The future of money

@roger,

No, but someone might think that someone else would hoard them for themselves... That is if we still don't trust each other enough to share and play nice with each other.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Money is also related to power (social influence). Even if money were to be eliminated completely, I suspect that human nature would remain the same and many people would compete for power (in society, and over others) just as they do for money. The "legal tender" for bartering would change the the effect would remain the same.

I think you're assuming that the old saw of, "money is the root of all evil" is true, but it isn't. The truth is that "human behavior is the root of all evil (and all good)", because good and evil are subjective concepts related to human needs.

Human behavior isn't going to change, at least not for a long time. The legal tender that we now call money will probably change many many times, but the need for it in some form will last as long as humans are what we are.

3 Replies

@rosborne979,

Quote:

Even if money were to be eliminated completely, I suspect that human nature would remain the same and many people would compete for power (in society, and over others) just as they do for money.

Perhaps. Though capitalism does encourage this competition. In some cases it rewards dishonesty and punishes integrity. Not precisely ideal conditions in which to develop a set of values that emphasizes human worth and mutual respect.
We are taught not to cheat and lie since childhood, but anyone who tries to make a profit in capitalism is forced to lie, at least by omission, and to cheat people in similar ways. If I was a salesman, I would be out of business pretty quickly if I told my customers that my products were cheaper elsewhere.

We know that manufacturers make products that are of far lower quality than what they are able to make. It's because the products have to break down so that people will buy new ones, thereby keeping them in business. We have the technology to make a telephone that can last for twenty years. It would clearly be better for almost everyone to have such telephones, the exception being those who are dependent on selling as many phones as possible.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Yes, it IS behavior that produces all evil, but we have to make the distinction between subjective behavior--like the LOVE of money--and objective behavior or action--the way you spend money--that injures others.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Now I know what this thread reminds me of - John Lennon's 'Imagine'.

And whatever 'vice' (religion / money / governments ) that is removed, just gets replaced with another. These days the use of Patriotism, the accusation of Racism, and the fervent support of sporting teams (all in specific settings of course)...often reminds me of the bludgeoning & blindness of (certain aspects of) religion.

I agree regarding money being about power - I've said in other threads that it's not money, nor love, nor religion, nor patriotism... but power that makes the world go round (all the former can be, and are used for the latter)

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Well, those in power have ideas about how the world should be. Have you ever heard of agenda 21?
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/Agenda21.pdf
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/spec/aress19-2.htm

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Have you read Nietzsche's The Will to Power? Nature, society and human behavior is all about power (defined very broadly).

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Perhaps. Though capitalism does encourage this competition.

Capitalism in economies is very similar to evolution in biology, they are both systems of change and expansion throttled by selection mechanisms. And just as with biology, you have to take the good with the bad. But it's a very powerful and self regulating system, it's just not altruistic.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Have you read Nietzsche's The Will to Power? Nature, society and human behavior is all about power (defined very broadly).

You know JL, of all the philosophers that people talk about here - Nietzsche is the only one I'd consider reading.

I went down a different path of learning philosophy than reading actual philosophers (well, one or two), and it seems I still arrived at many of the same conclusions (what I read bordered on philosophy in many ways)

That said - these days I tend to develop my own philosophy, for I find I am I prefer purposeful philosophy, and that I am also very systems orientated - it took me only until recently to work out why I always initially struggled with systems (despite having a rather good memory, good technical understanding etc).... and then after a while things would click and I would become very good at them - I needed to understand the whole .

I may read different books, but I don't appear to take them for granted, but rather I look for 'the thread that binds them all together'.

Many of the things people speak of Nietsche seem to suggest he does the same (I am of course, not putting myself in the same class - just saying that he appears to use a similar approach)

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Yes, I see the similarities between capitalism and evolution. But as far as I know, it is not necessary for the well being of one species that another live in depravity.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Yes, I see the similarities between capitalism and evolution. But as far as I know, it is not necessary for the well being of one species that another live in depravity.

I'm not sure what you are implying.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

I'm just saying that capitalism works in such a way that for someone to live in wealth, someone else has to live in poverty. There may be many ways to end poverty, but they would all have to include some fundamental changes to capitalism.

1 Reply

Cyracuz wrote:

But as far as I know, it is not necessary for the well being of one species that another live in depravity.

From what I can gather, those living in depravity quite often experience some kind of well being.

1 Reply

@Strauss,

And those living in exaggerated wealth also quite often experience some kind of distress. It's often called 'first world problems'.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I'm just saying that capitalism works in such a way that for someone to live in wealth, someone else has to live in poverty. There may be many ways to end poverty, but they would all have to include some fundamental changes to capitalism.

I don't think there's an innate inverse requirement for wealth in capitalism as you describe. It's perfectly reasonable to expect that there could be a capitalistic economy in which there were wealthy people and middle-wealth people without having to expect there to be ultra-wealthy people and destitute people. There is no inherent requirement in the system for extremes to be the norm. But there is also nothing to prevent it. Likewise, biological evolution doesn't require that every species on the planet completely irradiate every other, but there are still the possibilities of extinctions.

If capitalism were left to fend for itself, both un-throttled and uncorrupted (conditions which I'm not sure can be achieved) then I think the world would be a happy place with a comfortable range of wealth and opportunity functioning very efficiently.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

I don't think there's an innate inverse requirement for wealth in capitalism as you describe.

Because of how money is created, there is always more debt than money. Foreclosures and bankruptcies are inevitable.

Quote:

If capitalism were left to fend for itself, both un-throttled and uncorrupted (conditions which I'm not sure can be achieved) then I think the world would be a happy place with a comfortable range of wealth and opportunity functioning very efficiently.

I disagree with this. Capitalism is pretty much unrestricted on the global scale, as the global community is an anarchy. There are no laws that every nation on earth abides by. It's what allows multi-national corporations to run rampant.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

I think what has been fed to corporatists is some misleading theories of Darwinism. I read this blog by this guy Robert Kopecky and I think he makes an interesting statement.

Quote:

Our corporate culture has wrongly modeled itself on misconstrued Darwinism. It's not about "Survival of the Fittest," it's about survival of what adapts in the most cooperative way.

http://www.evolver.net/user/kokolion/blog/powershifts_protests_compassionate_consciousness_and_spiritual_evolution_real_rap

0 Replies

Perhaps credits and nano technology.

However, I do believe the concept of currency will remain, being that it appears to be a cultural requirement for current humans.

1 Reply

@Anomie,

I think the concept of currency will remain as long as we have the idea of ownership.
If we get to a point in the future where we find a way to harness infinitely renewable energy, we will no longer have a lack of energy for anything. At that point, currency will become superfluous, assuming the technology isn't monopolized by some in order to hold power over others. That it would be seems very likely though...

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

no, the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil (1 Timothy 6:10), and money answers all things (Ecclesiastes 10:19)

0 Replies

The future of money

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know