This conversation is closed.

Could we build a world without money?

Money has taken over our lives, both when we have it and when we do not. Money is also responsible for a big part of the suffering happening all around then world, i.e. people not having access to clean water because it would cost too much to install the necessary machines to filter and provide water. We have the technology to remove the salt from the oceans, so why are there still people dying of thirst or from diseases unhealthy water? Is money a reasonable excuse to allow our fellow humans to suffer and die? I believe not.
I do not think that everything about money is bad, but it has been used for so long, and it has not really improved our condition as human beings, did it? I does make trade easier, but as I asked previously, is that a reasonable excuse to allow so much pain and suffering all around the world?
That is why I was wondering if there could be any kind of way to build a world in which we would not have to depend on money, and still improve technologically, as well as morally.

  • Jan 3 2012: The biggest problem blocking humanity's social evolution into a system where money is no longer necessary can be summed up in the lie of scarcity.

    Scarcity is the idea that resources are limited and there needs to be a control system to keep us from blindly wasting all we have. This is a lie that we are all forced to believe from early on in life. The simple truth is that we have surpassed scarcity through technology. Ever-increasing automation is driving down the need for manual labor. Solar power has been proven to be at a level where we can supply power for the entire planet, if we properly applied it; some problems still lie in transmission, but there are "new" technologies working to solve those issues (Tesla anyone?). We can grow food anywhere with hydroponics. We could be distributing water more efficiently. We could be developing those areas that are the poorest and giving a sustainable life to the oncoming population of 10 BILLION people. Over-population is part of this lie as well.

    There is a handful of FASCISTS running our world. We need to take it back.
  • Dec 17 2011: Yes Mr. Schrankel, we can...
    And more importantly we must. OR, rather you must, those of you younger than I, for the changes that must be made are not for me, they are for you and all of you who will be alive in the near future. Don't listen to those who say it cannot be done. Don't believe for one moment that your premise is flawed at all. Just because it might not be 100% perfect or flawless, why is it so readily dismissed? Because the majority of people can no longer think unless they only think within the confines of their "prison-box" in which they are told to think in.
    To think that what we currently have isn't so fsucking flawed and is working so poorly, is proof that any naysayers are prisoners of their own deep-seated CONVICTions.
    MONEY IS THE CAUSE OF INEQUALITY. It looks like Mr. Long is up there in age, as am I, which lends itself to belief in the lies one has been told for so long. Only when one tinkers-in-thought inside the box, with the same broken tools, for the same broken institutions and broken systems, will they then think their wisdom is, "no, it can't be done." Neither can flying, putting someone on the moon, replacing a heart, curing disease, or ending inequality, poverty, slavery, greed, crime, war and death, simply because we have been brainwashed into believing what we are told to believe. Many have become "artificially intelligent" in this way. By the way (and this is a progression from one into the other), inequality, poverty, slavery, greed, crime, war and death, are at least seven needs of any monetary system necessary for it to survive. Are they your needs or the needs of others who just want to live in peace?
    Don't fix the broken political systems: GET RID OF THEM

    I have a project idea for helping the world move as smoothly as possible into a non-monetary system but no one wants to listen, nor even try and think, "well, how could this be done? Let's do it." It has to be done, or your saltless oceans will die and you won't have water
    • Dec 17 2011: And what is this "project idea" of yours? I would like to hear more about it, any new ideas are always welcome and useful.
    • Jan 3 2012: I am personally very interested in hearing the project idea. I would like to also work on said project.
  • thumb
    Dec 14 2011: what is interesting about the response to the post is that we seemed to have forgot that many cultures around the world and throughout human history have gladly lived their lives without money and are pretty well off. Now do some of these cultures have cell phones or Mac's? of course not but are these the things in which we measure what a good life is? what exactly do we want out of the world?

    Do we want to live in a world in which 80% of the wealth goes to the top 20%? Do we want to live in a world in which people are kicked out of their jobs and homes and then seek education as an alternative only to find out that eduction is no longer an option due to budget cuts? In this sense what are these people left to do if they cannot work or go to school and do not have a place to stay because there is not enough money in the piggy bank?

    We have habituated our minds to the point that a world w/o money is seen as unrealistic and to be quite honest this is the root of the issue because if we are to shoot down every alternative that is mentioned but yet admit that there is something wrong with the current system, then what exactly are we to do?
    • Dec 14 2011: What are we to do? We could always keep hoping for the best while watching the world fall apart...jokes aside, I believe that is quite the interesting point, except that I believe we could make it work while keeping our technological knowledge...I mean, not necessarily Mac's, the brand name would be irrelevant, but without having to pay the price which prevents all of us to have it.
      • thumb
        Dec 15 2011: that is very true and exactly my point. It just seems that people need to be motivated by some sort of incentive. I read a book saying that humans are by nature reward driven.

        but if you ask me, many treatments and perhaps a cure for cancer could have been found a long ago if we were not so buys trying to raise money and instead looked at the bigger picture but that's just my opinion.
  • thumb
    Dec 13 2011: This is my favorite question so far! Humanity has the technology to reduce suffering all over the world ! Yes, a world without the need for money is possible. If I were a better writer, I would love to explain how.
    • Dec 14 2011: Why not give it a try anyways? I believe any idea is worth sharing, and being a good or bad writer should not stop you from giving your opinion. =)
  • Dec 13 2011: Money is just a tool that has appeared out of necessity, to facilitate exchanging and expressing value - when selling/buying products or services. It is not the ultimate tool, because it cannot measure all types of value - how much does a sunset cost? Or the support of a friend?

    Money in itself is not to be blamed for what people do or don't do with it.

    I am happy to see though that people are interested and moving towards using money more fairly. (ethical banking, fair trade)

    And I think we can improve morally without needing to eradicate money.
    Instead we could also improve how we see and use money and build it into a better world.
    • Dec 14 2011: I do agree we can improve morally while still using money, and as much as I wish there could be a way to use it more fairly, our current system does hardly prevent one from doing whatever he/she wants to do with his/her money.

      Perhaps what could work is keeping money for anything that does not directly affect our basic needs, being food, water, and shelter. If we could promote free access to the bare minimum for the whole planet, it would already be a huge step forward...but then again, where should the money for this come from? The government? Well one of the problem is that the political systems in the Third World are often unstable, or under a dictatorship, two conditions which could prevent this kind of project.

      Yes, money is simply a tool, but even with a higher knowledge of morality, it would still be too easy for a rotten apple to ruin it all for everyone.
      • Dec 14 2011: Nobody is perfect, nor is the system. We can't expect it to be. If we want it to be different, well nobody will change it for us, we need to express what we think is appropriate and what isn't. And use proper arguments as to what decision is made.

        I think the examples of fair trade and ethical banking are a step in the right direction.
        It means you only give your money to companies or banks that you trust will use it fairly, ethically. And there are rules they must follow and people who make sure they do. So when you buy a product, you are supporting that company. And by choosing what you buy, you are choosing who you give your power to, quite directly.
        And if more and more people step into this, unethical companies will... run out of money. Problem solved!
    • thumb
      Dec 14 2011: Hello Zsofia

      nice post

      I agree that there are somethings that money cannot buy (as you pointed out.
      I also agree with you that there should be a more ethical/moral approach in how we deal with money in regards to other individuals.

      What I don't agree with (to a degree) and I'd love to hear your response is your statement "Money in itself is not to be blamed for what people do or don't do with it". I just want to ask, you do not see money as a motivator for some of the injustice that goes around in the world? the reason as to why people are very anxious to kill someone for money. Divorce their wives, etc. Now I understand that a piece of paper does not have an intent of its own but what it symbolizes is the problem.

      Nonetheless are you stating that people are not motivated to do injustice due to money or do you think the issue of injustice extends well beyond the issue of money?
      • Dec 14 2011: Hi Orlando, thanks for your reply.
        As to your question, how I see it:
        When people feel compelled to cause suffering in order to gain money, that is not because money exists, eradicating money wouldn't make them stop. People in those situations don't just want some pieces of paper or numbers in their bank - they want the power and security and prestige and whatever else comes with it.
        Money in itself is Worthless.
        It is the value of it people crave and if it didn't exist, people would pile up other things that express value such as jewellery or luxury goods.
        So what I meant is that people do what they do whether or not money exists. And in itself the existence of money is far more helpful than harmful to us, as humans.
        Yes, injustice is not caused by money, it is people who act and use it for better or worse purposes.
        • thumb
          Dec 15 2011: Hello Zsofia

          I do agree that the establishment of money would not make people stop doing unjust things. I mean even before the creation of money or wealth people were still killing each other. Perhaps that is just part of being an aggressive animal.

          I do agree that power and security but I would have to say they are looking for security more than anything because you can't have power if you feel unprotected. I

          As a matter of fact I'll just say it now, I agree with most of what you say but I'll just extend my point:

          I hope that I was not coming off as if I was stating that money is the only means for someone to act unjust but don't you think that if money were to be eradicated, many bad things would go away given that fact that: 1) their motivations would not be based off obtaining more money 2)since we live in a society that is based off money and that (at least in the U.S.) money is the root to most of the issues that go on out here (I'm sure it happens other places as well) 3) that poverty is a great contributor to many of the the worlds ills and can contribute to many negative, psychological states of mind.

          In the end, as mentioned it does come down to the individual of course but the environment that they are brought up in also contributes to this sort of behavior and the values that they have. There really is a difference between and Individual living in a capitalistic, democratic society like the U.S. and an individual living in a Buddhist community.
      • Dec 15 2011: Yes, I agree that individuals are greatly influenced by the type of society they are born into and they mostly inherit the values that are encouraged and shared in that society. There is a multitude of ways on earth to live and see life.

        I don't think many bad things would go away without money. I think suddenly many many bad things would happen... Because people would experience it as a crash, a regression, creating a huge feeling of insecurity. (But that's how I imagine it) And it could be called a regression, because it wouldn't be moving forward, improving on what we have already invented - it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

        I think it is a question of what we focus on: the money or the behaviour.
        I don't know if you've heard of the finger that points at the moon. If you just look at the finger, you'll never realise that it is pointing to something else. I think that if there's a feeling of money not being used well, we should look at what that is pointing to, what it reveals, and acknowledge what is going wrong and try to fix that, not cut off our finger...

        This is a very interesting conversation to me. I just wrote the response I felt, let me know if you think I didn't fully respond to your points.
      • Dec 16 2011: Hi, In response to "Money in itself is not to be blamed for what people do or don't do with it",I have to disagree. In order to fully understand Money we have to sit outside and look in - If you were new to "earth" and saw millions of people dying because of a piece of paper(or lack of it) you would consider humans to have lost their minds. Put it another way - If we had an asteroid heading for earth threatening to wipe the entire planet out would we say "We don't have £200million to build a defensive missile?" The cost of everything is irrelevant. We have enough resources to do anything. Money creates unecessary jobs, (put in place for the sake of making more money). Without money we would have no need for accountants, investment bankers, the list goes on. There used to be a time humans would live for 25 years and spend almost every hour LIVING - Now we live till 100 and spend 80% of that working for the sake of it. I work and have done since I could, however I do have to question sometimes who has the better STANDARD of living. Most of my family who don't work, don't have much money but spend most of their days with their children, LIVING, or me, someone who has quite a few material possesions yet the last time I did anything other than work/ sleep was.... well i don't remember. It also HINDERS innovation instead of helping it. Companies sue each other over patents instead of welcoming the help to improve technologies. Technology is made to fail to continue the spending of money. Things are not made to last, they are made to break. If a company made something that was perfect they would have a short life. The saddest thing about this is I see no way to change - For us to change the richest of the richest people/ companies/ governments would all have agree on the same day that money is worthless however everyone should continue to contribute to the future of our kind, now who would do that?
  • Dec 12 2011: I am not sure if we could life without money. However, if every single person in the world agreed on it, then there would be the possibility. The ideal world is for everyone to get along and everyone have food and all the necessities they need. However, with the way the world is now, because of the greed of people, we will never have the perfect world. If people weren't greedy, we could have a world with out money. If people weren't greedy, everyone would have the things they need.
    Right now, North America accounts for 25-30% of the worlds natural resources, if everyone wanted to live with food and everything, we'd need quite a few more earths. As of right now, we are one of the main causes for people to not have fresh water and food, in fact, if I remember the percentage correctly, only 0.025% of the world's fresh water is available for human consumption, think of how much there is used for all those bottles of water at a store, which has many chemicals in it.
    Because of the water bottling industry, people in other parts of the world are missing out on water. People don't see how bad it is to buy bottled water. People should use tap water, it is safe, and it is a lot better than bottled water, at least tap water is tested daily and doesn't contain cancer-causing substances.
    As you can see, people are greedy and because of that, we can't live without money, if they weren't greedy, we could probably live without it. I have kind of jumped all over the place, but does it make sense?
    • Dec 12 2011: Yes, it does make sense, and I agree with most of what you said. The only thing is that I do not think that we need more earths in order to provide enough food for everyone, we only need to make our food production more efficient, i.e. not putting such an emphasis on meat production. We spend way too much water and grains to produce the meat we eat. If we would simply cut down our consumption of beef (which requires the most water/grains), we could use the resources we save to allow more people to eat/drink.
      And you are right about the greed of humans preventing a money-less world, but at the same time, money does not help us control and limit greedy people either.
      As for the water industry, I find it all very revolting. Especially since most of the water companies sell their water at unreasonable prices to people who cannot afford it, whether in Africa, South America, or any other place were people do not necessarily have access to tab water. As for the water bottles, they should just be made illegal, in my opinion.
      • Dec 13 2011: By having more earths, I meant the to have enough natural resources (oil, water, etc) for every country to become developed countries like Canada.Because of where all of North America uses 25-30% of the natural resources, for every country to become like us, we'd need many more earths. I agree with you completely on what you said about making food production more efficient, and not producing so much meat, I am basically almost a vegetarian, so I agree! Yes, water bottles should be illegal, but because of how much money they get from selling it, it stays legal, however, if people stop buying it, they will stop selling it, which would be very beneficial to the health of people and the environment, a great documentary which talks a lot about this is called tapped, it is a very informative documentary that shows what happens behind the scenes, you can watch it for free! Anyway, as for the greed of people, you are right, it doesn't help us control and limit the greed of people, in fact greed is one of the main causes for wars and disputes, I personally wish we could have a world without money, however at this point, I believe it is impossible.
  • thumb
    Dec 11 2011: Money is the common language between trades. Would we be able to communicate with one another without a common language?

    Like any language money started crude. It was stones and shells that evolved into world economies of vast complexity.

    Even if you found a better common language the next problem would be to change the old way of thinking. Since money is so embedded in everything we do this is a close to impossible task. Esperanto is a good example. It might be an easier language for the world to use yet no body does. Would you go study Esperanto and stop using English?
    • Dec 11 2011: I liked the comparison with Esperanto, and I agree that the change would not be an easy or fast one. But it would not be impossible, especially if the economic problems keep getting getting bigger and bigger. If our current economy collapses, would it not be worth thinking about a system that may reduce if not eliminate the inequalities that we have because of money?

      And studying Esperanto would not necessarily mean to stop using English, at least not right away. If Esperanto was implemented as part of the schools curricula, just like English, in a few generations it may be as widely used, would it not?
      • thumb
        Dec 11 2011: I agree. Nothing is impossible. The world language changes with the fall of empires. I guess it will take a total economic meltdown before something else can take it's place. Do we have something to take it's place?
        • Dec 11 2011: I could not say if there is anything that could actually take its place, other than theoretically speaking. But I believe we will have to find an answer to this question sooner or later. Furthermore, I do not believe that one person would be able to find the answer to that, it would take the contribution of a variety of thinkers to come up with something functional.

          Personally, I wish for a world in which cooperation would be more important than competition, sharing knowledge, ideas, and resources. Imagine if the world would come together, and create communities that would not be formed by race, ethnicity, or political/religious beliefs, but by areas of expertise. I do not favor science over religion or art, since I believe all are important, and therefore people could come together and share their passion. If we made all the scientists that specialize in the cure of cancer work together, could they not come up with a cure? If money would not be an issue, could we not all have cars that would not pollute? Could we not work together to provide food, water, and shelter to those who do not have access to any of them?

          But this is just one idea, roughly sketched, which would need to be worked on, an utopian fantasy. As I said, we need to work together on a system that could be better for all of humanity, even though it cannot ever be perfect, since we are not infallible.
      • thumb
        Dec 11 2011: Well said. I wholeheartedly believe that your vision will some day to true. Best of luck to all of us :)
  • Dec 29 2011: The basis of almost every social contract is centered off of the idea of property and individual right to and protection of said property. It is, for me, Utopian to believe that people could conceive property without ownership being attached to it at least with the prologue that is our worlds history. Even if we were able t create such a world there would exist those elements of society that would attempt to control the property for themselves. Remember that it is not money that is evil, but the human element of greed for money- the physical manifestation of power.
  • Dec 12 2011: Hi Gianluca,

    You're confusing the messenger with the message. Money is simply a way to store and transfer the results of one person's efforts and resources to other people. Saying that we could end the worlds problems if we eliminated money is like saying that we would eliminate bad news if we got rid of the news organizations.

    Best wishes,
    Doug Bell
    • Dec 12 2011: Hey Doug,
      I do agree that it is simply a tool, but could we not come up with one that causes less inequalities?
      I disagree with your analogy though, because news organizations are not the cause of the bad news, since bad news would still happen. On the other hand, if we do not have money, we would eliminate poverty, but we would also not have access to the excuse "it's too expensive" in order to prevent others to have access to water and/or food. I believe the problem with money is that people can hoard it, and that not having any endangers ones survival. Furthermore, money does not allow us not to need it. We cannot build a cabin in the woods, and grow/hunt our own food, simply because someone will want to claim taxes on our house.
      • Dec 12 2011: Hi Gianluca,

        I look at money as a symbolic representation of an economy's resources. People control those resources, everyone to a greater or lesser extent. Money is simply a way of measuring how much a person controls. and providing a simple way to transfer control of different assets to another. That's just as true for Warren Buffet spending billions on a new company as it is for me spending $20 for a case of beer. Changing how you measure that control, or the way it is transferred, does not change the fact that someone controls the resources and may not allocate them as you desire.

        I disagree that money can be hoarded. What I put in a bank will be invested almost immediately, either by my choice of investment, or by the bank's use of the funds in it's own investments. Simply put, there's no way for me to avoid playing the risk / reward game with my retirement savings. Even gold buried in the back yard has risk involved.

        Best wishes,
        Doug Bell
  • thumb
    Dec 12 2011: Mr. Schrankel, thanks for a thought-provoking question.By "a world" do you mean a planet-wide culture? If yes, then I say no.But there are so-called "stone age cultures" which have been discovered in deep, dark jungles which have built, and run their isolated world just fine without money. Perhaps we could study their model and apply it globally.I suspect there are inherent differences between making a spear and making a Large Hadron Collider, but, hey, maybe an experiment is in order.
    • Dec 12 2011: Does a world-wide cooperation really sound that impossible? I know it has little-to-no chances of happening anytime soon, but would we really not be able to find a way for everyone to benefit from and contribute to this planet-wide culture without a system which allows for such inequalities as money?
      And if two people are able to work together to build a spear, couldn't a larger number of scientists and engineers come together to build a Large Hadron Collider? I believe that with all the communication technology we have available such a project would be possible. After all, our world has been compared to a "Global Village" because of the globalization of everything.
      I believe we still have quite some learning to do from those "stone age cultures" and, as you said, perhaps we could try their model, but the question of how still remains.
      • thumb
        Dec 12 2011: It does seem impossible Gianluca. Not one instance of world-wide cooperation has occurred in human history. Statistically speaking your odds for success are not far from zero. Your premise that money is to blame for inequality is probably flawed, and, I suspect could be falsified with not too much effort (no, I am not volunteering).Stone-age societies have trade goods, every culture has trade goods. First world cultures use currency as their primary trade good. What do you advocate as a replacement for money?
        • Dec 14 2011: I do not believe that it is impossible because it never happened, we never had the technology available to coordinate such a project, but now everyone is connected with the internet.
          Money is probably not the only cause for the inequality, but it is greatly responsible for maintaining it. And I would love to have it falsified, so that I can rethink and develop my idea, which is the primary reason why I posted my question.
          And I do not know what to use instead of money, other than everyone who contributes to society can also benefit from it. Yes, it is quite a rough idea, and it most certainly needs to be developed more, but I did not have the opportunity to wrap my head around it.
        • Jan 3 2012: You DON'T replace it. You use much of the already standing production and distribution systems, and remove the "profit" motive; then progress to full-automation (we're almost there anyway).

          It has been proven that generally people respond better to the reward of shared social benefit more than simple monetary gain. Conversely, it has also been shown that the upper-class are generally detached from "common" people and therefore have very little empathy for others.
    • thumb
      Dec 13 2011: Do we need the Large Hedron Collider Ed? (what is one anyway, if you get my point). I am being facecious as you probably guessed but actually I think money is both useful and convenient, if we expect to have commodities at all. Lugging a bag of grain around to trade for trip to the next village, would be conceivably more of a hassle than a printed piece of paper, however much an illusion that piece of paper actually is. Instead of a world without money, what about a world without debt?
      • thumb
        Dec 13 2011: Joanne you are just full of questions and I like that! It happens frequently with my Grandkids but rarely with adults. Anyway, I assume you want my opinion on your topics.
        1). Do we need an LHC (whatever it is)? I wanted to cite an example of a gargantuan project having a prodigious appetite for currency. I personally don't use one but they say it has the potential to teach us how our universe functions. So I say we need it.
        2). A debt free world? You MUST post that question on its own! It is crisp, candid, provocative and relevant. Do it!
        Except for one big-ticket item- my house mortgage- I am debt free and it seems to work so long as my wife and I can overcome the urge for instant gratification.
        Thanks for your comments.
        • thumb
          Dec 13 2011: I think I will Ed thank you! I had better do some work first though, the mortgage is due again this month!
        • Dec 16 2011: A World without debt? I don't see where we have this debt we talk about so often. It seems to me that every country is in debt yet I don't understand how this is possible? Who do these people owe all of this money too? Does the trail ever end. To me its a big web of confusion. If we found the end of the debt trail something could be done, yet the problem is one debt is to someone, who also owes some one, who is also in debt to someone, so eventually it should come back full circle to the point where actually the debt doesn't exist !
      • Dec 14 2011: I do not think a world with money but without debt is possible, for the single reason that banks would not exist without loans, which create debt on the other end. And without loans, hardly anyone could buy big items, as you Mr. Long demonstrated with his mortgage...
        Yet, erasing the debt of Third World countries may be a good start to allow them to maybe build a better future for themselves, the perfect example of that is Somaliland.
        • thumb
          Dec 14 2011: Usury has been a crime in some societies, and is considered morally wrong by a couple of the big religions. What if it were still the case? Are banks really that beneficial? Perhaps we would be better off without them. Some groups in modern society are excluded from the banking system for whatever reason, they still manage to buy big items and invest. For example in my community the Pacific Island families are often not eligible for credit so they have to fund buying houses in other ways. The do it be pooling their resources and working together. I guess they use social capital rather than financial capital. Perhaps I am talking about two things, microfinance and a people's bank.

          I agree with you about third world debt, but I am interested in ways we ourselves can be made free from the tyranny of debt and the banking sector.
      • Dec 14 2011: Well, maybe if we would only keep banks to store our money, without having them lend it, which may be what you are referring to as a people's bank (I am not familiar with the term myself). I do believe the last part of your answer is worth being discussed more in depth, perhaps you could create another question about it?
        As for an answer, to deliver ourselves from debt, we should just stop the whole "get now, pay later" mentality that is associated with loans, credit cards, etc. But this can cause problems, especially for people who are not very wealthy, i.e. how to pay for a car which they need to get to work. Pooling resources works to a certain extent, but some things are still quite hard to share.
        • thumb
          Dec 14 2011: Hi Gianluca, I apologise for my earlier remark re lugging a sack of grain, it was too flippant I think. In fact your question has really made me think and I like that, so thanks.

          All kinds of currency, whether it is barter or money, or something else, are really nothing more than obligation transactions. I guess that we can probably say that human societies function because of cooperation between individuals and so exist because of these exchanges of obligation. Our monetary system is just a supremely complex example of obligatory exchange.

          Then we cannot really talk about discarding it per se, in my opinion, but I think we can look at how economic power is disproportionally monopolised through our current system and try to develop alternatives. A number of currency alternatives exist already, also small community financial cooperatives (people's banks? we would have to call them something) could be an idea worthy of merit. I bet Orlando has some better ideas.
      • thumb
        Dec 14 2011: Nice response Joanne (no surprises there)

        I would like to actually like to add what you mentioned.

        I do think, that money does have it use (as you mentioned with your example of the market place) and your right that debt is indeed the issue here.

        The core of the issue here is how money is used as a means of control just as much as it is used as a means for production and resources. Those in power have in a very clever way created a system in which they can both control them people by the use of money, while at the same time keeping those who they control from knowing how they do so....

        I agree with you, I think a world without banks would be a better world and to answer you question in regards to your other post, I think the only way "we can be made free from the tyranny of debt and the banking sector" is when people start to realize that it is really possible to live in a world without money and that in this day in age, it would be risky but at the same time possible and take courage to want to change you life.

        But I think there is a bigger issue Joanne (sorry for the long response). I think what people are afraid of is that they think a world without money will bring us back to the stone ages. What people do not realize is that all the innovations in human history (technology, political systems, scientific knowledge, education, medicine, etc) all resulted from someone's hard work, education, skills, determination and all the things that money can't buy. The construction of building, the thirst for knowledge, the cure of cancer, etc can really come about without the creation of money.

        But sadly, we do not see this as a possibility nowadays because people do not think that we are motivated to do so without some sort of personal gain...I guess a virtuous life really does not apply to the modern world.
  • Comment deleted

  • thumb
    Dec 11 2011: no. money is the deepest root of human civilization. making money work for society is the question at hand.
    • Dec 11 2011: Do you have any ideas about how we could make it work? I would be quite interested, since I cannot think of any.
      • thumb
        Dec 11 2011: communism.
        • Dec 11 2011: How would you make communism work? It has been tried with the Soviet Union and failed. China seems to partly make it work, are you suggesting the world should follow their example?
        • thumb
          Dec 11 2011: communism didn't work because they force implemented it. Marx had a plan. There are stages a society should go through before reaching the ultimate stage. Capitalism is one of stages. Next is socialism. Only a highly evolved society can implement communism. There can be no greed of power struggles. Human nature is not there yet. Hopefully some day we will be.
      • thumb
        Dec 11 2011: well, in theory of course..