Quote Originally Posted by RooJ View Post
Well money doesn't develop things, money can't build technology or cure diseases, people do that. The argument is that its actually this reliance on money that STOPS things from getting done. For instance many Aids related deaths in countries like Africa could be prevented easily with drugs, but as people can't afford these drugs (not because theres a lack of the drug), people die. I think the vision is for people to care about each other and the environment more than they do money and profitz, for the benefit of current and future generations. I don't see it ever taking off however, but i do think a better system can be created than the one we follow now.. especially as this system is simply unsustainable in its current form.
The adoption of money allows modern industrialization, technological advances, and the standards of living across the board to rise significantly. Instead of searching for what is known as a double coincidence of wants in a barter economy (e.g. I trade my shirt for your pants, or a cow for a pig), where I want something and have to find another person who has what I want and wants what I have, money acts as a medium of exchange. If one wishes to trade or buy something, they just have to hand over the product and get money in return; rinse and repeat.

One can not possibly attempt to accumulate the capital, the means of production, and the incentive to keep up a modern technological society without money. I'm not discounting the proposition that people will do so out of the good of their heart, of course, as many people work and work hard simply out of love of their work. But we cannot possibly rely on such a proposition as a foundation for an economy. So while, yes, people are the ones developing technology and curing diseases, it would not be possible in a barter economy, which is what would exist in a world without money. Money eases the process of trade, allows for proper accounting (and accounting in general, really), and allows prices to exist, which then tends to lead toward a rational distribution of resources.

An argument could be made that certain practices with money (and especially with the type of money used) and various policies stops thing from getting done. But attacking money alone is incorrect.

As for AIDS-related deaths, this again is not the fault of money's existence. For one, there's no cure for AIDS, so I think its fair to assume that drugs given to victims after the fact of infection won't particularly do much in the way of keeping them alive indefinitely. I'm not very knowledgeable on AIDS, so I'm not sure how effective preventative medicines are. I will say that billions upon billions of dollars are funneled into countries with AIDS problems, and while some of that money reaches its destination, far too much of it gets hung up in the corrupt governments of said countries, and thus never reaches the people.

And to be quite honest, people don't necessarily need to care about each other and the environment (as a whole) instead of money and profits. I'm reminded of an essay by Leonard E. Read entitled, I, Pencil. Contrary to popular belief, making a pencil is not as easy as painting a piece of wood and shoving a graphite stick down the middle of it, and attaching an eraser. Resources need to be gathered (wood from trees, brass, synthetic rubber, etc.) for such a product to be made. And all of this production goes down by people all over the world, who don't know each other, and generally don't care either. You can apply this to any product or service as well.

One would also do well to understand the significance of profits in a market system. It's usually used as a boogeyman term to signify some sort of evil occurring, but profits are a signal of success or failure in a given market. It's not so simple as Profit = Revenue - Cost.

Anyway, I just wrote far too much, lol.

Quote Originally Posted by CryoDragoon View Post
@ Blueline..

About the whole idea about developing stuff without money, ey..

Are you currently studying for something / in a profession?
I'm a Poli Sci major at the moment, although thinking of switching to something in the sciences. Poli Sci isn't exactly a goldmine for lucrative professions. If I end up switching my major, Poli Sci might be my minor. Economics is a private passion that I'm slowly but surely learning on my own.