# Trade-based System instead of Monetary System - Working for Companies that takes care of employees, instead of Companies that pay more



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

It's claimed that money was invented, because it's difficult for people to carry logs and sheep to trade at the same market, so people exchanged something of value that was easier to carry. However, with the computer age, people can exchange things electronically, so someone with 100 sheep can trade that for logs quite easily. This places a value on produce, instead of cost. In this system, companies will provide their employees with housing, food, insurance, retirement benefits, and their choice of clothing, instead of money, and employees choose which companies to work for based on the quality of life the company provides. This thus places an emphasis on how companies treat their employees, instead of how companies can generate ever greater profits. Instead of people focusing on what the individual can do to generate value, people will focus more on what can be produced to live a quality life. People will pay more attention to the environment and each other, instead of what they can buy. 

What do you guys think? Thank you for reading and please share your opinions or thoughts.


----------



## Angry-Spaghetti (Feb 25, 2021)

Sparky said:


> It's claimed that money was invented, because it's difficult for people to carry logs and sheep to trade at the same market, so people exchanged something of value that was easier to carry. However, with the computer age, people can exchange things electronically, so someone with 100 sheep can trade that for logs quite easily. This places a value on produce, instead of cost. In this system, companies will provide their employees with housing, food, insurance, retirement benefits, and their choice of clothing, instead of money, and employees choose which companies to work for based on the quality of life the company provides. This thus places an emphasis on how companies treat their employees, instead of how companies can generate ever greater profits. Instead of people focusing on what the individual can do to generate value, people will focus more on what can be produced to live a quality life. People will pay more attention to the environment and each other, instead of what they can buy.
> 
> What do you guys think? Thank you for reading and please share your opinions or thoughts.


It sounds like a wonderful future. I just feel like the systems we have now is less of a branch of human nature and is more the trunk. 

Humans, no matter where you go on earth always seem to find a way to put value on something around them and use it for their benefit, even if that in question is humans themselves. I think the system you propose will have corruption like all other human-centric systems. I don't know how I feel about the phrase; "absolute power corrupts absolutely" I would personally add a more human focused quote; "Humans have a need to thrive and resources are seen as finite". Even if they are percieved as infinite, humans always need to be worrying about something. Then it'll come down to status in this society. 

I have a feeling that in your system, companies themselves will become sources of currency as being a part of a certain company would lead to prestige amongst the workers. Unless enforced by the government, I feel as if the workers will be put under the heal by former workers who become the aptly named bourgeoisie, with their stockpiles of the previously mentioned 'prestige'. 

It may be too judgemental of me but I want a system that accounts for the fact that humans have this selfish nature guiding their every move even if they aren't personally concious of it. I just don't know what system we have or is being developed by someone that can counter act and even use this nature to everyone's and everything's benefit.

I just hope all humans can come together one day and focus our combined efforts into something we all would find meaningful. Space exploration sounds like a good idea so I'll throw that idea in there. 😁


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Angry-Spaghetti said:


> It sounds like a wonderful future. I just feel like the systems we have now is less of a branch of human nature and is more the trunk.
> 
> Humans, no matter where you go on earth always seem to find a way to put value on something around them and use it for their benefit, even if that in question is humans themselves. I think the system you propose will have corruption like all other human-centric systems. I don't know how I feel about the phrase; "absolute power corrupts absolutely" I would personally add a more human focused quote; "Humans have a need to thrive and resources are seen as finite". Even if they are percieved as infinite, humans always need to be worrying about something. Then it'll come down to status in this society.
> 
> ...


Many of the current systems are carried over from the past, like how urbanization is a relatively new development, and the currency system, while making life simpler for people in the past to exchange goods and conduct trade, also created complications as they shifted human focus. Establishing a trade-based system is a step in the right direction. It entails figuring out the center of human motivation. The trade-based system will emphasize produce instead of cost, which is aptly suited for the digital age, with industrialization and automations, so people can focus more on living a quality life instead of what to buy.

While a company will naturally reward more for workers who have worked there for a long time, people are naturally tuned to help each other, so your worry that veteran workers will bully younger workers is relatively ill-grounded, because not only does it damage the reputation of the company and prevent other workers from joining (or quality workers from staying with the company for long), it also means the leaders in the company are picked based more on relationships, rather than their efforts to improve the working environment or company value.


----------



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

Pay is dependent on how upskilled you want your talent to be. Benefits depend on supply-demand of talented personnel.

I've seen it myself in a variety of industries- if your employees need to be upskilled (spend extra years at uni, etc.) a company wants to offer financial compensation (which will be in accordance with industry standards).. Whereas if a company is looking for individual _talent_ they'll offer more benefits.

That's the reason why successful tech firms often have buildings that look like playgrounds and offer benefits vouchers, etc. talent as a programmer is precious, so you're looking to do anything you can to draw in specific individuals. As opposed to let's say if you're a doctor you'll be financially well rewarded- but they're paying for your qualification not your individual talent.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Tridentus said:


> Pay is dependent on how upskilled you want your talent to be. Benefits depend on supply-demand of talented personnel.
> 
> I've seen it myself in a variety of industries- if your employees need to be upskilled (spend extra years at uni, etc.) a company wants to offer financial compensation (which will be in accordance with industry standards).. Whereas if a company is looking for individual _talent_ they'll offer more benefits.
> 
> That's the reason why successful tech firms often have buildings that look like playgrounds and offer benefits vouchers, etc. talent as a programmer is precious, so you're looking to do anything you can to draw in specific individuals. As opposed to let's say if you're a doctor you'll be financially well rewarded- but they're paying for your qualification not your individual talent.


In a trade-based system, a company might attract workers with life-long benefits, like life-time employment, wide insurance coverage, child-care, free food, retirement benefits, childhood education and scholarships, as well as job and internship opportunities for children and close relatives.


----------



## impulsenine (Oct 18, 2020)

I can't see this system working in a big society like the one we're currently living in.
I see it the same way I see democracy and communism: they may work well in a Society with a few thousands inhabitants, but when you have over 10.000, they become bullshit good on paper but worse in reality.

Let's assume your system becomes reality.
What does that mean? That everyone gives away the freedom and power over his capital? That they have to depend on their company/employer that much? Any expense?
That's like giving freedom for security. Bad idea.

What if I want to buy a 238.62$ vibrator? I have to negotiate it with my employer?
What if I want to go for an international holiday? I have to negotiate with my employer where he is willing to let me go?

Your system may work (just like democracy or communism) when we talk about a minimal lifestyle, survivalist-kinda.
But when someone wants more than that, it fails to work anymore.

What if I want to spend 10.000$ on a picture?
What if I want to create something? Do I have to convince the employer to fund my start-up?
What if I want to invest in a dildo factory?

Imagine working as a porn actress, how do you choose your employer?

Life isn't about just surviving. It may be (for a lot of people, actually), but there will always be people that can and WANT more.
I want 3 lions on leash to walk with in my garden in the morning. How do I negotiate that with the employer?

Also, I'm an employer. My employees produces something (either delivering services or products), how do I receive payment for that? If money, what do I do with them? I'll be a part of some super exclusive group that has access to "luxury" goodies and services?

How do you pay for a kidney on black market or for a blowjob?

What you say there sounds like idealism for the poor.

I don't agree with all of the things you mentioned as being "additional things" to the salary (money) because what if I shut down the company next year? I can't/don't want to give free food anymore to my employees.

That's not goin' to work...ever!

Also your knowledge about monetary system is close to zero. You fail to understand why money appeared. I suggest you to study more, you seem to lack basic economy knowledge.


----------



## Angry-Spaghetti (Feb 25, 2021)

Sparky said:


> Many of the current systems are carried over from the past, like how urbanization is a relatively new development, and the currency system, while making life simpler for people in the past to exchange goods and conduct trade, also created complications as they shifted human focus. Establishing a trade-based system is a step in the right direction. It entails figuring out the center of human motivation. The trade-based system will emphasize produce instead of cost, which is aptly suited for the digital age, with industrialization and automations, so people can focus more on living a quality life instead of what to buy.
> 
> While a company will naturally reward more for workers who have worked there for a long time, people are naturally tuned to help each other, so your worry that veteran workers will bully younger workers is relatively ill-grounded, because not only does it damage the reputation of the company and prevent other workers from joining (or quality workers from staying with the company for long), it also means the leaders in the company are picked based more on relationships, rather than their efforts to improve the working environment or company value.


How would you realistically feed 8 billion people with your system? Going back to a trade based system wouldn't be good I don't think, its inefficent, that's why money was developed. I was using the branch-trunk analogy because money is human nature. Money is a microcosm of human selfishness, which you can't remove.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Remove the profit motive and then what is the motive?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

impulsenine said:


> I can't see this system working in a big society like the one we're currently living in.
> I see it the same way I see democracy and communism: they may work well in a Society with a few thousands inhabitants, but when you have over 10.000, they become bullshit good on paper but worse in reality.
> 
> Let's assume your system becomes reality.
> ...


In a trade-based system, you will think more about what you can produce or bring to society, rather than what you can use your money to buy. If you want to buy sex, then it's more about finding a willing partner who is willing to love you, and provide that physical love, rather than someone just looking to buy drugs or pay their rent.



Angry-Spaghetti said:


> How would you realistically feed 8 billion people with your system? Going back to a trade based system wouldn't be good I don't think, its inefficent, that's why money was developed. I was using the branch-trunk analogy because money is human nature. Money is a microcosm of human selfishness, which you can't remove.


In such a system, there will be many companies offering life-long employment (and retirement benefits) if you work for them. So this way, being fed is guaranteed.

If someone wants to buy lions and walk them around, then that can be traded for as well, like for a service the person can do, or for something of equal value the person has, like an antique. Certain companies can also provide credits to use on Amazon, for example, so you can purchase them, if available.



Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Remove the profit motive and then what is the motive?


The motive will be what you can do for society, instead of what can be bought with money, with the focus on providing a better quality life for everyone


----------



## Willow Breeze (Aug 6, 2021)

Sparky said:


> In this system, companies will provide their employees with housing, food, insurance, retirement benefits, and their choice of clothing,


That's a terrifying idea. People's freedom is taken away in a scenario like that, and they are treated like children with the companies the parents. Much of what you propose was already tried in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics -- USSR -- and failed miserably, as predicted. Genocide, concentration camps, psychological manipulation, racism, over 100,000,000 people murdered/killed in the 20th century alone, etc. The elite had the best, the lower classes the worst, including bread lines and starvation. It's the same in all Communist-oriented Socialist countries, right to present-day Venezuela. (Communism is just a heightened form of the Socialism of Hitler's National Socialist German Worker's Party -- *Na*tionalso*zi*alistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or Nazi for short.)



Sparky said:


> instead of money, and employees choose which companies to work for based on the quality of life the company provides. This thus places an emphasis on how companies treat their employees,


You're not taking into consideration human nature, which is very complicated. People make work choices for all kinds of reasons. Changing what is exchanged for their labour is not going to change human nature.



Sparky said:


> , instead of how companies can generate ever greater profits.


This is typical Marxist propaganda: making 'profits' a bad thing. In truth, a company can have a profit, yet still be millions of dollars in debt. Profits are what pay for things like wages; updated equipment; repairing broken equipment; being able to purchase a greater quantity of supplies at lower unit costs and/or better quality supplies, which in turn keeps the end price down for the consumer and provides them with a product of better quality which will last longer, costing them less money in the long run; donations to charity and community sponsorships such as local sports teams; etc.



Sparky said:


> Instead of people focusing on what the individual can do to generate value, people will focus more on what can be produced to live a quality life. People will pay more attention to the environment and each other, instead of what they can buy.


Again, shallow thinking is being employed here, human nature is being ignored. As is historical and current reality. You haven't thought past the surface of this, or it's impossibility would be evident to you.

I'm not speaking from theory. My people suffered a great deal, some still are, some were murdered.









Victims of Communism | Keep the flame of liberty alive


The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (VOC) is an educational, research, and human rights nonprofit organization devoted to commemorating the more than 100 million victims of communism around the world and to pursuing the freedom of those still living under totalitarian regimes.




victimsofcommunism.org


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Willow Breeze said:


> That's a terrifying idea. People's freedom is taken away in a scenario like that, and they are treated like children with the companies the parents. Much of what you propose was already tried in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics -- USSR -- and failed miserably, as predicted. Genocide, concentration camps, psychological manipulation, racism, over 100,000,000 people murdered/killed in the 20th century alone, etc. The elite had the best, the lower classes the worst, including bread lines and starvation. It's the same in all Communist-oriented Socialist countries, right to present-day Venezuela. (Communism is just a heightened form of the Socialism of Hitler's National Socialist German Worker's Party -- *Na*tionalso*zi*alistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or Nazi for short.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Communist governments also employed a monetary system, except the monetary system is run by the government, instead of independent, private banks. While they had a system where people are employed for life, the motivation was fulfilling a quota system, where people at the top directed how much is to be produced (managers looking for promotions often cheated by overstating the amount produced). In the trade system, the motivation is to attract employees with benefits, including life-long employment, so the focus is on employees, instead of leaders looking for promotions by fulfilling quotas.


----------



## Angry-Spaghetti (Feb 25, 2021)

Sparky said:


> In a trade-based system, you will think more about what you can produce or bring to society, rather than what you can use your money to buy. If you want to buy sex, then it's more about finding a willing partner who is willing to love you, and provide that physical love, rather than someone just looking to buy drugs or pay their rent.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well if it realistically leads to a better world without killing people in the process of change then you have my full support.


----------



## Willow Breeze (Aug 6, 2021)

Sparky said:


> Communist governments also employed a monetary system, except the monetary system is run by the government, instead of independent, private banks. While they had a system where people are employed for life, the motivation was fulfilling a quota system, where people at the top directed how much is to be produced (managers looking for promotions often cheated by overstating the amount produced). In the trade system, the motivation is to attract employees with benefits, including life-long employment, so the focus is on employees, instead of leaders looking for promotions by fulfilling quotas.


I understood your scenario, which is why I put qualifiers in my reply. 

There are so many points one could tease out, resulting in several pages, so I’ll limit myself to the following.

Your scenario is just communism in disguise, and an evolved form of it. Marxists knew their methods to conquer the West needed to be different than in other parts of the world. Just because what you propose isn’t exactly the same in every detail as was in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or in other countries, doesn’t make it any less communistic. Their ultimate goal, however disguised with shallow, flowery ideologies, is total power and control over the people. It’s a narcissistic, psychopathic, evil ideology. Unfortunately, it lures far too many otherwise good, yet naïve and shallow-thinking people in with its veneer of compassion and (false) equality.

There are very dangerous psychological implications to this, both for those being treated like children, and those who would then have an enormous amount of power and control over them. There is also the issue of taking away people’s freedom. This must be taken very seriously.

Without money, how are people going to purchase medicine, travel, vacations, presents, etc.? And what about pets and their needs? There is no possibility it could work. And in the present system, people are able to choose where they want to live. If an area / neighbours are a bad influence on their children, for instance, it’s not that hard to move.

Marxism has lying, cheating, and manipulation in its very DNA. Their quotas were arbitrary, and there were severe consequences to you and / or your family, friends, colleagues if you didn’t meet them. Fudging numbers was often done at the behest of the government as a way to deceive and manipulate the people, other nations, their own allies, and ultimately (subconsciously) themselves.

You’re creating a false dichotomy of benefit to employees vs quotas. The reality is that to meet businesses needs of being able to pay for necessary things such as as rent, payroll, electricity, machinery, office supplies, tools, component parts, repairs, marketing and advertising, licensing and other legal requirements, their contribution to any employee benefits they provide, a business needs to attain a certain level of income. A quota is the threshold amount to be able to do this. (This is different from the Communist quota system.)

Also, attracting employees with benefits is already being done to various degrees depending on the industry. Human nature being what is is, benefits are not the only factor people focus on when deciding where they’d like to work, and not necessarily even the most important one. The hierarchy of importance varies from person to person, family to family, and will change as their lives change.

And this doesn’t even begin to address that the Communist goals for taking over the West included surreptitiously infiltrating and gaining influential positions in big business and other areas of society[1], which has already been achieved. 

I’d recommend learning about Communist / Marxist methods of manipulation as well.[2]

[1] Skousen, W. Cleon. Chapter 12: The Future Task, “Current Communist Goals,” in _The Naked Communist. _Izzard Ink Publishing, 2014. (N.B.: Regarding the book as a whole, although the information taken from various government agencies around the world is corroborated by other sources -- the author worked in law enforcement, including in the FBI, his son in the CIA -- much of the interpretation on religion is heavily biased by the author’s own beliefs, and not necessarily an accurate portrayal of events or motivations.)

[2] There are many resources, but what currently comes to mind is Bella Dodd’s testimonies at the various hearings of the United States Senate Committees.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Willow Breeze said:


> I understood your scenario, which is why I put qualifiers in my reply.
> 
> There are so many points one could tease out, resulting in several pages, so I’ll limit myself to the following.
> 
> ...


Your examples of using Communist societies are all based on a monetary-system, just that the government controls it. Much of their problems is caused by this monetary system. In a Trade-based system, much will be done by exchanging goods and services directly; this system is much similar to societies in 500AD, when the monetary system isn't that well established, and people shared things with each other, without much of the excessive waste, and thinking about what to buy with money.


----------



## Willow Breeze (Aug 6, 2021)

Sparky said:


> Your examples of using Communist societies are all based on a monetary-system, just that the government controls it. Much of their problems is caused by this monetary system. In a Trade-based system, much will be done by exchanging goods and services directly; this system is much similar to societies in 500AD, when the monetary system isn't that well established, and people shared things with each other, without much of the excessive waste, and thinking about what to buy with money.


What you're not understanding is that the problem was and is with the _ideology, _as I've already stated. Changing a detail here or there doesn't change the overall ideology, or the impossibility of it working, or the evilness of it. 

What you have presented is not a system where people are sharing things with one another. You can only share what you own, what is yours to choose to share. What you are presenting is ownership of people's labour by the businesses they work for. Business which have been infiltrated by Marxist ideology to a large extent! (Think of big social media silencing those who don't share their political views for instance. Do you not think something similar will happen when it comes to who gets the best housing, neighbourhood, etc. if these businesses are given that power!) Again, human nature won't change just because you have a pretty idea in your head, no matter how good your intentions!

You are also ignoring the fact that it treats adult human beings like children! and takes away their freedom! You're ignoring human nature! You don't seem to accept the seriousness of the implication of all this, which is quite disturbing.

You talk about excessive waste. How are you currently living your life to have the integrity of your views? Have you given up _your _freedom? Do you 'share' all your excess money with the less fortunate for instance, and live a very minimalist life? Or are you still reliant on your parents to support you?

Anyone wanting to make the world a better place has to start with themselves. Cultivate a character that values truth, seeking it and walking in it when found regardless of the financial, social, etc. consequences; consciously ridding themselves of biases as much as possible; cultivating justice and tempering it with mercy; cultivating humility; etc. That is a lifelong journey, but it is what has been repeatedly proven to beneficially change societies.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Willow Breeze said:


> What you're not understanding is that the problem was and is with the _ideology, _as I've already stated. Changing a detail here or there doesn't change the overall ideology, or the impossibility of it working, or the evilness of it.
> 
> What you have presented is not a system where people are sharing things with one another. You can only share what you own, what is yours to choose to share. What you are presenting is ownership of people's labour by the businesses they work for. Business which have been infiltrated by Marxist ideology to a large extent! (Think of big social media silencing those who don't share their political views for instance. Do you not think something similar will happen when it comes to who gets the best housing, neighbourhood, etc. if these businesses are given that power!) Again, human nature won't change just because you have a pretty idea in your head, no matter how good your intentions!
> 
> ...


The ideology you mention is born out of the monetary-system. In a Trade-based system, people will look more at how many people a company hires, instead of how much money the company makes. People will also look at how many people a country has, and how many people work for that country's companies, instead of how much multinational companies make around the world, or how much money a country is getting from trade.


----------



## Willow Breeze (Aug 6, 2021)

Sparky said:


> The ideology you mention is born out of the monetary-system. In a Trade-based system, people will look more at how many people a company hires, instead of how much money the company makes. People will also look at how many people a country has, and how many people work for that country's companies, instead of how much multinational companies make around the world, or how much money a country is getting from trade.


As I said earlier, I understand your position.

You don't seem interested in having an actual intelligent conversation about your idea as you have consistently ignored each of the valid points I've raised as to why it _can never work_. This is quite telling. 

I wish you well.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Willow Breeze said:


> As I said earlier, I understand your position.
> 
> You don't seem interested in having an actual intelligent conversation about your idea as you have consistently ignored each of the valid points I've raised as to why it _can never work_. This is quite telling.
> 
> I wish you well.


The counter-arguments you make are all from the point of view of a Monetary-system, instead of a Trade-based System. It's like arguing with a person who has lived in a desert all his life that there are rainforests, and a different way of life, or a person who has lived in the tropics that there is snow, and how people have to wear heavy clothing during winter.


----------



## impulsenine (Oct 18, 2020)

Sparky said:


> In a trade-based system, you will think more about what you can produce or bring to society, rather than what you can use your money to buy. If you want to buy sex, then it's more about finding a willing partner who is willing to love you, and provide that physical love, rather than someone just looking to buy drugs or pay their rent.


So in the end you are not interested in changing only the method of payment between citizens.

But in fact you want to enter their personal life to tell them what are the only acceptable ways to live their lives. 
Good luck with that. It will never become a reality.

People fought for their right to choose a pussy over another without being needed to develop "love" feelings.
They don't buy sex, they just buy the condoms. And the Dry Riesling they want to drink together.
And maybe they want to pay for partner Uber. Or they want to order a pizza because that girl likes pizza.

So let's say that I want to date someone.
We are walking in a park and suddenly she sees cotton candy and she wants it. In your society, how are we supposed to pay for that cotton candy?
Then later, guess what. She wants chocolate too.
Then she wants to give me a blowjob and we need to have some good quality napkins because we're doing it out in the forest. 
"_Hello Mr. Employer. I want to trade my work for an Uber, chocolate, a wine, napkins, condoms and uhh... she wants to be blindfolded and handcuffed too. Thanks!_"

How would you deal with a situation like this in your Society?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

impulsenine said:


> So in the end you are not interested in changing only the method of payment between citizens.
> 
> But in fact you want to enter their personal life to tell them what are the only acceptable ways to live their lives.
> Good luck with that. It will never become a reality.
> ...


The company where the woman works can provide a certain amount of credits to be used on websites like Amazon, or elsewhere. It's a form of "IOU" (I Owe You), like money.


----------



## impulsenine (Oct 18, 2020)

Sparky said:


> The company where the woman works can provide a certain amount of credits to be used on websites like Amazon, or elsewhere. It's a form of "IOU" (I Owe You), like money.


Listen, in your society it would be a huge database with every citizen and a record of all the things he has ever bought with IOU? To which do certain government institutions have access? 
It already sounds good what I hear. You little dictator, just like me!  I love how it sounds! "_I Owe You_"!

But still, you didn't solve my basic problem.
Let's get back, how are we going to pay in the park (not on a website) for cotton candy?

Also keep in mind that you already encounter difficulties with your system when it comes to simple problems. Dating is like between 1% and 5% of someone's life. 
Are you sure you want to move on to what really matters?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

impulsenine said:


> Listen, in your society it would be a huge database with every citizen and a record of all the things he has ever bought with IOU? To which do certain government institutions have access?
> It already sounds good what I hear. You little dictator, just like me!  I love how it sounds! "_I Owe You_"!
> 
> But still, you didn't solve my basic problem.
> ...


There can be a credit system used at the park, so employees get certain amount of credits to use for cotton candies and theme park rides. It's similar to giving employees an Amazon gift card to spend on its website.


----------



## impulsenine (Oct 18, 2020)

Sparky said:


> There can be a credit system used at the park, so employees get certain amount of credits to use for cotton candies and theme park rides. It's similar to giving employees an Amazon gift card to spend on its website.


So you practically remove physical money (cash) with a virtual currency and change its name. 

What's the difference between your solution and using a cryptocurrency as your only means of financial payment?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

impulsenine said:


> So you practically remove physical money (cash) with a virtual currency and change its name.
> 
> What's the difference between your solution and using a cryptocurrency as your only means of financial payment?


The main difference is that the focus is not on how much companies pay their employees, but on how companies treat their employees, and attract them with quality of life.


----------



## impulsenine (Oct 18, 2020)

Sparky said:


> The main difference is that the focus is not on how much companies pay their employees, but on how companies treat their employees, and attract them with quality of life.


Well, why can't you do that by keeping the monetary system? 
You pay him properly + offer them certain benefits (private medical insurance (including dental), paid vacations, car, phone, laptop etc., everything you want). 

I don't see how your system fulfills the goal you want, it seems to me that it would do the exact opposite. 
How can you say that a system focuses on "quality of life" when it cuts them off from their freedoms and AT THE SAME TIME it doesn't even give them more security?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

impulsenine said:


> Well, why can't you do that by keeping the monetary system?
> You pay him properly + offer them certain benefits (private medical insurance (including dental), paid vacations, car, phone, laptop etc., everything you want).
> 
> I don't see how your system fulfills the goal you want, it seems to me that it would do the exact opposite.
> How can you say that a system focuses on "quality of life" when it cuts them off from their freedoms and AT THE SAME TIME it doesn't even give them more security?


The focus is more on attracting workers through quality of life, like life long employment, and benefits for family members like childhood education. In the monetary system, it's more about companies making a profit, or how much the company makes, and doesn't consider what happens when the workers get old (cannot work for as long or as fast, etc.).


----------



## impulsenine (Oct 18, 2020)

Sparky said:


> The focus is more on attracting workers through quality of life, like life long employment, and benefits for family members like childhood education. In the monetary system, it's more about companies making a profit, or how much the company makes, and doesn't consider what happens when the workers get old (cannot work for as long or as fast, etc.).


"life long employment"

What guarantees that the companies would exist for that long?
Do you have any idea about how many businesses are opened and closed every year?

What happens when after 20 years my business is outsmarted by others or becomes obsolete and I cannot adapt it?

Do I have to ensure my employees keep receiving their benefits while they aren't working for the company?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

impulsenine said:


> "life long employment"
> 
> What guarantees that the companies would exist for that long?
> Do you have any idea about how many businesses are opened and closed every year?
> ...


As long as the company can offer an useful service with which to trade with others, it won't be bankrupt.


----------



## Glittris (May 15, 2020)

New ideas are always interesting, but before even looking into what you are suggesting ( I did read OP ) , I have a simple question?

Is it voluntary? Can I say no? Can I opt out? Can I sell my value to another " Company " that give me more opportunities / money / coins / shells-on-a-shelf / whatever is currently used in this system?

In that case, whatever the new currency might be, I adjust to that new system, since I know I provide a value, and interest from other search value, that is how a free market works..., whatever it is " Fiat Money " created from thin air, or actual physical commodities.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Glittris said:


> New ideas are always interesting, but before even looking into what you are suggesting ( I did read OP ) , I have a simple question?
> 
> Is it voluntary? Can I say no? Can I opt out? Can I sell my value to another " Company " that give me more opportunities / money / coins / shells-on-a-shelf / whatever is currently used in this system?
> 
> In that case, whatever the new currency might be, I adjust to that new system, since I know I provide a value, and interest from other search value, that is how a free market works..., whatever it is " Fiat Money " created from thin air, or actual physical commodities.


Hi, if you want to opt out, you can always exchange your service, time, or produce with "credits", like Amazon gift cards.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

It sounds rather totalitarian and I believe large Japanese corporations used to do some form of the same thing where the company took care of a lot of the needs of the employees and guaranteeing employment, etc. I recall it not working too well and you'd end up with entire generations of men (and women) who were stuck in low wage, low prestige jobs and had a hard time finding wives because of being perceived by women as being unambitious or unsuccessful.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Scoobyscoob said:


> It sounds rather totalitarian and I believe large Japanese corporations used to do some form of the same thing where the company took care of a lot of the needs of the employees and guaranteeing employment, etc. I recall it not working too well and you'd end up with entire generations of men (and women) who were stuck in low wage, low prestige jobs and had a hard time finding wives because of being perceived by women as being unambitious or unsuccessful.


It's actually the high property prices that caused relatively lower marriage rates, and increased pressure for higher wage jobs. For the most part, Japan's development was mostly done by the generation with stable, life-long employment, and when the housing costs weren't so high.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Sparky said:


> It's actually the high property prices that caused relatively lower marriage rates, and increased pressure for higher wage jobs. For the most part, Japan's development was mostly done by the generation with stable, life-long employment, and when the housing costs weren't so high.


Yes but what happens now that those same companies can no longer guarantee the same life-long employment that their parents enjoyed? I mean, Japan is a global economy and their corporations had to relax those employment guarantees in order to compete with the rest of the world. If something like what you're suggesting was done in China, Chinese corporations would eventually have to contend with the same thing, global competition. There's simply no way around that, IMO. If you disagree I'd be happy to hear your counter.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Yes but what happens now that those same companies can no longer guarantee the same life-long employment that their parents enjoyed? I mean, Japan is a global economy and their corporations had to relax those employment guarantees in order to compete with the rest of the world. If something like what you're suggesting was done in China, Chinese corporations would eventually have to contend with the same thing, global competition. There's simply no way around that, IMO. If you disagree I'd be happy to hear your counter.


Japan competed fine economically in the 1970s and 1980s when the housing market was not as hot, and there was stable employment. It's more a problem with higher cost of buying housing, especially for new families.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Sparky said:


> Japan competed fine economically in the 1970s and 1980s when the housing market was not as hot, and there was stable employment. It's more a problem with higher cost of buying housing, especially for new families.


Yes, but the 1970s and 1980s, Japan was still growing economically and were still having a growing population. The 1990s and the 2000s were when Japan had to reckon with their past policies and lay people off if necessary. Are you claiming this is a problem exclusive to Japan, and more extremely, S. Korea as well? In fact, the same thing happened everywhere in Asia that developed economically. Why would it be any different in China, other than having much more land to develop. I'm saying the same will eventually happen to Chinese corporations that compete globally with state run corporations likely remaining serving mostly a domestic market.

I suppose I see not being able to lay off people _when necessary_ is a self-inflicted burden. Is life-long employment a very nice perk to have? Yes, absolutely but it's also a fairly large financial expense that usually requires you to overwork your employees. I suppose it really depends on where your priorities are, but I would rather my employees have a good work-life balance, good pay and like their job. If you value security much more, then I can see why you'd prefer your system.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Yes, but the 1970s and 1980s, Japan was still growing economically and were still having a growing population. The 1990s and the 2000s were when Japan had to reckon with their past policies and lay people off if necessary. Are you claiming this is a problem exclusive to Japan, and more extremely, S. Korea as well? In fact, the same thing happened everywhere in Asia that developed economically. Why would it be any different in China, other than having much more land to develop. I'm saying the same will eventually happen to Chinese corporations that compete globally with state run corporations likely remaining serving mostly a domestic market.
> 
> I suppose I see not being able to lay off people _when necessary_ is a self-inflicted burden. Is life-long employment a very nice perk to have? Yes, absolutely but it's also a fairly large financial expense that usually requires you to overwork your employees. I suppose it really depends on where your priorities are, but I would rather my employees have a good work-life balance, good pay and like their job. If you value security much more, then I can see why you'd prefer your system.


You can have a good work-life balance, if you don't desire so much money. In a trade-based system, you can work relatively less for less benefits, though still enjoy life-long employment.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Sparky said:


> You can have a good work-life balance, if you don't desire so much money. In a trade-based system, you can work relatively less for less benefits, though still enjoy life-long employment.


Your system will probably work just fine if you hire people who are very security oriented as there are a lot of people who would give up some pay for more assurances of stable employment. I happen to prefer the current system that uses money as a form of currency because when you have a fairly busy life and a family to care for, trying to essentially barter for everything can quickly become too difficult or too much of a hassle. Having money and exchanging my work for money is just easier in my case and I have a skillset that isn't too common so I can confidently ask for higher pay.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Your system will probably work just fine if you hire people who are very security oriented as there are a lot of people who would give up some pay for more assurances of stable employment. I happen to prefer the current system that uses money as a form of currency because when you have a fairly busy life and a family to care for, trying to essentially barter for everything can quickly become too difficult or too much of a hassle. Having money and exchanging my work for money is just easier in my case and I have a skillset that isn't too common so I can confidently ask for higher pay.


You can also request for similar benefits in a Trade-based system, besides life-long employment.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Sparky said:


> You can also request for similar benefits in a Trade-based system, besides life-long employment.


Yeah but then you would probably be worked to death.


----------



## Penny (Mar 24, 2016)

Sparky said:


> It's claimed that money was invented, because it's difficult for people to carry logs and sheep to trade at the same market, so people exchanged something of value that was easier to carry. However, with the computer age, people can exchange things electronically, so someone with 100 sheep can trade that for logs quite easily. This places a value on produce, instead of cost. In this system, companies will provide their employees with housing, food, insurance, retirement benefits, and their choice of clothing, instead of money, and employees choose which companies to work for based on the quality of life the company provides. This thus places an emphasis on how companies treat their employees, instead of how companies can generate ever greater profits. Instead of people focusing on what the individual can do to generate value, people will focus more on what can be produced to live a quality life. People will pay more attention to the environment and each other, instead of what they can buy.
> 
> What do you guys think? Thank you for reading and please share your opinions or thoughts.


you mean slave labor?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Yeah but then you would probably be worked to death.


People actually "work to death" in a monetary system, because their focus is on making money. In a trade-based system, as long as your service is useful, people can always find value with what you have, and are willing to trade with you.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Penny said:


> you mean slave labor?


What do you mean?


----------



## Angry-Spaghetti (Feb 25, 2021)

What part/s of monetary systems dont you like.


----------



## Glittris (May 15, 2020)

I and OP have one single thing in common, we indeed do not like the current monetary system... =w=


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Sparky said:


> People actually "work to death" in a monetary system, because their focus is on making money. In a trade-based system, as long as your service is useful, people can always find value with what you have, and are willing to trade with you.


Well, building wealth means you can eventually retire. Your system seems to discourage not ever working. Your flag says you're from China and I know modern day China very much has a "work will set you free" outlook on life, but what happens when you're old and no longer want to or are capable of more work? What about children, do they have to work say part-time too? I'd hope not because child labor is frowned upon in most parts of the world. 🤣 Also I guess a bit of a second issue I have with your proposal is it sounds like it would be markedly inefficient compared to a free-market.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Well, building wealth means you can eventually retire. Your system seems to discourage not ever working. Your flag says you're from China and I know modern day China very much has a "work will set you free" outlook on life, but what happens when you're old and no longer want to or are capable of more work? What about children, do they have to work say part-time too? I'd hope not because child labor is frowned upon in most parts of the world. 🤣 Also I guess a bit of a second issue I have with your proposal is it sounds like it would be markedly inefficient compared to a free-market.


Life-long employment also comes with life-long benefits, so you can still have food sent to you, even if you don't work. Also, at old age, people close to you, like relatives and children, will also take care of you.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Angry-Spaghetti said:


> What part/s of monetary systems dont you like.


There will always be certain people in debt in a monetary system, whether it's borrowing money for food, rent, clothing. This puts a lot of stress on making more money, and creates separation among people in the community. It's more about accumulating wealth and building a bread-basket, than sharing with each other.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Sparky said:


> Life-long employment also comes with life-long benefits, so you can still have food sent to you, even if you don't work. Also, at old age, people close to you, like relatives and children, will also take care of you.


So how is that sustainable? Also, what about the children. Your system sounds like you'd want them to work too. Child labor is fairly regressive.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Scoobyscoob said:


> So how is that sustainable? Also, what about the children. Your system sounds like you'd want them to work too. Child labor is fairly regressive.


By the time you are old, your children would have become independent adults, so they can take care of you.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Sparky said:


> By the time you are old, your children would have become independent adults, so they can take care of you.


Sure but who wants that.


----------



## Behnam Agahi (Oct 27, 2020)

I like your idea!
That's always one of my factors. Though you can't understand the real sympathy of your company unless you get yourself in a really bad situation.
Our world is based on creating values, so most employers will provide for you as long as you create values for them. They let you take care of your own personal needs like it's almost none of their businesses.
But we are moving towards that future, don't worry. If you told someone back in 300 years ago about a free healthcare support system, they must have laughed at you but as you can see, we are much more important to each other than just values right now... Or you can say humans learned to look for long-term opportunities and values instead of destroying their workers lives because of some natural things that happen to everyone.
The problem is, our population is getting a little out of control and the automation is progressing crazily. If you take out these two factors, the whole world will become more wise and caring for sure...


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Sure but who wants that.


Older people tend to like and appreciate the presence of family and grandchildren.



Behnam Agahi said:


> I like your idea!
> That's always one of my factors. Though you can't understand the real sympathy of your company unless you get yourself in a really bad situation.
> Our world is based on creating values, so most employers will provide for you as long as you create values for them. They let you take care of your own personal needs like it's almost none of their businesses.
> But we are moving towards that future, don't worry. If you told someone back in 300 years ago about a free healthcare support system, they must have laughed at you but as you can see, we are much more important to each other than just values right now... Or you can say humans learned to look for long-term opportunities and values instead of destroying their workers lives because of some natural things that happen to everyone.
> The problem is, our population is getting a little out of control and the automation is progressing crazily. If you take out these two factors, the whole world will become more wise and caring for sure...


It would be better for population to expand indefinitely, though currently, developed countries are experiencing a stall in population growth, partly due to high property prices and insecure employment.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Sparky said:


> Older people tend to like and appreciate the presence of family and grandchildren.
> 
> 
> 
> It would be better for population to expand indefinitely, though currently, developed countries are experiencing a stall in population growth, partly due to high property prices and insecure employment.


Yes but being visited by family and grandchildren is one thing, being dependent on them is another. I suppose I just very much like being able to somewhat independent, and I like knowing that my kids will one day grow up to be independent as well. Of course I'd want the kids and grandchildren to visit my wife and I but I wouldn't them to have to be obligated to take care of us. We can take care of one another if need be. 🙂


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Yes but being visited by family and grandchildren is one thing, being dependent on them is another. I suppose I just very much like being able to somewhat independent, and I like knowing that my kids will one day grow up to be independent as well. Of course I'd want the kids and grandchildren to visit my wife and I but I wouldn't them to have to be obligated to take care of us. We can take care of one another if need be. 🙂


Being dependent does not mean being dependent on them to go to the bathroom, buy grocery, or cook food. 

In a monetary system, rich-poor divide and economic inequalities are bound to occur. Fighting poverty with money is like feeding pigeons, the more you do it, the more they occur. A sharing or trade-based economy will help solve this, and current communication technology can help make that happen.


----------



## greyskies01 (Aug 23, 2018)

Money was invented because of restrictions. I don't want to be restricted by my needs. If you have logs but need axes, you should not be limited by me only having screwdrivers. I need logs. Then I give you money and you can trade that for axes and I can buy logs from you. If a company provides housing then you do not get to choose the quality of that housing. That may be okay with you but it is not okay with others. Money gives us choice and flexibility at the expense of others.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

greyskies01 said:


> Money was invented because of restrictions. I don't want to be restricted by my needs. If you have logs but need axes, you should not be limited by me only having screwdrivers. I need logs. Then I give you money and you can trade that for axes and I can buy logs from you. If a company provides housing then you do not get to choose the quality of that housing. That may be okay with you but it is not okay with others. Money gives us choice and flexibility at the expense of others.


That's actually a false notion, which equate luxury with money. Luxury is actually a product of science and technology. Money just determines how that technology is used, though people can say no to that, and have people be in charge of technology. For example, a neighbor wants to spend his millions of dollars to build a combat tank, though other people object, and instead want the resources and time spent on building a library. You might say, the person who has the million dollars will get the final say, though in a trade-based or sharing-based system, it's the people that have the say of what to do with the technology.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Sparky said:


> Being dependent does not mean being dependent on them to go to the bathroom, buy grocery, or cook food.
> 
> In a monetary system, rich-poor divide and economic inequalities are bound to occur. Fighting poverty with money is like feeding pigeons, the more you do it, the more they occur. A sharing or trade-based economy will help solve this, and current communication technology can help make that happen.


You very obviously meant to be financially and to a lesser extent physically dependent on one's children. I just think upbringing would be better when it comes to your welfare when you're an elder. Don't want children who will grow up to become selfish pricks and never visit you? Raise them better with good values. I think that would result in much better outcomes than forcing children to take care of their parents by government mandate.

Any capitalistic system will result in some people ending up impoverished. That's just the nature of a system where limited resources are privatized. The best way to help the poor is to improve the living standards of the poor, and aside from the US, most of the first world does this. Because, like you said, simply giving money to the poor doesn't solve any problems with poverty and only creates more dependence on being given money.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Scoobyscoob said:


> You very obviously meant to be financially and to a lesser extent physically dependent on one's children. I just think upbringing would be better when it comes to your welfare when you're an elder. Don't want children who will grow up to become selfish pricks and never visit you? Raise them better with good values. I think that would result in much better outcomes than forcing children to take care of their parents by government mandate.
> 
> Any capitalistic system will result in some people ending up impoverished. That's just the nature of a system where limited resources are privatized. The best way to help the poor is to improve the living standards of the poor, and aside from the US, most of the first world does this. Because, like you said, simply giving money to the poor doesn't solve any problems with poverty and only creates more dependence on being given money.


People's living standards are also tied to science and technology, not money. On the other hand, the monetary system ties resources and labor to a limited resource, which is coinage. In this case, no matter how much manpower or resource there is available, if you don't have the amount of coinage, then you can't use them. In a trade-based or sharing economy, people's motivation is based on the amount of value they can bring to society, not so much about how much they can earn. In this case, garbage collectors, maintenance workers, and miners will have their positions glorified, instead of people taking advantage of ups and downs in the stock market, or landlords living on earnings from renters.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Sparky said:


> People's living standards are also tied to science and technology, not money. On the other hand, the monetary system ties resources and labor to a limited resource, which is coinage. In this case, no matter how much manpower or resource there is available, if you don't have the amount of coinage, then you can't use them. In a trade-based or sharing economy, people's motivation is based on the amount of value they can bring to society, not so much about how much they can earn. In this case, garbage collectors, maintenance workers, and miners will have their positions glorified, instead of people taking advantage of ups and downs in the stock market, or landlords living on earnings from renters.


Well then unfortunately for your argument, living standards, scientific and technological advancements are directly tied to having money, rather than not having money. There's no country on Earth that is scientifically and technologically advanced while also poor as a country, so I'd say you're just flat out wrong there. Also, why glorify any job? Being envious of others is how you make your own life worse and which is also something you actually have 100% control over. Are you talking about attracting women? Not all women are gold diggers, sure there are women who are but if that's not the kind of woman you're into then you shouldn't be wasting any effort in trying to attract such a woman. Find a woman who can appreciate you for who you are and stop worrying about what other people have or don't have.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Well then unfortunately for your argument, living standards, scientific and technological advancements are directly tied to having money, rather than not having money. There's no country on Earth that is scientifically and technologically advanced while also poor as a country, so I'd say you're just flat out wrong there. Also, why glorify any job? Being envious of others is how you make your own life worse and which is also something you actually have 100% control over. Are you talking about attracting women? Not all women are gold diggers, sure there are women who are but if that's not the kind of woman you're into then you shouldn't be wasting any effort in trying to attract such a woman. Find a woman who can appreciate you for who you are and stop worrying about what other people have or don't have.


Hi, scientific and technological advancements got their start in a world without much of a monetary system, such as the ships that can sale across the Atlantic Ocean and around the world, so it's not because of money that science and technology advance, it's actually science and technology giving birth to the modern banking sector.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Sparky said:


> Hi, scientific and technological advancements got their start in a world without much of a monetary system, such as the ships that can sale across the Atlantic Ocean and around the world, so it's not because of money that science and technology advance, it's actually science and technology giving birth to the modern banking sector.


There are two viewpoints to how science and technology advance. One is born out of scarcity based necessity and the other is born out of comfortable abundance. Most advanced societies today are well past scientific and technological advancement driven out of necessity, with one of the resources to be kept in abundance being monetary resources. Modern banking probably is aided greatly by science and technology but the concept of finance and banking go back long before any form of modern banking. Any society that is more advanced than a hunter-gatherer, communal or bartering society, will have come up with their own form of storing accumulated wealth. You could of course keep your money and other accumulated resources under your mattress or in a hole you dug up for safe keeping, but it'd be in a much safer location if you kept it at the bank instead.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Scoobyscoob said:


> There are two viewpoints to how science and technology advance. One is born out of scarcity based necessity and the other is born out of comfortable abundance. Most advanced societies today are well past scientific and technological advancement driven out of necessity, with one of the resources to be kept in abundance being monetary resources. Modern banking probably is aided greatly by science and technology but the concept of finance and banking go back long before any form of modern banking. Any society that is more advanced than a hunter-gatherer, communal or bartering society, will have come up with their own form of storing accumulated wealth. You could of course keep your money and other accumulated resources under your mattress or in a hole you dug up for safe keeping, but it'd be in a much safer location if you kept it at the bank instead.


The monetary system came after advancements in science and technology, so it arose out of science and technology, not science and technology rose out of monetary system.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Sparky said:


> The monetary system came after advancements in science and technology, so it arose out of science and technology, not science and technology rose out of monetary system.


"The monetary system" is the application of math, which is the foundation of finance and banking, modern or ancient. So the concept of money developed independently of science and tech, as it was born out of the study of numbers. In fact it'd be accurate to say math is the foundation to both banking and science, but applied differently. Also, modern day scientific and technological advancement definitely does require sufficient resources, monetary included.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Scoobyscoob said:


> "The monetary system" is the application of math, which is the foundation of finance and banking, modern or ancient. So the concept of money developed independently of science and tech, as it was born out of the study of numbers. In fact it'd be accurate to say math is the foundation to both banking and science, but applied differently. Also, modern day scientific and technological advancement definitely does require sufficient resources, monetary included.


The concept of money is born out of the giving of momento, like medals, awards or trophies. Science and technology leads to the monetary system, not caused by it. Now, with modern communications and digital technology, it's time to move beyond the monetary system, to a need-based system, where all can share in the produce and harvest. People in such a system care more about how much is produced, rather than how much is in their bank accounts.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Sparky said:


> The concept of money is born out of the giving of momento, like medals, awards or trophies. Science and technology leads to the monetary system, not caused by it. Now, with modern communications and digital technology, it's time to move beyond the monetary system, to a need-based system, where all can share in the produce and harvest. People in such a system care more about how much is produced, rather than how much is in their bank accounts.


That's a weird take. Money made exchanging things like grains and livestock much easier than would be required with bartering. Exchanging a few ounces of precious metal was much easier than exchanging several hundred pounds of grain or livestock. The concept of currency has been around for over 40,000 years; with the concept of coinage being at least 3000 years old and probably closer to 5000 years old. Long before any modern conception of science and technology having invented money that you seem to keep suggesting. Back in 1000 BC, perhaps advancement in farming and animal husbandry led to a system of trade more advanced than bartering, but it was that need to find a better solution that led to the creation of money as a currency. Not due to science and technology specifically.

Although I suppose at this point we're just splitting hairs, as civilization that was possible due to what would've been considered scientific and technological advancement in 3000 BC, which likely made creating an intermediary currency a better idea than trading physical goods themselves.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

@Sparky Here're some links with some light reading material on the topic of money as currency:









When – and why – did people first start using money?


Currency first hit the scene thousands of years ago. An anthropologist explains the early origins and uses of money – and how archaeological finds fill in our picture of the past.




theconversation.com













The History of Money: From Bartering to Banknotes to Bitcoin


Money has been a part of human history for at least 3,000 years. Learn how it evolved.




www.investopedia.com


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Scoobyscoob said:


> That's a weird take. Money made exchanging things like grains and livestock much easier than would be required with bartering. Exchanging a few ounces of precious metal was much easier than exchanging several hundred pounds of grain or livestock. The concept of currency has been around for over 40,000 years; with the concept of coinage being at least 3000 years old and probably closer to 5000 years old. Long before any modern conception of science and technology having invented money that you seem to keep suggesting. Back in 1000 BC, perhaps advancement in farming and animal husbandry led to a system of trade more advanced than bartering, but it was that need to find a better solution that led to the creation of money as a currency. Not due to science and technology specifically.
> 
> Although I suppose at this point we're just splitting hairs, as civilization that was possible due to what would've been considered scientific and technological advancement in 3000 BC, which likely made creating an intermediary currency a better idea than trading physical goods themselves.


The monetary system has given rise to the insurance agency and financial institutions, though it was advancements in science and technology that gave rise to the monetary system, which started off as a giving of momentos, like medals or awards. Trade is really only used between two unrelated tribes of people (likely speaking different languages), not within the same group. Now with advancements in digital technology and communication, people can move beyond a monetary system to a need-based or share-based system, where people care more about how much is produced or what is needed, instead of how much they have in their bank accounts.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Sparky said:


> The monetary system has given rise to the insurance agency and financial institutions, though it was advancements in science and technology that gave rise to the monetary system, which started off as a giving of momentos, like medals or awards. Trade is really only used between two unrelated tribes of people (likely speaking different languages), not within the same group. Now with advancements in digital technology and communication, people can move beyond a monetary system to a need-based or share-based system, where people care more about how much is produced or what is needed, instead of how much they have in their bank accounts.


Bartering, which is what you're talking about, is what gave way to money as currency. A digital currency isn't any different than gold/silver/metal or paper currency.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Bartering, which is what you're talking about, is what gave way to money as currency. A digital currency isn't any different than gold/silver/metal or paper currency.


People use a currency, which gave rise to bartering. People in a non-monetary society does not use salary, and people do not see something as losing value when it's already used, rather, they see it's real value, which is its usefulness to a person.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Sparky said:


> People use a currency, which gave rise to bartering. People in a non-monetary society does not use salary, and people do not see something as losing value when it's already used, rather, they see it's real value, which is its usefulness to a person.


Money replaced bartering because it's much more efficient on economic levels, your own system's definition has work diminish with age, and once something is used, it's value drops. Also you do realize that your system only results in creating a society of peasants right? I don't know about you, but I'd rather work for money than to end up in some primitive communal society where you either work or you die. For all the negatives to accumulating wealth is, not ending up in a work or die situation is exactly why people build wealth.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

@Sparky Also, your entire system does have a name to it. It's called 'communalism', which does exist today but seems pretty dreary to me compared to modern life.



> *Communalism* is a political philosophy and economic system that integrates communal ownership and confederations of highly decentralized independent communities. Murray Bookchin, a prominent libertarian socialist, defined the communalism he developed as "a theory of government or a system of government in which independent communes participate in a federation" as well as "the principles and practice of communal ownership". The term _government_ does not imply acceptance of a state or top-down hierarchy.[1][2]
> 
> This usage of communalism appears to have emerged during the late 20th century to distinguish commune-based systems from other political movements or governments espousing (if not actually practicing) similar ideas. In particular, earlier communities and movements advocating such practices were often described as "anarchist", "communist" or "socialist".[3]








Communalism - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





It's essentially protocommunism, if you will and still exists today in the form of "off-the-grid" societies and a select few government institutions (here in the US), although I would say such influences are diminishing now that the Cold War is over but I doubt such societies will ever disappear fully, since you know, human nature being what it is and all.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Scoobyscoob said:


> Money replaced bartering because it's much more efficient on economic levels, your own system's definition has work diminish with age, and once something is used, it's value drops. Also you do realize that your system only results in creating a society of peasants right? I don't know about you, but I'd rather work for money than to end up in some primitive communal society where you either work or you die. For all the negatives to accumulating wealth is, not ending up in a work or die situation is exactly why people build wealth.





Scoobyscoob said:


> @Sparky Also, your entire system does have a name to it. It's called 'communalism', which does exist today but seems pretty dreary to me compared to modern life.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A non-monetary or share-based society is not the same as communalism. People still get to be the bosses at what they do, just that people do not use money, but having everything being on a need-based through online information sharing.

Things appear to lose value once used, only because it's based on a monetary system. In a share-based system or non-monetary system, things keep their value and even gain appreciation, after being used.


----------

