advancement in technology?

The first question I attempted to answer upon my ‘listening’ process was “what would happen if money never developed in our society?” This was a little tricky to answer especially because there is no definitive, general consensus to this question, given that it’s hypothetical. One post I found about this question was “…society would split itself into various Groups/Sects based on Profession and then there would be exchange of Raw Material, Grocery, Clothe, Precisions Stones and Goods…. the people who know farming/carpentry/blacksmiths/potters etc would probably be at a greater advantage compared to others. It would be a world that would justify certain social inequalities that exist today…” (N, 2013). Another man spoke about the 1960’s mince experiment conducted by John B. Calhoun. In this experiment, the mice were provided with anything they needed all the time and lived blissfully and easily. Then one day some mice went mad and because aggressive and cannibalistic. After these less stable mice weeded themselves out, there population was left to the few calm and gentle minded mice who then reproduced and rebuilt the population with what would basically be a highly intelligent bread of mice. There could be many pros and cons to both of these situation but one article I came across by a man named Viswanathan, was about the eight components of an economy that would be in contrast to todays society, if the world didn’t have money. These eight components are: Matrix Problem leading to high cost of transaction, multiple grades, verification of authenticity, things get spoiled and hence savings become impossible, banks will die, transfer of money will get really hard, taxation and data collection will be real problem, indivisibility problem. Each of these components is very important in in our economy today.

My second question of this idea was even harder to answer, being that there is not way to actually test this theory, and it is mainly just ideas and hypotheses. An article written by Andrew Beattie says, “Bartering is a direct trade of goods and services – I’ll give you a stone axe if you help me kill a mammoth – but such arrangements take time. You have to find someone who thinks an axe is a fair trade for having to face the 12-foot tusks on a beast that doesn’t take kindly to being hunted. If that didn’t work, you would have to alter the deal until someone agreed to the terms.” This example shows that the process of bartering is one that takes time and acquaintances and knowing the people well. Money however, isn’t thought about with such great details. You simply want something, and you use money to get it. As far as trade affection technology, I believe it may have an affect on how quickly our society develops new technologies. Given the amount of times it takes to make exchanges and deals with people for needed materials and recourses, the speech of this process would most likely drag behind the rate of which new idea and projects of people develop. This would in turn theoretically slow down our technological advancement of society. But who is to say that is a bad thing? Aren’t there many people today who wish for a less technology-involved society? If we had never switched to a money based economy, maybe we wouldn’t know any different and me more happy and content with a world less focused on technology.

Sources:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130813045031AAEba9w

http://www.quora.com/What-would-a-world-without-money-be-like

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/roots_of_money.asp

http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.php?lid=750&type=student