FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


when will we evolve from using money? (zeitgeist movement)





epspk
Seriously the way economic markets have been moving is dangerous. Market crashes, job loss and many other kinds of financial crisis in different countries around the globe shows that money is growing but its true value is nothing. Surely because of money, life in this world has improved, a lot of technologies and a lot of things happened if it weren't for money, but that was in the previous century... how about now? Is the use of money for means of exchange still the best way? Because of money, the rich get rich and the poor get poorer.. and the gap in between seems to get bigger and bigger. If you think you're middle class, you're actually poor because you can lose everything overnight even if you have the right investments. What is really happening is that the poor to middle class person has to Work for money, while the rich have money that works for them to earn more money. The poor and middle class will always be in a rat race, unless something happens (win the lottery, invent or discover something). Every year, inflation grows. It has never gone down. Our governments have to constantly make new money just to make ends meet.. and they make them out of thin air! The true value of money? Nothing! Our money today is made out of debt, debt of our governments from big corporations or banks. One day, all markets will collapse because of money and it will create chaos or even war! If not, then private corporations will take over countries and their governments for being unable to pay. If any of those happens then were screwed.

Money is really nice to have. But when will we ever grow up to not depending on it and start finding better ways of currency than money?

for more info visit http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com
c'tair
Any idea for substituting money with something better? I don't think so.

And money itself isn't evil, it's a tool. It was twisted by people so it seems evil, but the ones that did and do the twisting are evil, not the tool itself.

I try to lead a frugal and humble life, only spend money when there is a need for it and by need I mean I have enough cloths for the next 2-3 years, I don't go to gym and workout at home instead, I don't eat out and prepare my own meals and I don't buy new gadgets every month because the ones I have meet my needs.

Also, I have a very bad notion of zeitgeist, the movie, as well as the movement associated with it because I think the movie is based on many fallacies and appeals to non-critical thinkers.
ocalhoun
You don't need to completely eradicate money, just make the currency based on something.

In the US, currency used to be based on a gold standard; a certain bill was worth a certain amount of gold, and this amount never changed.

That would greatly help in preventing any problems with inflation or deflation, which are the only problems you can truthfully attribute to the currency itself.

Other problems, such as a credit crisis, could happen just as well in a no-currency barter system... Only worse. Suppose you can't pay off the loan on your car because the bank demands payment in the form of oil, but oil 'prices' just skyrocketed due to a hurricane wiping out refineries, so you can no longer make enough circuit boards to trade for that amount of oil...

Properly maintained, uniform currency makes things far simpler.
c'tair
^ Exactly.

I still have a 1958 1$ bill which, at that time, could've been traded for it's worth in silver, because it was backed up with that precious metal. But then, don't remember exactly, in the 50s or 60s it all went to sh it because they split currency from it's worth in something.
menino
With money, the rich and poor and middle class will always be classified, and comparing one to the other, no one will be happy.
Even if there was an other currency, I don't think people will benefit from this, as people are greedy and want to be rich.
Its not money that is the root of evil, but greed actually.

Right now, people use credit cards and debit cards instead of money, and in future, I think people will pay through mobile phones, whereby currently people use online accounts like paypal.
Credit cards are the culprit that causes debt, i think
(maybe they might use frihost $'s later on Laughing )

But I doubt that a common currency will resolve the issue of the poor.

I think the best way to help the poor is by helping them to build schools, and water wells, and help them with farming, etc, so that they can help themselves to come up, from their poverty.

Some poor people cannot be helped, because they seem to want to stay that way, and some are in situations beyond their control, such as in somalia, where food aid is captured by rebels or some military factions, and then sold to the same people.

Its a difficult topic to resolve, but hopefully it will be resolved soon.
ocalhoun
I'm a still pretty sketchy on this, so I'd honestly like some clarification...

What would a Zeitgeist's ideal world look like?
How would people earn and get what they want/need?
c'tair
ocalhoun wrote:
I'm a still pretty sketchy on this, so I'd honestly like some clarification...

What would a Zeitgeist's ideal world look like?
How would people earn and get what they want/need?


I've asked these sorts of people the same questions and none can really provide an answer. Money or currency is the natural evolution of barter trade. It makes trade so much easier. I believe it's either go back to bartering (which has it's merits in modern times ie. ability to trade goods without paying tax) or remain with money. Unless one believes in a world where people love one another and just give other's what the other's need and they all take hands and sing under the sky. Beautiful dream, but only a dream.
ocalhoun
c'tair wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
I'm a still pretty sketchy on this, so I'd honestly like some clarification...

What would a Zeitgeist's ideal world look like?
How would people earn and get what they want/need?


I've asked these sorts of people the same questions and none can really provide an answer. Money or currency is the natural evolution of barter trade. It makes trade so much easier. I believe it's either go back to bartering (which has it's merits in modern times ie. ability to trade goods without paying tax) or remain with money. Unless one believes in a world where people love one another and just give other's what the other's need and they all take hands and sing under the sky. Beautiful dream, but only a dream.


Do they really advocate a wholesale return to the barter system?
Or do they really think that people will give others what they need/want freely?

Neither is practical or realistic at all... I'm just wondering if they actually have some bright idea of a new way things could work. (Before I dismissed the movement as completely disconnected with reality.)
watersoul
ocalhoun wrote:

Do they really advocate a wholesale return to the barter system?
Or do they really think that people will give others what they need/want freely?

Neither is practical or realistic at all... I'm just wondering if they actually have some bright idea of a new way things could work. (Before I dismissed the movement as completely disconnected with reality.)


I struggle understanding how this utopia can exist without some form of "token" to exhange wealth instead of a barter alternative.
How does the barber trade with the bald man who sells peanuts? How does the bald headed peanut seller trade with people who have nut allergies?
Without a token for exchange of goods & services it would be so difficult to get all the different things people need or want. We have a token at the moment, its called money, and I'd love to understand how this movement will replace it without creating a centralised socialist style system doomed to failure.

*edit* I've got it, Bondings new "coins" - Frihost saves the day again! Laughing
cardinal_1962
What is the point of money having a value in gold or silver? Precious metals have very little practical use. The only things of real value are things you can eat/drink, use to heal people, use to make shelter, etc. Gold and silver are not especially useful for that.

The Zeitgeist Movement / Venus Project idea is to use all our ingenuity and technology to create abundance so there's no need to trade. At the moment we create scarcity so that goods/services have a price as money as to circulate. Step back and away from money and things start to look very different.

In the barber and bald peanut seller set up there wouldn't be anyone selling anything. There's be enough food (peanuts) for everyone who wanted them. As to the barber, well here we need a technological solution to hair cutting. I'm guessing robots/ nanobots / lasers could do it. There wouldn't be a problem with putting the barber out of work, because he could get all he needed for life without having money. If he wanted to cut hair for the sheer joy of it he could, of course.

We don't want abundant peanuts in the current system as the price would go down and people in the peanut trade would be out of work, yet obviously if we could grow all the peanuts we wanted that would be a good thing. Similarly, we can't have a gadget that would cut hair quickly, safely and consistently without putting barbers out of work, but why wouldn't we want quick, safe, consistent haircuts?

Money may genuinely have advantages, but all the while there are starving people in the world and people bonded into pointless jobs to get money to survive, I think the disadvantages outweigh.
c'tair
^ But scarcity isn't necessarily bound to money or work. Notice, that despite have huge amounts of resources and products, people living in the 1st world countries aren't all the much happier than people living in Africa. Where are you from? You probably know someone who is depressed. You probably got yelled at by some angry guy at some point in your life. You've probably had to live with passive-aggressive people at some point too.

So even though 1st world countries have an abundance of resources to the point that the physiological necessities of life like food, clothing, shelter are COMPLETELY provided, we still have A LOT of problems on our hands - people still aren't happy. So...

What makes you think that if we suddenly got everything we wanted, we'd be happy?

You should read Veblen's work "The Theory of the Leisure Class", it's in the public domain so you can google/wiki it.

His work points out that our current state of lack of happiness despite having huge amounts of resources comes from society itself. Many of today's goods are status goods. Take for example - real estate. When you're buying or renting a place to live, how much are you paying for the physical place to live and how much are you paying for the 'social price' to live there? Is it just a coincidence that houses nearer to the central business district of a given city have higher prices?

No. Because that is a social status good. Same goes for cloths - the cloths we have on our backs could last us years (I'm wearing a 5 year old t-shirt now), but people continue buying new and more cloths all the time. Because new designs come out and being hip and fashionable are cool things to be. Same goes for consumer electronics and much, MUCH more. Thus, having everything provided for free wouldn't solve anything imho, because we do not have problems with production - we have problems with people's greed and drive for higher status goods.

That's why this project Venus seems like a utopian picture - it's authors assume that our mental problems (like depression, anxiety, paranoia) can be cured by merely making everything available. And I think this was an idea put forward by socialist thinkers in the past century and that this idea has been discredited by many minds already.

Plus there have been communes created, either communist or anarcho-collectivist and... they all flopped. Places where everyone worked, everyone shared and TECHNICALLY everyone should've been happy. But they failed, some quite gruesomely.

Thus, I predict complete lack of effectiveness and even utter failure of anything that resembles those failed examples. Man has the awesome power to change the world around him, but it seems he doesn't have the power to change himself.
ocalhoun
cardinal_1962 wrote:

The Zeitgeist Movement / Venus Project idea is to use all our ingenuity and technology to create abundance so there's no need to trade. At the moment we create scarcity so that goods/services have a price as money as to circulate. Step back and away from money and things start to look very different.


No, there simply isn't enough of everything...
There is enough of the basic necessities for everyone -- usually -- but people want more than just that. (And sometimes the basic needs run short as well.)

So, this utopic system has two problems:
A- What motivation does the individual have to make lots of goods, and make them high quality, or perform lots of service with good quality? That is -- in simpler form -- why not be lazy?
B- What happens when there is a shortage of something, and there's not enough for everybody? (No matter how well people cooperate, there's no way you could preclude all possibility of this.) (Merit based? Fight for it? Lottery? Something else?)


Don't get me wrong; I have a soft-spot for anti-establishment movements... But I'll still expect some realistic thinking and pragmatism.
Bluedoll
Interesting post(s).

Ok, what I think of when I read about the zeitgeist movement is a one world order. I know that phrase has been used before but these concepts involve world order? As the world is now a global market it does require full cooperation world wide for any movement/system to work. There wouild have to be a center system of some kind. So is it ok to say this is not just about money, money, money markets but there are other social issues to be considered before anything could ever be implemented?
However, if we look simply at the financial aspect (what the post is pointing to) in history can we not find a time when only a simple system existed before coinage? Perhaps, we can not because money has been around for a very long time but the smaller communities (north American Indian?) must have supported each other before common trading developed.
I think any system intending to devolve money would eventually itself start to evolve into some kind of trade based system which is then prone to using mark’s, coin’s, promissory notes or an evolutionary cycle destined to repeat to what we have now?

A financial system poorly managed.
Just random thoughts.
Related topics
Logical question
Symantec murdered Sygate Personal Firewall
The rotting flesh that is our political system
[OFFICIAL] Naruto - No more new threads about this
Use Paper Money to Wipe Your Butt!
Does Money makes man happy?
Barter Trade - Good or Bad?
Lost books (augh!)
Falling house prices - A good thing?
Google Wave
Millionnaire gives away his fortune as it made him miserable
The Venus Project
Explain to me the Zeitgeist movement...
The garment factory collapse and responsibility
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Economics and Marketing

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.