CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Sure, let's get rid of money. But we should clarify what necessities money pays for are worthy of being called "human rights," that way we're not forcing companies who control those resources to allocate them to those who were once considered "wealthy" by virtue of how much money they possessed.
Also take into consideration those whose material possessions will use up more of those resources. If a family owns a large, $700,000 home, they'll also be clocking more electricity and gas needed to keep their home heated, cooled, lit, etc. Is it really helpful to get rid of money but allow other disparities of "wealth" to exist?
If you're going to get rid of money, repossess the country's wealth in a central-clearing house whose mission is to reconstruct every person's social strata. I'm not really afraid of communism since I don't take any issue with people--all peoples--having equal access and possession of quality living, food, education, health-care, et al, but I can't imagine a state of affairs in which "money" becomes void and resources aren't allocated based a system of favoritism or elitism.
For example, what is to stop the currently "wealthy" from making the case that those with more education be the ones most entitled to natural resources and housing because they, after all, are the ones with the social devices (i.e. education and motivation) to see this new society into a sustainable existence?
Even if the possession of a lot of money ceased to be an issue of inequality, people don't really require "more" material sustenance--they need a system of justice that ensures that no person or group can position themselves above anyone in such a way that their authority comes at the cost of exploiting other humans, profiting from their labor, and denying them access into those public spheres of activity while sustaining that person/group's power.
I think I started blabbing without asking an essential question: WHAT is the aim of getting rid of money?
I myself am a Marx Communist, and agree with your post. I have a plan to fix the problems you occured, which I will have posted by the time you read this.
Sorry for getting off topic here, but in a communist system, is a person scrubbing toilets in a subway compensated at the same rate as a highly skilled surgeon?
I ask this question a lot, but for some reason it never gets answered.
However a true communistic surgeon would know he is doing what is best for the society, and be happy for it. The betterment of the people would be enough!
The question is how many people are true communists who would be happy to be paid the same as everyone else no matter what they do? Not very many people that is why a communistic society requires a very mature populace to truly succeed!
No, that is an all too common misconception. In communism, the government, as opposed to the market, is in control of production, wages, and salaries; which is to say that a successful communist system would surely pay the surgeon more.
In communism, the government, as opposed to the market, is in control of production, wages, and salaries; which is to say that a successful communist system would surely pay the surgeon more.
Are you sure you're a Marxist? According to Marx, the final stage of the historical process sees the dissolution of the State as such. The notion of a government existing in a Communist society is nonsensical since the government has to disappear prior to Utopia arriving.
Marx communism is different than traditional communism, as you have adressed. I was explaining the functions of the latter, not the former. Marx communism is idyllic, and will take a very reasonable, level headed society to maintain, something I have very little faith will ever come about. Until then, I can settle with a labor-specialized representative communism, of which I believe is a good transition. Materialism is a hard thing to remove from society.
Forethought: this is the longest argument I have written, being effectively a fairly short essay. I will not be insulted by skimming
______
To eliminate the need for the almighty dollar, we must first reform what the American dollar actually represents and patch the incongruities that currently are trending. As of now, the American dollar holds value solely because the government says so. Because of this, it is easily corruptible, which should be quite clear between such examples as the stock market gambles that toy with our economy, to everyday petty thievery. So, this is an issue that must be assessed. There is also are numerous problems with the existence of physical denominations of money. Either by the misplaced change long forgotten in the couch or by the stern realisation of inflation and deflation, this too is self-evident. And so it is worth creating a new system.
-
The first step is changing what money represents. Money should directly represent labor. This will allow estimates like GDP to shed more light on how much production is actually occuring.
Following is an equasion I have theorized and believe is relatively sound: A=B(CD); where A is one unit of monetary worth, B is the approximate value of labor to society, C is hours of labor, and D is the difficulty of the job. Being as B and D are both non-quantifiable, they'll need to be broken down into seperate quantifiable equasions. This should mend the issue of corruption in value.
-
The remaining issue is eliminating the physical form of money. We could adopt a system similar to debit/credit cards in which every laborer is synonymously a cardholder, and can access his finances via a PIN. Or a digital interface, similar in function to an ATM machine, could be built at all locations of sales, replacing the cash register; this would mandate a system similar to a PIN as well. By whichever means, this should eliminate the need and issues associated with physical money.
-
Together, these new ideas should form a new, more suitable monetary system. The current dollar is immeasurable and the paper it is printed on is ineficient. Good riddance.
Our money system and the problems that come with it will disappear one day. But for now, the people aren't ready. We haven't come far enough in our civilization.
Sure, but we have to provide necessities first. Food and shelter should be available for everyone before we go about cutting off money. Also, unnecessary products should be eliminated and everything has to be produced in a more efficient manner in order to be equally divided.
Yes, money just causes problems. We could trade with our community and use a form of money only for buying from a long ways away. It would be much better to do as much as we can by ourselves as a community, state, and a nation though. Better to do that then give other nations money.
We should get rid of money ! As money corrupts people ! Cant we just have fair trade and not the green stuff you call banknotes. I would rather trade in items for items and not money.
I used to be a full-out technocrat... which one of the major tenets of classical technocracy is that money is unnecessary. Most often through implementing a resource based economy, in short how much energy and resources that went into the product would determine its cost... no supply and demand, at all. So the actual worth in terms of materials and putting those materials together would tell how much something was worth! Hypothetically prices would go down in some areas, and go up in less.... but still some. You would make money of either two-ways, 1: It is equally shared among the people. 2: It is determined by how much energy you give to society.
Those two are why I went away from the economic side of things when it comes to technocracy, now time for each one to have its own time under the lamp!
1) It is equally shared among the people
Well there are a couple issues with this,
1: People are greedy. This is the major weak point of communism, very few people will do things just for the good for society, most will do things to be better than everyone else.
And 5 hours later, after a surprise call to help a friend move...
2: lost my train of thought... damn!
2) It is determined by how much energy you give to society.
1: Certain jobs make less, others make more in an odd way
Some people like doctors would make a similar amount (allowing people to continue making energy/products for society) while people who for example make (solar/wind) power plants will become some of the wealthiest people in the nation, which is possible under that economic system but odd. People like lawyers contribute little energy to society, so they make less than in a capitalistic society. The arts would be hardest hit.
2:It's highly speculative*
Who determines how much energy you give too society? What determines 'energy'? A solar plant builder could make a solid source of income for years^nth! How do you determine how much energy a school teacher contributes? or a web admin? The economists who set the system up could say that they make the most by setting up the energy based system, therefore saving the most energy of all!
I lost most of my rant while moving furniture, I'll try to add more once my thoughts get back on track!
That's not what I mean. An object either has intrinsic value, or it does not. It depends on the individual.
Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it; people are willing to pay more for gold than they are paper.
And what the purchaser is willing to pay for it depends on the purchaser's subjectively ascribed value of the object.
For example, if I was writing a book I would value $20 worth of paper over $20 worth of gold, because I value the paper more than the gold.
I have yet to witness such an occurrence.
Therefore it can't happen? To a man writing a book, the gold is worthless. If he had gold he would immediately find someone whom does value the gold and sell it so he can buy paper.
An object either has intrinsic value, or it does not. It depends on the individual.
You can dismiss gold all you want, but the fact is that its pecuniary worth is far in excess of paper's.
And what the purchaser is willing to pay for it depends on the purchaser's subjectively ascribed value of the object.
The retail price of a product is not determined by one factor, least of all individual speculation. The most important factors are demand and cost of manufacture.
For example, if I was writing a book I would value $20 worth of paper over $20 worth of gold, because I value the paper more than the gold.
That has no bearing upon how much of either you will get for $20.
Therefore it can't happen?
Therefore there is no historical precedent upon which to base such speculation. Luxuries only lose their value during emergencies, but I doubt either paper or gold would be valued highly during such an event.
To a man writing a book, the gold is worthless.
When a material is not conducive to the current endeavour, it does not lose its value. If I were writing a book, coca cola would not lose its value, nor would wood (haha), metal or indeed anything else.
If he had gold he would immediately find someone whom does value the gold and sell it so he can buy paper.
Why? If I found gold I would put it in a box, or attempt to fashion it into jewellery in a bid to elicit intercourse with a female. I wouldn't look at it and go "Me want paper; sell gold!".
You can dismiss gold all you want, but the fact is that its pecuniary worth is far in excess of paper's.
Who's dismissing gold? I haven't said anything like that. I'm saying value is subjective, that's it.
If you can find someone who will buy gold over paper, then they value gold more, if you can find someone who would buy paper over gold, then they value paper more.
The retail price of a product is not determined by one factor, least of all individual speculation. The most important factors are demand and cost of manufacture.
And what the "demand" is willing to pay depends on if they value the product more than the money the supplier is charging. It's still subjective value that kick-starts and drives the market.
That has no bearing upon how much of either you will get for $20.
What does it matter how much gold you get if you don't want gold? If the choice was between getting $20 worth of paper or $25 worth of gold, I would pick the gold, not because I value it; but because I can find someone whom does and sell it to them so I can buy $25 worth of paper.
Likewise, if the choice is between $20 worth of gold and $25 worth of paper then I'd pick the paper because that's what I value more. Having the foresight to use gold as a means to get paper doesn't mean that I value the gold more (or even at all), it simply means I understand that value is subjective and that others may subjectively value the gold enough to buy it off me.
Therefore there is no historical precedent upon which to base such speculation. Luxuries only lose their value during emergencies, but I doubt either paper or gold would be valued highly during such an event
Then consider me an example. I don't value gold at all. I have no use for it and if I had it I would immediately sell it so I could buy something I do value.
You understand supply and demand, yes? So then you know that if suddenly paper becomes extremely scarce (say, all the paper factories blew up for some reason) then paper would shoot up in price and trump gold in cost per oz. So even from a non reductionist outlook on the market, it is theoretically possible for anything to end up being worth more than any other thing.
When a material is not conducive to the current endeavour, it does not lose its value. If I were writing a book, coca cola would not lose its value, nor would wood (haha), metal or indeed anything else.
Punny =p
But it would have no value to you. Perhaps somebody else values it, that's their business. You are an individual and what you value isn't dependent on what other people value. Look at this from an individualistic standpoint and it's clear that anything can be valueless.
Why? If I found gold I would put it in a box, or attempt to fashion it into jewellery in a bid to elicit intercourse with a female. I wouldn't look at it and go "Me want paper; sell gold!".
That's because you value sex more than writing a book. Since women would typically split their legs for gold over paper, you'd pick the gold. If you can value A over B, is it not possible for another to value B over A?
With out money there is no definite sense of value of items. Money is a form of trade. Trade is a big part of our economy. No money, no economy, no government. Without money civilized, modern society will fall.
