A World Without Money????????

Imagine a world without money.

There would be no poverty, no suffering, everyone is entitled to food, shelter and water. 

No one has to get a job, they are all supported by the government, but if they do, they get more supplies.

I know this isn't realistic, but is there any problem with sustaining a world with no money?

sounds like communism to me. been proven that this type of fantasy doesn't work. 

Sounds like an ant or termite colony.....next you will come up w/ the "lets swap" idea. Me, i like my pockets filled w/ big bens.

Ireland has no money, and they seem happy enough. And Spain. And Greece.

Maybe this would interest you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit

@Stanley: Thats communism? I never knew. Anyway, how did Soviet Russia fall apart?

@eddysalin: But is there anything fundamentally wrong with it?

@day_widni69: That's because their going bankrupt, not the kind of "no money" idea i was talking about :)

@joseph: thanks for the link, although I cant understand half of it :)

The trouble with this idea is, if nobody is forced to work in exchange for food, shelter, and water, who is going to be providing the food, shelter, and water?  Somebody has to grow the food, and if everyone expects someone else to do it, then there will be no food to eat.  Who will build the houses or run the water plants?

Human nature being what it is, if people are handed everything without working for it, they'll become lazy and dependent. 

Good points, but the thing is, as I said, if people work, they get more supplies. 

Also, in the near future, when technology advances, we will have machines to grow food for us, water the plants, etc.

NOTE: I AM NOT COMMUNIST IN ANY WAY

What is a world without money good for?

@ DaBigOne

You say the government is going to support us all, I ask: "who is going to pay for it, cause it has to be paid by somebody."

Money is nothing but a veil that makes it easy for people to exchange goods and services without cutting a cow into halves. There is absolutely no problem with that I think.

So I guess your critic/suggestion refers to the notion of a free market system in general.

While I agree that there are many things that the system doesn't account for there is also the far worse track record of all other competing system e.g. socialism.

Was it that your suggestion was headed at?

best wishes

@

N2UHC

That is the point, you have to create a system that works independendly of the people that make use of it.

Well I've burnt my money. Hope things get better from now on.

Yeah, it doesnt seem fair to me that people who are dishonest, smuggle goods, etc. can make millions of dollars, but some honest person in a poor country cannot expect to get one dollar.

OK, to imagine this better, lets say from the beginning of time, there was no money. Everything is just how it is right now, but with no money. Other countries dont use money either. 

That would mean that there would be nothing to pay with, because there is no money, therefore, no one has to pay. 

I like the world we live in currently, but as I said before, it doesnt seem fair that people in poor areas have to live worse lives than others.

Good points, but the thing is, as I said, if people work, they get more supplies.

.

The fact that workers get more supplies is the same as giving them money to buy more supplies. You can give the supplies any name you wish: trinkets, clamshells, gold, money or supplies. Our government makes money to make it easier to trade work for "supplies". It sure beats the barter system.

Is Canada a communist state?

money is nothing more than a medium for exchange and a store of value. It's also a way to determine the price of things. Pretty much the more scarce something is the more expensive it becomes. You are not going to solve the world's problems by abolishing money.

We have money because it's by far the most convenient medium of exchange. Obviously, when you provide a service, you want something in return. Without money, if you were to go to a restaurant, you'd still have to give them something (they cannot afford to give you food for free) -- if not money, then some other asset. What are you supposed to do -- bring extra clothes so you can give it to the owner in return for your food? But what if he doesn't want clothing? What if he wants jewelry? With money, the people in the business can use what you give them to buy a plethora of possible things according to their needs and wants.

Humans didn't always use a system of currency -- and perhaps we got along with it, just exchanging concrete goods and services. But money makes life so much more convenient.

Without money, dishonest people would do, well, other things... instead of stealing money, they may steal food and clothing, or take control of someone's home and all of its assets by force.

People have to get paid somehow -- if not by money, then some other way. As I said, if you provide a service to people, such as cooking for them, you also rely on others to provide things like shelter and clothing -- a chef cannot specialize without being able to exchange his craft for something in return, whether there is money or not. A chef can't grow his own food -- he may depend on farmers for ingredients, and to pay the farmers, he needs something of his own to give them -- again, money is the most convenient thing to use.

So your idea of nobody having to get paid is not possible. Unless you're a farmer maybe

1. I AM NOT COMMUNIST. CANADA IS NOT A COMMUNIST COUNTRY. I HAVE AN ASSIGNMENT (out of school) ABOUT MONEY, SO I WANT TO KNOW IF WE CAN LIVE WITHOUT MONEY.

2. so basically what you guys are trying to say it is not practical to stop using money right now, and it causes problems with our current lifestyles, as many people have said.

Sir Thomas More had the same idea in his book, Utopia. Unfortunately, here's the problem with it. In a perfect Utopia (society with no money), people would have to be willing to work,  all work would have to be equally paid, and people would only take what they need. Unfortunately, as Machiavelli later theorized, people aren't all willing (or able) to work, they find it (rightfully) unfair when people with varying levels of difficulty in their work are paid the same amount, and will gladly take more than they need and step on the backs of others for personal gain. Human nature is what prevents this system from working. In the Soviet Union, the government was created to ensure that human nature did not get in the way, and that people did do their part and didn't step on the backs of others. Unfortunately, there was no one to stop the government from doing what they stopped their people from doing; you may have heard of the concept of "who watches the watchers." In a society where human nature and fairness were nonexistant, it could work. But human nature cannot be eliminated and fairness is one of the most important principles of quality life.

That being said, we still have a lot of people today (in the USA at least) who don't work but are rich because of inheritance. Opposite this, you have people who work extremely hard but are in poverty. This is a problem, and I think that our current system as well as communism is unfair in this way.

As I just mentioned, a moneyless society is susceptible to human greed and greed from the government.

Always something to recommend :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A