Money, That Important?

90 posts

Flag Post

Is money really that important? I mean, it’s just paper, or metal. Should we keep using money because it’s that important? Or no, dump the money, BURN IT, destroy them. Are they that useful? Or are they not? I want to hear some of your opinions.

 
Flag Post

It is important because our economy is based on it. It will never stop being based on money. I don’t see why you could think it isn’t useful.

Also, the random caps and bold didn’t make this seem very serious (as did some of the grammatical errors)

 
Flag Post

The reason why I think it’s useless is because it’s just paper! And since I live in CA, the cash in our country is losing it’s profit because the governors keep making more and more money. Soon there are so much that the amount of the price itself will be decreased. I think Canada is the highest now.. Mexico is the lowest. (I feel bad for them)

 
Flag Post

You don’t seem to have really thought this through.

Currency is an abstract way of quantifying the value of goods and services. Without such an abstract quantification, our entire economy falls down.

Essentially, what a 20 dollar note says, is “The government owes me $20 worth of services. If I give this to you, the government will instead owe you $20 worth of services. What will you give me for this $20 worth of services from the government?”

 
Flag Post

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zA4sLyHp4Fw&hl=en" width="425" height="355"></embed>

 
Flag Post

Jabor nailed it.

 
Flag Post

A form of currency is certainly required. I think that our money system could be improved though. I think that we should use energy credits, where each credit literally represents a certain amount of energy. The price of products would strictly be the amount of energy that was used to create it. Of course there are flaws to that plan. I’m no economist.

 
Flag Post

I think that we should use energy credits, where each credit literally represents a certain amount of energy. The price of products would strictly be the amount of energy that was used to create it.

This bill im holding in my hand represents one energy equivalents to a drunken worker high on weed mindlessly hitting a machine button with his left button, so office assistant, how much candy may i purchase with this?

 
Flag Post

A form of currency is certainly required. I think that our money system could be improved though. I think that we should use energy credits, where each credit literally represents a certain amount of energy. The price of products would strictly be the amount of energy that was used to create it. Of course there are flaws to that plan. I’m no economist.

Energy as in manpower? And how would that equate to machine made products? Would the energy include how long it took someone to turn on the lights or flip the button to the conveyer belt?

 
Flag Post

Essentially, what a 20 dollar note says, is “The government owes me $20 worth of services. If I give this to you, the government will instead owe you $20 worth of services. What will you give me for this $20 worth of services from the government?”

I thought that it represented an amount of gold based on its value.

The reason why I think it’s useless is because it’s just paper! And since I live in CA, the cash in our country is losing it’s profit because the governors keep making more and more money. Soon there are so much that the amount of the price itself will be decreased. I think Canada is the highest now.. Mexico is the lowest. (I feel bad for them)

They cant just keep printing money. They have to have the amount of gold that the amount of currency represent. Though if I’m not mistaken Mugabe tried that approach with Zimbabwe to fund underfunded projects. You dont have to be an economist to see thats plain stupid.

By the way how do you quote on this forum?

 
Flag Post

type “bq” follow by a .

 
Flag Post

Energy as in manpower? And how would that equate to machine made products? Would the energy include how long it took someone to turn on the lights or flip the button to the conveyer belt?

No, I didn’t mean manpower. I meant the resources and how much stress it puts on the environment, but yes it should include that.

 
Flag Post

Yes they can. money is only worth anything because the government tells us it is and because people trust the government. otherwise we wouldn’t have paper money at all. the problem with “just printing more” is that it creates inflation and decreases the value of that currency versus foreign currencies.

Sorry, I was wrong. The gold standard ie currency having to have its value of gold to back it up, isnt in use anymore. Thought it was. Though you said that whats the point in paper money if it just represents something else, well its a whole lot easier to use. Imagine having to carry around gold coins and having them weighed and if you needed smaller change having to break the gold up. Imagine how long the ques would be.

 
Flag Post

If only humans regularly shed teeth. That would be a very good currency as no-one would ever be very poor for long. Sadly human physiology [I think this is the correct word to use] does not allow/do this. That was a little advice from space orkz and who knows more about the economy than a fictional race of idiots. A good idea on prices [the greeks have this on some things] is have a government set standard price for necessities, that can be afforded by all.

 
Flag Post

It is uselles. In a society without money, called communism, everyone takes what he needs, and everyone works for free, everyone shares everything.

However, the novaday bosses will never allow this dream of countless generations to happen, becouse they are greedy and abuse the slave labour of their employees for their own benefit.

Every here and then, the poor workers and farmers will take arms, and remove their rich overlords. At this point, according to Marx, they will establish communism as described above.

 
Flag Post

if their was no money, their would be no economy.
and economy is most basis of things.

if their was no currency anywhere, a person doing nothing would be the same as a brain surgeon, if you get what im saying is that people wouldnt go for jobs, as they get no reward, some may do it for liking the job, but most people in the world are controlled by the ego, most are, we only do something beneficial to us usually

so what im saying basically is, if everything is handed out on a silver platter, their would be no docters, firemen, police, anything else, researchers, scientists and more.

we wouldnt advance anywhere.

if the economy goes corrupt, your pretty much -—-.

and what you point out of the government are making more money in your country than you need, your probably going to be in inflation status soon.

jabor nailed it on the head basically, but i thought i would add what i think.

and omg this moth is annoying me.

 
Flag Post

Idealistic, much? Communism doesn’t work. It requires no government to run it but a totaltarian government to set it up. And of course, totalitarian governments don’t want to give up their power.

 
Flag Post

Or what may happen is what is described in 1984 [the fail of previous governments not the party]. England was supposed to be the first country to get true communism because we have had capitalism first so we will have socialism first so we will have communism first. If everyone were reduced to almost nothing, say due to uberly large earthquake that destroys society, the world over, then you would probably get socialism from the remnants of the human race, maybe communism.

 
Flag Post

Idealistic, much? Communism doesn’t work. It requires no government to run it but a totaltarian government to set it up. And of course, totalitarian governments don’t want to give up their power.

1) Communism works: take example from bittorent and kazza (used to work) and other p2p networks.

2) Communism requires no government to set up:

Once the poor workers ged fed up with they poverty, and slaving to excessively rich overlords and capitalists, they will themselfs take arms, and remove the capitalists, and this point government and private property ceases to exist, and communism where everyone takes what he needs, and works for free will be established.

Totaliatrian governments do not give they power up, and we can see that now – capitalism is such a totality, while communism will feee the masses of poor people to work for themslefs, instead to slave for capitalists with many cars big houses and pools.

 
Flag Post

Ahh, but what happens when the poor who led find themselves with huge amounts of wealth and power, hmm.

 
Flag Post

Ahh, but what happens when the poor who led find themselves with huge amounts of wealth and power, hmm.

According to Marx and Engels, they become the new capitalist caste in past

However, according to Marx and Engels, in the next revolution, this will not happen and communism will be established, since the poor will be well educated and motivated to establish communism.

Marx and Engles were great economists, who first trully understood the relationships between a measly worker and rich factory owner.

Engels himself described in his grat book, “the life of the england working class” which described child and woman labour, during capitalism in 18th century. The work days were 16 hours, including saturday and sunday.

Novaday, many people are working far more then 8 hours 5 times a week, and whole society is reverting to what Engels described as reality of comunism. The time is coming again, for violent removal of rich capitalist opressors.

The state money, is an instrument by which state holds you in a stale-mate – it can render them worthless anytime, and you can look around in history and even today for example kongo, what hyperinflation does.

 
Flag Post

Once again, that is an idealistic situation. The poor people would still have to use totalitarian force to take over the government and reform it. That is government. And of course, being fed up and suprisingly powerful, they probably will get “hung up” at that stage. If it was so great, why didn’t it work for… uhh… any country so far?

 
Flag Post

Once again, that is an idealistic situation. The poor people would still have to use totalitarian force to take over the government and reform it. That is government. And of course, being fed up and suprisingly powerful, they probably will get “hung up” at that stage. If it was so great, why didn’t it work for… uhh… any country so far?

1) The poor people, people like you and me, who get very little money compared to ultrarich owners like Bill Gates, will not use a totalitarian force – it is the will of the people to remove these ultrarich thiefs.

2) There will be no longer government. This is what current propaganda wants you ti believe: that we need government and state currency. everyone will own everything, and take what he needs. No longer a factory owner and starving workers. Again, capitalist propaganda makes you to believe that this model is right. (so they can benefit themselves, and have big cars, houses, luxury food and luxury woman all abused bythemselfs).

3) They won´t wish to hold the power themsleves. There will be no themselves, only the poor people, manually hardworking and honest people claiming everything for themselves

4) it works in many countries, but again, the propaganda won´t tell you that: China, North korea, Kuba, Latin America, Many african acountries, Russia, Soviet Union (history)

 
Flag Post

I don’t think you can use the Soviet Union as an example of communism that “worked.” And China’s getting more capitalist every day.

 
Flag Post

China’s getting more capitalist every day.

In what ways?