What will the world look like if money is not invented?
November 9, 2008 8:32pm CST
I like to ponder on philosophical questions, sometimes during daydreaming. Money was the currency that changed Batter trading. You can say that it changed the world and moderized it to a certain extent, because people no longer had to use home-grown goods to make a living. If there was no such thing as money, how far do you think barter trading will bring the society? Will people work as hard? What will life be?
2 people like this
10 Nov 08
Well, i think if money was not invented all people would really find it hard doing barter everyday and i think some people would rather not do any barter just to save all the troubles. Just imagine if you would barter you refridgerator for a TV from someone who lives in a far place. It would really be hard to carry around the tv and fridge back and forth and i think it would even be a miracle if you even reached you destination. Hehe
• United States
10 Nov 08
This is an excellant question! You would probably really like the movie "Zeitgeist Addendum" (October 2008) which is available at www.zeitgeistmovie.com for free online viewing or download and burn to watch on your television. It explores this exact thing, but you have to watch it from beginning to end to really get it. Enjoy! :-)
10 Nov 08
That's a very interesting question. I believe that our world has developed to the point that money had to be invented in order to make progress. The barter system works, but only so far. Back in the days when more people lived off the land, it was easier to exchange one set of goods or services for another. The idea behind bartering is that the items (or services)being exchanged are of roughly the same value, and that each person has something the other person needs. For example, I could offer you eight bushels of corn for one of your sheep. If you need corn and I need a sheep, then the deal would be considered fair. But if you didn't need the corn then my offering would be valueless to you, and I would be stuck without a sheep. It makes perfect sense that society needed to assign value to a common object (in the past, stones or seashells have been used as currency; today we give value to metal coins and pieces of paper with specific printing on them) that people agree to use this currency to exchange for the things they need. On this basic level, the system works very well. In itself, money is not inherently good or bad. Money is money. It is a tool and can only work as well as the people who use it. Sadly, like any system designed to help people, if someone is greedy enough they will find a way to abuse the system. The accumulation of wealth can bring great purchasing power, but too many people equate this with personal power and that is what causes so many problems. Eliminating the currency system will not eliminate the greed. Today our society is much more complicated. If we were to remove the currency system altogether and go back to bartering, this would probably be much less effective because there are varying concepts of value and need. I could offer you a Prada handbag for your sheep. In monetary terms, the value of the handbag is probably much greater than the sheep, but in terms of survival the sheep is much more important. If you wanted the handbag and were willing to give me the sheep in return then you are probably getting the better end of the deal. But if you have no use for a handbag, then it loses all value. And I am still stuck without a sheep.
10 Nov 08
Curacy is anything you preserve to have value. In a barter trade system you still have a perceived value. If you are a farmer that grows beans, and you need to buy a fish, the fisher man who has what you want preserves that his fish is worth a pound of beans, depending on how much you want the fish you agree or disagree that your pound of beans is a good trade for the fish. I do not beleive it would make peole work less. As hard work is always the truth path to wealth.