do you reckon the world would be a better place if money hadn't been invented?

Question

hmmm just wondering!

Answer 1

Imagine taking a flock of sheep to the supermarket to pay for things, or having to take your entire baggage allowance in high-quality cheese to spend when you go on holiday. That's be really inconvenient.

Answer 2

It depends on why it hadn't been invented. It could be that it wasn't necessary because of widespread slavery or serfdom. In that case, it probably wouldn't be better. Payment in kind might tie people to their situations. On the other hand, my ancestors used to pay rent in kind for their land, but in the eighteenth century decided to start paying it in money, with the result that they lost it and had to move into a Glasgow tenement. I am in a similar situation now, in that i pay rent in kind for my home, but the result is that i cannot realistically move, which is the downside because of the poor quality of the house. This sort of situation also arises because of barter - if the person with whom you are trading doesn't want what you offer, you can't get what you want from them.

A modern solution to this problem is the Local Exchange Trading System, where credits are accumulated for goods and services which can be redeemed for other goods or services available on the scheme. More advanced than this are Freecycle, random acts of kindness and "pay it forward". There is also the custom of gift giving, where one's status depends on how generous one is with one's labour. In that situation, money is not a factor.

If money didn't exist because there was more mutual trust and altruism was more widespread then the world would indeed be a better place. There could still be a problem with this though, which is that money is to some extent symbolic of energy, either as embodied in labour or in terms of raw materials - fossil fuels, for example. The Technocracy Movement of the early twentieth century tried to address this by proposing that goods and services would be valued in terms of the energy they embody rather than money, by an organisation known as the Technate. This would record all available natural resources, ability to contribute to society and consumption habits, then create from that an equal entitlement for each person in that society to use a fair amount of energy. However, some people would claim that scarcity rather than abundance is necessary to motivate people to work, and that this is not feasible using existing technology. I personally would argue that a potential problem is that there is a concentration of power which can easily be abused in such a system. Technology clearly can provide for everyone's physical needs, and in fact hunter-gatherer societies have been seen as affluent because relatively little labour is required to provide food, clothes and shelter for the whole community, so this has probably always been so. Arguments against the Technate system of energy accounting seem to me to be very flimsy and symptomatic of vested interests.

There have also been local currency movements based on crops and the like as a standard rather than gold, and of course there is also gold itself, but the value of this can vary as a result of technological and social change. In the early 1970s, a unit of currency known as the Constant was tried in Canada.

So, the short answer is yes.

Answer 3

Not really; we'd have found something else to use instead. Every civilization in history has developed some kind of monetary or promisory system for trade. There's no going back on that one.
Now, the love of money is a whole different question!

Answer 4

I think so becasue transactions would have to be more face to face,relational see who you are ripping off - and grounded in something real.
I think we woudln't have this strange relationship with money hoarded for its own sake - a mark of status. Or the sense at the moment that no one now has a grip on world finances - it has taken on a life of its own.

yes I too woudl liek to see a system that is co-operative and playful and skills exchanged freely and everyoen having enough to eat.

Answer 5

So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of all money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

Answer 6

Could be only marginally better... after all, money is just the common means for the various things we desire to have or acquire... the main malady lies in what we want to have and acquire through the money, rather than in the money itself.... the only additional issue with money is that because it is such a common and standard means for everything, it begins to get desired for its own sake as well.

Answer 7

Money has nothing to do with human greed. People are greedy for power, appreciation, envy, material possessions... money is just a road to get it.
If there was no money in the world, it would not matter for people will strive directly for whatever turns them on.

Answer 8

Yes.
There is no need for trading of anything.As long as there are people assigned to different jobs and all services /goods are free.The only requirement to obtain goods or services is by showing proof that you are part of the overall assignment.If you aren't adding to the system you can't have access to the system - simple as that!

Answer 9

The monetary system serves us as a tool, which simplifies the commerce of goods & services. monetary(from mono: one) puts all transactions under a 'common' unit of measure. To call this system 'evil', one would also have to consider monotheism just as 'evil'

The problem of any tool is that it can just as easily be used as a weapon; And being a form of power, can be used to exploit others.

Answer 10

No, because people would just trade in goods - like a barter system instead. Its over simplistic to think getting rid of money would solve or change anything.

Answer 11

One major problem with money isn't with money itself, but how it is abused. As long as money represents real wealth it can't be abused too badly. But modern governments will simply print money without anything to back it up, and so now we're in a horrible mess.