I don't know. Maybe a barter system, but that is just replacing money and trading goods

There's a way & whatever it is it'll be lacking large amounts of corruption.
There's a way but I just don't know what. I've pondered this question for a long time.

Sharing.
Doing what you have to offer to your community, instead of thinking in what your job will offer you.

That's socialism really. Seriously, hear me out now. Socialism/marxism/communism: it's a GREAT idea in theory.

It's a great idea that everyone is equal and communities are based on everyone pushing in one direction, all working equally and the whole world shares. Unfortunately, it doesn't work in practice.

Communism was made for a world that has a monetary system.
It promotes corruption.

Yes, at first. But Marxist theory states that eventually, once socialism is achieved, money would become obsolete and the monetary system would disappear, leaving the system you're talking about.

I hate Marx & Engel's ideas in theory. If communism is ideal then why do does the state need to take things from people? Why cant the people just give it. Because of self interest. Human nature is to put your family before anyone else.

In addition, why should someone who works extremely hard be paid the same as someone who does nothing, which is a moral dilemma that occurs in communism. This also means people do not have incentives to innovate. Meaning a ideal communist country does not receive the incredible benefits of new technology and would end up centuries behind a free-market world.

I am an economics major and have studied the topic and have more arguments if you wish to continue. I support the theory of Marx and Engels NO more than the Soviet Experiment.

"Why should someone who works extremely hard be paid the same as someone who does nothing"

This is what our social system lacks. People think that because their job is probably "harder" they should be more successful.
Kids are thought that money=success, when it is not.

In a resource based economy this won't exist. People will be thought of how they can support each other, to have what they need and not to have 5 sport cards just because they can.

And don't reply me with the "Human nature, blahblah there is always one who is blah blah"
People who are lazy are lazy because their parent let them be lazy, their environment was lazy, etc.

And I said nothing about jobs being harder. Someone deserves to be paid more NOT because their job is harder, but because their job benefits others more. Which I think is quite a beautiful outcome.

You cannot discount faults in humans. That is one of the essential problem with that form of society. If you look back at the soviet and other socialist experiments you can see this. For example, in east Germany during a certain period of time they attempted to eliminate money. This experiment was very soon repealed, why? Because people don't know the worth of something compared to something else (unit of account) one of the three basic functions of money.

Money is necessary. Look back at history and where does it come from? It forms like evolution, no one had the brilliant idea "I will create money!", no it transitioned from other commodities that were used like money. There were sea shells, gold coins, etc... Im talking too much I apologize. Even in an ideal society where people care about one another above all else (one that is sadly devoid of the harsh reality of humans and self interest) there needs to be money. Because it is also a medium of exchange.

If you want an example I would be more than happy to send you the article "cigarette currency", a very interesting read on the topic. It is about how cigarettes became a medium of exchange in a POW camp.

Yeah, link me to that article, I'd like to read it.
Thanks

I think it is a scholarly article and I might not be able to send it in link form unless you have a log-in for a database (JSTOR). I can email it if you want (pm me your email address).

Once again, everyone will be thinking about progress, about what can they do to make the world better. I know it sounds way to optimistic.

Socialist and communist experiments fails because we're living in a world controlled by a world bank, controlled by economic rules that tend to starve a

You don't need to know the value of your goods, you need to know if you really need it and if anyone could do better with it.

Of course money comes from us evolving, but it's time to drop it, for good, for our own progress as an specie. Just like the feudal system, it failed because our ways were evolving and such system didn't let us progress.

Oh, also, look at this: vimeo.com/25311668
It's a cool video that I recently found!

Honestly, I could argue all the functions of money with you but you are missing two main things, one of which we have discussed:

(1) Human nature, people are not like that. Some people are but the greater majority will never be like that. This is a completely ideal discussion if you want to talk about the way humans should be.

(2) Prices send signals. Prices, just the price of something informs buyers about a commodity. Lets make an example, say that the world's coal supply is running out. For this reason the suppliers need to work harder to get coal, and will put a higher price on the coal as a result. So now, when the buyers of coal see the price they will notice that the coal is more expensive. Some will continue buying but buy less. Some will stop using coal all together and move on to another energy source. In the grand scheme of things, this is how people SHOULD react to their being less coal, they should start using other energy sources. The amazing thing is this information about the coal supply running out never reached the buyers, just the price (that was decided by supply and demand) informed them.

Let me ask you an inderect question, what do you see so great about a monetary system other than "We can't live without one"

In other words. Money is not something that has value itself. No one just wants money to hold, they want the things you can get with money, and money allows you to get whatever you want with the same object. In a society without money, it would be incredibly inefficient to spend days/months/years finding someone to fly me to Canada for nothing other than good will. Money is a tool.

Say I am a college professor ok? You are a pilot.

I want a ride to Canada, how do I get it? It will cost you gas, labor, and takes time away from you to fly me to Canada. All I have to offer you is lectures, which in this scenario lets say you do NOT want. How do I get a plane ride? Do I find someone who will trade a plane ride for a lecture? That may take a very long time to find the person, if ever. However, with money I can just give you the money which I earned for my lectures to pay for the plane ride. Medium of Exchange.

What if I want to do it for the joy of it, to help you get where you want?
You don't have fuel to pay me back the ride, and so lets say then I am out of fuel.
I'll ask for fuel and other people will answer to my pledge for fuel, for the joy of it, to share it with me, and so on.

I accidentally copied the top stuff cus I replied to my own comment by accident then copied and pasted it here~

#1123 to #1118 - airguitar ONLINE (0 minutes ago)
Alright, I will yet again reiterate this is an ideal situation. There are very few humans like this. Who will do the jobs no one wants to do?

In the past there used to be huge cesspools under ground. They were literally underground lakes of shit where everyone's toilet matter went. There are very few people, if any, who can stand this job. Who will do the job if no one enjoys doing it? There are many jobs like this, namely dangerous ones. There are many jobs where the demand for those kinds of people is much higher than the supply would be in your scenario. Without an incentive, why should people do these jobs if they get absolutely NO enjoyment?

2nd argument, say I want the flight because my mother (in canada) is dying. I really want to be there and have VERY high demand to be with her. But, at the time all the pilots around me are very busy because it is Father's day weekend (bullshit reason I know, but the idea is valid). So now, I really need this flight but all the pilots are doing something currently that they enjoy MORE than flying me to Canada. What can I do? I would give them a commodity or money if it is a world with individual ownership, but I am unable.

May seem a bit off, but this is when technologies comes in, technology is very assosiated with the idea of a resource based system.
Since we live in a capitalist world technology is not fully taken advantage world, you can see such jobs that could be easily done with machines still being done with humans.

Look at this article if you want an introduction to what I mean
www.theresourcebasedeconomy.com/2011/06/will-a-resource-based-economy-work/

Now I see where you get your ideas from. Listen, I think we will find no peace in this argument because although I believe history proves my point, there is no way to revert society back to the ways of pre-value (I say value because money can be literally anything, even dirt). I noticed one thing I want to say about the website and what you have said though:

Psychological studies have proven that "being happy" and "fullfilling yourself" are the last stage of need the humans reach. There are extensive studies backing this up, but the article acts like being happy and doing something because you want to is a big drive- in actuality it is not. Psychology shows there are a "hierarchy of needs" or in other words, there are many things you need before you will act out of self enjoyment. Among those are being well fed, safe, and even self esteem and being respected by your community. This means that it is proven that someone will still try to stay alive and stay safe before they will help another person for the sake of helping them.

I'd like to think of myself as a nice person. I would love to help people and give my services and money to charity. I do not because I must fulfill the bottom levels of the pyramid before i reach the top. See the Wikipedia page, specifically the intro and picture:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

This is some thing that has been proven but there are people that argue with it, maybe "self actualization" should be lower like you seem to believe. Still, staying alive is still more important than helping others, it is because of this that people earn, steal, kill for themselves and their family. Self interest has nothing to do with money - however you are not going to accept this I can tell.

It has been a stimulation conversation though sir.

This is what I said discuss :)
I never said you were wrong.

Thanks for sharing your opnions!

Mhmm, and I wish the world was more like you say, I kind of hate humans ^_^ Interesting convo though.

That's why we're such a bizarre specia.
Today than ever we should already know that we can only progress together, not with such harmful capitalism system.
(First step to remove a monetary system, destroy capitalism!)

DARN IT KEYBOARD

You're arguing with the wrong guy ;P I love capitalism. One last personal point about greed, I work hard to get money but I don't get that money because I want to spend it on myself- all I want money for is to buy plane tickets to visit my girlfriend in Canada (now you know where that scenario came from). That is a love-backed effort not for personal items and also I find it awesome that offer services to others in exchange for services I want. I see that aspect of capitalism extraordinary.

God darn it, this keyboard is driving me crazy. I have to look to what I write twice and still end up with missing words.

By the way, i never mentioned, the job was to basically go on a boat over these shit pools and clean them out.

-It's the influence from this monetary system that's making us more and more selfish.
We're NOT gready, selfish, etc. from birth, it's something we acquire.
Maybe some are born with more "Madness" than others and viceversa, maybe some stand up agaisnt their enviroment because they can't accept those ways, but they eventually are teached right.

I see that second point of you out of place or maybe I just can't understand it (I can safely say that you know way more economics than me)
But you still see money as a physic law, we can't live without it, like air.

I just felt like it is a point you were neglecting. There was greed long before money. Animals have greed. Why would one animal steal the food of another animal? If you look back at history people acted the same before money, fighting another country in a war is the same self interest: you are killing others for your hoped benefit. Money has absolutely nothing to do with greed in my opinion, and people are brought into this world with this self interest. If you look long into the past there were still hierarchies of one before others, why? Because humans seek that status of being better than others.

Now I apologize for my 2nd paragraph, I guess it was more of trying to talk about a point you hadn't covered. I do not like your belief that money is evil though. In some cases, money can corrupt people, but it is an object, it does not change people. The people, deep down within them already had the capacity to be like that. If you take human nature completely out, there are also many benefits of money that help EVERYONE out, they are outlined in that article I sent: Unit of Account, Medium of Exchange, and Store of Value.

Seeing that video, I like the concept. I really do. I would love a world with humans like that. But humans are NOT like that, especially when faced with death. When faced with death all you care about is yourself and family, this is true for anyone and is the basis of self interest. And I don't believe it is a bad thing as long as their are rules (I do believe in law and a government of upholding this law).

I hope this is more relevant, I strayed again a bit...

This is the key point here.

People don't know the value of their possessions without money

Yes, if money was destroyed there would be a hell storm. That is why hyperinflation is such a bad thing, because the values of items are distorted. No money all together is just incredibly inefficient. In the long run, societies without money just would be so far behind because they can not trade as much as a society with money.

Yeah, human nature is to look after number one, which is why it would never work in practice. Their theory was always crooked, it was always designed make people suffer for their own gain. Pure socialism as a core idea (not a particular spin on it like Marx. I'm talking the idea to start with), where everyone is equal is a beautiful idea, but it could never work.

It may be a cruel statement but I strongly do not believe people are equal. I believe people should be seen as equal under the law and in politics/civil rights but in terms of economics- some people have much more to offer other humans, which in a market economy renders them wealthier.

I was very strongly liberal before taking econ classes. The main thing that switched me is the incredible inefficiency that government is. Government is terrible at allocating resources and there is NO way that a central government can know what the millions of individuals in a market know. This is a problem that even ideal communism/socialism could not escape.

No, I agree with that. But I'm still strongly liberal. I know that makes no sense but it's true.

And when I say liberal, don't think of me as a fucking hippie.

Mhmm, and I respect you (especially since we are having an intellectual discussion). I have just observed that if you look at some liberals (not all) and especially those that follow John Maynard Keynes, they believe the problem is the social institutions. However, my mindset is that humans are inherently flawed and there can never exist a perfect society for this reason. Instead I believe the goal is to not give the poor money in the form of welfare and such bit to instead improve the quality of life and opportunities of all.

Throughout history this has happened, and even the poor people of America are much much better off than the poor of the past. My goal would be to continue this path.

I'll admit that firstly I have very little understanding of economics, and secondly, I'm British so I'm brought up liberal.

But assuming for arguments sake that Keynesian Economics are accurate for our economic systems (that's another argument that is fairly pointless arguing about), the chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. Yes, you can cut off the poor (putting it crudely, because you aren't leaving them behind fully), but that means less people can take the opportunities that you're hoping to improve, and only those born into wealth can seize the opportunities. Meaning the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and class divisions grow, Victorian Britain style.

Why do the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? That is not true unless the rich make good decisions and the poor make bad decisions. The rich can fuck up too, it happens all the time, look at (american) football players: they can make 50 million of more... but about 80% end up going bankrupt, why? Because even if you are rich you still need to make good decisions.

The poor ARE disadvantaged, but in a purely market economy they are less disadvantaged because a market economy offer more overall opportunities. Minimum wage is a prime example of this but I will not go into it. In a purely capitalistic economy the poor may be initially disadvantaged but they can climb the latter easier if they produce goods and services that others want. Look at the stories about a poor person striking it rich by coming up with an incredible idea, that happens only in a capitalistic economy.

I can understand both sides of that argument, but a huge problem I see in the current system is (1) large companies and rich people and lobby with politicians tog get ahead, something that wouldn't happen in a libertarian society (2) usually only BIG companies get bailed out. The big banking companies that got government money in 2008 made very bad decisions but got bailed out by the government. This is one of the things that makes the rich richer because they have a federal safety net.

Lol sorry I write so much.

Healthcare is an issue I am kind of in-between on. American healthcare is an utter shit storm. Our healthcare costs the most in the world per person. If we were to go to universal healthcare that statistic would rise even more... I have looked briefly at Canadian healthcare. It is a well structured system. It incorporates both central government AND competition. The only problem still evident is that societies that have universal healthcare use it (I think this is an accurate statistic but I don't quite remember, you'll get the idea) 30% more than in countries where they pay for healthcare. However, the health of these two societies are the same.. This simply shows some of the waste and inefficiency of universal healthcare. Compared to the U.S. it is still much much better.

why should everyone be equal? My grandfather came from a very poor family and worked his ass off to become successful, why? So that his children could live good lives. So that the next generations could start out with a better opportunity. This is another inherent aspect of human nature- helping your children. There are no "kings and queens" anymore (mostly). If the parents are rich, why are they rich? Because they produced something to society that society made them wealthy for. Money isn't given to rich people for no reason (on the big scale). This is even less so in a Laissez-faire economy where you can only become rich by helping society.

I know it may seem cruel, but it is a belief I only follow because it is heavily backed by statistics and history. Because humans are imperfect there is NO perfect society. Some people will always be poor, regardless of how much welfare you give them. They are humans.

What you're describing is a utopia which will never exist in our lifetime

Marxism- not even once.

I've considered that. But as stated is that transitioning would be impossible, or just a royal bitch in this day & age

It could work, but in the current countries, it would require an entire cultural, economical and industrial overhaul