# Could it work without money? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2010, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956 "2010-03-10T08:00:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/81 "2010-03-10T19:57:52Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > You’re right, “more expensive” doesn’t imply “nonexistence”. But the reason it doesn’t exist is because it hasn’t been invented yet, not anything to do with expense. No one’s been able to create a car that drives itself safely and flawlessly. No one’s intented nanorobots that treat the body, then dissolve. No one’s made a proctologist robot. No one’s made an automated farm. This has nothing to do with expense. The fact is, you’re making up technology that doesn’t exist in order to handwave away the impossibility of your utopia. There are some bread factories who have people bag the loaves. And there are some that have automated bagging machines. Obviously that is technology that exists that’s not used everywhere it could be. > [@](#): > > 1. Impossible. People are selfish. That’s the way it always has been, and the way it will always be. > 2. But they don’t volunteer to do necessary jobs like cleaning sewers, picking up trash, etc. > 3. No, it’s not money’s fault. It’s that the person that made the food, built the house, and provides the healthcare demand to be compensated for their production. Without money, how do you plan to compensate them? Should you just take their bread away and give it to the starving person? Just take their home and give it to the homeless? Force the doctor at gunpoint to treat the sick? You don’t have to take anything away from anyone (well except for maybe the sickeningly wealthy, but honestly what are they going to do when stop needing them… it’s not like their money is worth anything. So who cares really what they have. The point is making more out of the plentiful resources we do have and making sure everyone is accounted for. > [@](#): > > We already have a system that does these things. It’s called taxation, and it’s a function of government- that thing you claim doesn’t solve any problems. Most people would agree taxation isn’t a real problem solver. How we will pay for welfare or a the fire dept won’t matter if there is no money. > [@](#): > > So without money, how do you get someone to clean the sewer? To give up their bread? To build a house? No one has to give up anything. Also you bring up these jobs no one will want to do, but I think they would want to make the transition when things like that aren’t necessary. Venus project has some ideas on community layout, but I haven’t looked at too many. > [@](#): > > But drinking myself blind would harm me. Stealing your TV does not harm me. It helps me. We don’t need laws to protect people from themselves, we need laws to protect people from each other. Because people can and will hurt others if they think they can get away with it. Why would anyone steal when there is no need to. If everything was free then… there would be no reason to steal. Many of the problems that laws try to solve would be gone. > [@](#): > > And I use that thing in my head to make logical decisions too. I logically come to the conclusion that it benefits me to kill you and take all your stuff. Well, until I consider that the lawman will seriously screw me if I do that. So I logically conclude that I should not kill you and take your stuff. Kill me and take my stuff? but stuff is free. Just get the same stuff I have and you conscience will be clean. Also you’re still thinking I don’t think there needs to be any law. From my first post I made it clear that something had to be done about murder because obviously complex social issues involve deciding to murder someone. I don’t think we could get rid of it 100%, but I think we could get close enough for everyone to feel safe. > [@](#): > > Exactly none of them. They all have to do with selfishly acquiring goods without effort. It’s the exact opposite of money, which one must work for. But that’s your tribe of people, not mine. > [@](#): > > What percentage of people, do you think, would keep working their jobs if you said they won’t be paid? You think I overestimate it? It depends what I did and if I got a good standard of living. If I did a tedious mundane job, then I’d do it until they got a machine to replace me. If I worked on robotics. HELL YEAH I’D DO THAT JOB. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/82 "2010-03-10T19:58:00Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > It’s true about what you say. 9/11 for me… is more a major failing of the Bush administration than anything. but like the JFK assassination there are many compelling arguments, and one in particular got me wondering about 9/11 (the supposed nitrate they found). It’s such a complex event that it’s stupid to lay the blame at any one pair of feet. First of all, the lion’s share of blame goes to Al Qaeda. But you could just as easily throw some blame at the Clinton administration, if you wanted to engage in that sort of thing. AQ was broke, demoralized, and ready to disband when Clinton fired a bunch of dud missiles at them that they collected and sold for (IIRC) $10 million a pop. If not for that one event, the twin towers would probably still be standing. But if god hadn’t created the universe, Abraham Lincoln would still be alive, see? There are compelling arguments that our government failed us in foreign policy (making false promises about the occupation of Saudi Arabia during Gulf War 1 which provided the genesis for AQ, etc.) And compelling arguments that our intelligence community failed us (the FBI and CIA together most likely had enough information together to stop 9/11, but they didn’t realize it and didn’t want to share.) But there are no compelling arguments that there were bombs in the WTC, or that Cheney ordered a stand down, or that Al Qaeda doesn’t exist or is employed by the US government, etc etc. Those are just lies used to gain support for other agendas. And these are all “theories” (I use that term in the loosest possible sense) that the ZM supports. > [@nilum](#): > > As far as banks ruling the world… I mean… that’s NOT true? I mean even when I was in high school my econ teacher wouldn’t have even denied that :X Though my college econ teacher would have, but she didn’t know anything really. > > I just think it’s a simple equation. if you throw enough money at someone you’ll get your way. I assume that’s not the case with Obama, but I hear he got a lot of funds from banks when he was running, and his staff is full of wall street insiders. How is that not suspicious. You couldn’t have hired someone more independent? > > It just seems very obvious to me that money buys political power. Of course money buys political power. Far too much IMO. But it’s a stretch to say that Jewish trillionaires are explicitly calling all the shots in the world as part of an all-powerful shadow government. Even the stuff they say about Jesus is mostly fabricated from whole cloth, and I’m one who questions whether the historical Jesus even existed. The Zeitgeist movement has less than 0 credibility with me. I don’t care how great anything else they say is, they poisoned their own well with that shitty movie. ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/83 "2010-03-10T20:11:04Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > In the majority of cases, no one. 100s of banks, like Lehman Brothers, went belly-up. Some, like National City, got bought out by other banks (PNC, in this case). Others sold stock to the government, which they promptly bought back by returning the TARP funds a few months later. Were they also in the process of foreclosing on homes who may have had a working class man who pays his taxes? Must be nice to screw up, foreclose on someone’s house, and then collect his tax money too… at least they paid it back… after using it to make more profits and buying corporate jets… the real issue is… why the government helped those idiots. > [@](#): > > On my mortgage papers (which I actually read like a responsible adult), the interest rate is on the front page, in bold font. You’ve crossed into “making up stuff because I know I’m right” territory. But you’ve already admitted that you’re pretty ignorant of all things financial, so maybe it’s true that you can’t fully understand standard documents from banks. > > But I’m betting this is actually just another case of the liberal “Other people are too dumb to understand” debate tactic, where the liberal insists that the majority of people are just brainless pawns that stumble through the world and would wander off cliffs, and they are therefore repeatedly scammed, hoodwinked, and swindled by “corporations”. Please remind me… what is the purpose of fine print. What is its purpose psychologically. Also what is the person’s job at a bank that sells these products… isn’t it their job to be on the borderline of honesty… saying things like… yeah it’s not a fixed interest rate, but… from my experience it never goes up that much. Don’t worry about it. That’s how I would pitch it. And that’s probably how I’d be coached to pitch it. So don’t act like dishonest tactics are never used in corporate america to swindle people. Now the real problem is did some people get in over their heads. Yeah. They did, but so did the banks. You can say a bunch of others got sunk… and you can keep saying that all the way to the bank (pun intended), but the truth of the matter is some banks got American tax dollars in their time of need. What did theose home owners get? > [@](#): > > Rich people have hitmen? Prostitutes? You’re demonizing the opponent, yet again. Those assertions simply aren’t true- that’s all I’m going to say about that. I would need to know you were rich to demonize you specifically, and I wasn’t referring to you at all. I was pointing out the ugly truths about capitalism that you want to pretend that aren’t there. You don’t think hit men don’t ask for a lot of money that most average people wouldn’t have? You don’t think rich people cheat on their spouse with the occasional 14 yo girl from Thailand on that ‘business vacation.’ It’s not the working class that can afford to do things like that. Maybe you could enlighten me on the economy of 14yo girls from Asia. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/84 "2010-03-10T20:17:23Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > The point is they recoup something. The loss is a given hence why they took a risk of the loan in the first place. Also taking a loss is relative to what property they come to own. They recoup a loss. Unless you can prove otherwise, most financial institutions do not go out looking for people to finance in the hope of getting that property back through foreclosure. They are financial institutions, not property managers. > [@](#): > > Isn’t it reasonable to assume that the reason they hiked up interest so much was because they needed some fast money and it had nothing to do with cutting losses. No, anyone with a cursory understanding of the industry would understand that the most money the bank will make is for all of its customers to pay their mortgages on time. They live on the interest, not on the loss that they take by foreclosing property. banks cannot "hike’ up the rates at will. they can only do so within the guidelines of the agreement that they and the borrower agreed upon. ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/85 "2010-03-10T20:27:52Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Look, I realize you’re new around here, so let me help you out. This isn’t the Youtube comments section. This isn’t Yahoo! Answers. If you say things like this, you need to provide citation for it, or we’re going to call you out on it, dismiss it, and either call you a liar or simply “dishonest”. > > So please provide cites for: > > 1. Obama getting campaign donations from banks. > 2. Obama hiring wall street insiders on his staff. > 3. These wall streeters have been involved in shady deals. I have to cite common fact? 2. Goldman Sachs $994,795 6. Citigroup Inc $701,29 7. JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132 17.Morgan Stanley $514,881 [http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638](http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638) > [@](#): > > Even the members of Obama’s economic team who have spent most of their lives in public office have managed to make small fortunes on Wall Street. The president’s economic czar, Larry Summers, was paid more than $5.2 million in 2008 alone as a managing director of the hedge fund D.E. Shaw, and pocketed an additional $2.7 million in speaking fees from a smorgasbord of future bailout recipients, including Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. At Treasury, Geithner’s aide Gene Sperling earned a staggering $887,727 from Goldman Sachs last year for performing the punch-line-worthy service of “advice on charitable giving.” Sperling’s fellow Treasury appointee, Mark Patterson, received $637,492 as a full-time lobbyist for Goldman Sachs, and another top Geithner aide, Lee Sachs, made more than $3 million working for a New York hedge fund called Mariner Investment Group. The list goes on and on. Even Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who has been out of government for only 30 months of his adult life, managed to collect $18 million during his private-sector stint with a Wall Street firm called Wasserstein-Perella. [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas\_big\_sellout/print](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31234647/obamas_big_sellout/print) As far as them being involved in ‘shady deals’ I never said anything like that. I only said that he had wall street insiders, and that it seemed suspicious to me. And it should to anyone. Now if the word suspicious is a problem, then strike it from the record… whatever. But still it seems you’re overreacting a bit. I know Obama is a special guy for some people, but to me he’s just another one of them… well I guess i’ll save it. The truth is I still haven’t made up my mind about Obama. i don’t consider myself a Republican or Democrat, I just someone who will help people who need it. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/86 "2010-03-10T20:28:11Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > Most people would agree taxation isn’t a real problem solver. How we will pay for welfare or a the fire dept won’t matter if there is no money. Wow. That’s just a whole nutroll of stupid right there. Who are these “most people”? Can other people see them? > [@nilum](#): > > No one has to give up anything. Also you bring up these jobs no one will want to do, but I think they would want to make the transition when things like that aren’t necessary. > > Why would anyone steal when there is no need to. If everything was free then… there would be no reason to steal. Many of the problems that laws try to solve would be gone. > > Kill me and take my stuff? but stuff is free. Just get the same stuff I have and you conscience will be clean. How the hell are you going to make stuff free? There won’t **be any** stuff because no one will work! No one will sweep the streets. No one will clean the sewers. No one will build skyscrapers. People won’t do it because no one’s paying them. Robots won’t do it becuase those robots don’t exist. And they never will exist, if you insist of getting rid of money. And what are you going to do when my people want your people’s land? Do you think you can just make more land? Are you just going to give it to us for free? What about when I come for your wife and daughters? Should I just “go get the same [daughters] you have”? How is that even possible? ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/87 "2010-03-10T20:30:32Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > They recoup a loss. Unless you can prove otherwise, most financial institutions do not go out looking for people to finance in the hope of getting that property back through foreclosure. They are financial institutions, not property managers. > > No, anyone with a cursory understanding of the industry would understand that the most money the bank will make is for all of its customers to pay their mortgages on time. They live on the interest, not on the loss that they take by foreclosing property. banks cannot "hike’ up the rates at will. they can only do so within the guidelines of the agreement that they and the borrower agreed upon. You completely ignored the other issue like a good politician would since you obviously have no good answer for it: > [@](#): > > did some people get in over their heads. Yeah. They did, but so did the banks. You can say a bunch of others got sunk… and you can keep saying that all the way to the bank (pun intended), but the truth of the matter is some banks got American tax dollars in their time of need. > > What did theose home owners get? ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/88 "2010-03-10T20:33:59Z")
Quick question - how do you get rid of laws and currency? If people want to use currency, how do you stop them from doing so without having a law against it? ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/89 "2010-03-10T20:50:29Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Wow. That’s just a whole nutroll of stupid right there. Who are these “most people”? Can other people see them? Whatever happened to not calling people stupid in debates, well whatever. You think taxes solve problems in a system without money. Apparently you are forgetting what the topic of this discussion is… :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > How the hell are you going to make stuff free? There won’t **be any** stuff because no one will work! No one will sweep the streets. No one will clean the sewers. No one will build skyscrapers. People won’t do it because no one’s paying them. Robots won’t do it becuase those robots don’t exist. And they never will exist, if you insist of getting rid of money. Again… that’s your tribe of people. Not everyone is like you… what’s the psychological term for the type of person that does that… typically children are this way… when baby’s look at something through a window they instinctively think that what they can see everyone can see… ego… well I forget nevermind.😉 > [@](#): > > And what are you going to do when my people want your people’s land? Do you think you can just make more land? Are you just going to give it to us for free? What about when I come for your wife and daughters? Should I just “go get the same [daughters] you have”? How is that even possible? You’re right… it’s so packed everywhere… not enough land for shelters… well except for all the empty homes… very efficient system we have now. Maybe where you live it feels cramped, and maybe that’s all because our culture tends to focus industry in one area and people flock to it. If you haven’t noticed there is actually plenty of land for everyone to live on… Now as far as those useless strip malls… yeah those will go, but even with them… plenty of room. My wife and daughters? Oh because you’re still stuck on that no law thing. I’ve moved on. ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/90 "2010-03-10T20:53:12Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > Quick question - how do you get rid of laws and currency? > > If people want to use currency, how do you stop them from doing so without having a law against it? They could use currency, but what would they use it for? ---
**Author:** ![carm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@carm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carm)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/91 "2010-03-10T20:55:31Z")
**nilum** scarcity exists. It always will. I want my own private jet. Fine, since stuff is free, off I go and get my private jet. Now, my friends see me in my jet, and they want one too. They tell their friends, and pretty soon everyone wants a private jet. Well, turns out the plane factory don’t have enough planes to satisfy everyone. What happens then? Would there be a limit to what people could own? Or are you talking about a world with no private property? ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/92 "2010-03-10T20:57:10Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > Whatever happened to not calling people stupid in debates, well whatever. I didn’t call you stupid. Just every idea you’ve stated thus far. > [@nilum](#): > > You think taxes solve problems in a system without money. Apparently you are forgetting what the topic of this discussion is… :rolleyes: You don’t read much, do you? I said that taxes redistribute wealth in _this_ system. > [@nilum](#): > > Again… that’s your tribe of people. Not everyone is like you… what’s the psychological term for the type of person that does that… typically children are this way… when baby’s look at something through a window they instinctively think that what they can see everyone can see… ego… well I forget nevermind.😉 I specifically asked you for a number. I’ll ask again: What percentage of people would keep working without a paycheck? Why would they do such a thing? > [@nilum](#): > > You’re right… it’s so packed everywhere… not enough land for shelters… well except for all the empty homes… very efficient system we have now. > > Maybe where you live it feels cramped, and maybe that’s all because our culture tends to focus industry in one area and people flock to it. > > If you haven’t noticed there is actually plenty of land for everyone to live on… Now as far as those useless strip malls… yeah those will go, but even with them… plenty of room. > > My wife and daughters? Oh because you’re still stuck on that no law thing. I’ve moved on. I didn’t say I wanted land. I said I wanted _your_ land. And daughters. Because you have the best land (waterfront!) and the best daughters (hawt!) and I want them both. Now how do you propose I get those things? ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/93 "2010-03-10T20:58:07Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > They could use currency, but what would they use it for? The same thing they do now, which is everything. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/94 "2010-03-10T21:05:03Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > As far as banks ruling the world… I mean… that’s NOT true? I mean even when I was in high school my econ teacher wouldn’t have even denied that :X Though my college econ teacher would have, but she didn’t know anything really. I don’t know if it’s your teacher’s fault or your fault for lack of paying attention, but it is difficult to debate the subject on a serious level with you because you don’t seem to have a basic understanding of it. You don’t need to agree with it, but you should at least be able to articulate why. It might be useful for you to understan what a bank is and how they actually work. And I mean beyond a weird “Evil Organizations Trying to Take Over the World” sort of mentality. The role of a bank is to finance various ventures - buying a home, starting a business, acquiring a company, whatever. They lend out money for a fee (interest) which the lendee is expected to pay back over time. Their hope is that whatever it is they are lending you money for will be worth more in the future so you can pay them back over time. Banks only “rule the world” because the debt they lend out is essentially a promise to continue working until your debt is paid off. Of course if enough people fail to pay their debt, the bank fails like Bear Sterns or Lehman. Excessive debt IS a very real issue. Whether it is a household or an entire country, what out of control debt allows someone to do is take more resources out of the system than they are contributing. That is fine in the short term, but left unchecked, eventually the system will collapse as it cannot be sustained. ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/95 "2010-03-10T21:08:24Z")
> [@carm](#): > > **nilum** scarcity exists. It always will. I want my own private jet. Fine, since stuff is free, off I go and get my private jet. Now, my friends see me in my jet, and they want one too. They tell their friends, and pretty soon everyone wants a private jet. Well, turns out the plane factory don’t have enough planes to satisfy everyone. What happens then? > > Would there be a limit to what people could own? > > Or are you talking about a world with no private property? i don’t know what was discussed specifically, but I remember an issue similar to this came up, and it basically came down to things that BIG would be public. First off this is a world of rational thinkers, not greedy materialists. This is quite a bit different, but one example they used was golf clubs. If you go golfing and at the gold course they have the best golf clubs ever and you use them for a round of golf… you could theoretically take them with you… but why burden yourself with having to store them when whenever you go to the gold course the best will be there. The problem is you put importance on owning and having more than someone else. Those are the values of this system, but not every system. Also their public transportation system would be some special sort of mag lev train that crisscrossed the globe. Allowing travel faster than a jet plane, and supposedly more secure. Personally… I would want a house. Wherever. A tablet PC with high resolution that I can use for digital art. And a job as a person who works in robotics. Even if I just solder some wires :X… Oh and one of those cars that prevent me from killing myself drunk driving. ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/96 "2010-03-10T21:09:25Z")
> [@Darth\_Panda](#): > > The same thing they do now, which is everything. They could, but there would be no need. I can’t think of a situation where it would make sense to use it if they didn’t need to as it is worthless paper. ---
**Author:** ![Caffeine.addict](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f475e1/32.png) [@Caffeine.addict](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caffeine.addict)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/97 "2010-03-10T21:15:39Z")
nilum, some of those people renegotiated their loans and their interest rates. The point which you are missing is that it isn’t profitable for the bank to sell a bad loan, because it costs them money in terms of legal fees and pure losses to foreclose on a home which they are then responsible for maintaining and then selling, usually for a loss. I signed a mortgage and I can’t understand why those people wouldn’t have known what was going to happen. My lender gave me the option and it was all spelled out in the loan documents. Most of the interest only loans in my area were people looking to buy something and flip it. [QUOTE=Cisco] Were Native Americans lazy and selfish? Are the indigenous tribes that survive to this day lazy and selfish? Are the Amish lazy and selfish? So many things that people accept as “human nature” are really just the hegemony of the current dominant global culture. [/QUOTE] I haven’t met very many of either group, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they are. What I mean by selfish is that people tend to put their interests first. As for lazy, isn’t everyone? I wouldn’t go to work for free, and I can’t imagine that the Amish are making that furniture for free. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/98 "2010-03-10T21:17:53Z")
> [@carm](#): > > **nilum** scarcity exists. It always will. I want my own private jet. Fine, since stuff is free, off I go and get my private jet. Now, my friends see me in my jet, and they want one too. They tell their friends, and pretty soon everyone wants a private jet. Well, turns out the plane factory don’t have enough planes to satisfy everyone. What happens then? > > Would there be a limit to what people could own? > > Or are you talking about a world with no private property? That appears to be the idea. Everyone would share and share alike. People wouldn’t have private jets; there would be a fleet of jets anyone could use. Of course, combined with the “get rid of government” part of the ideology, this ignores the problem of “what happens if some people grab all the jets and demand stuff in return for use of them? Or just blows them up for kicks?” I could certainly see a future where much or all of the economy is automated and there is a far vaster array of publicly owned services and utilities. But someone or some institution has to own them, and someone needs to keep order. And there’s also the problem that people like having private property; how do you keep people from declaring “this is mine!” without a government to enforce your perfect society? The answer of course is that you don’t; like communism, you’d end up with a government set up to enforce ideologically correct behavior for the duration of the transition to the perfect stateless society, but the government would never “wither away” as promised. ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/99 "2010-03-10T21:19:42Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I don’t know if it’s your teacher’s fault or your fault for lack of paying attention, but it is difficult to debate the subject on a serious level with you because you don’t seem to have a basic understanding of it. You don’t need to agree with it, but you should at least be able to articulate why. > > It might be useful for you to understan what a bank is and how they actually work. And I mean beyond a weird “Evil Organizations Trying to Take Over the World” sort of mentality. > > The role of a bank is to finance various ventures - buying a home, starting a business, acquiring a company, whatever. They lend out money for a fee (interest) which the lendee is expected to pay back over time. Their hope is that whatever it is they are lending you money for will be worth more in the future so you can pay them back over time. > > Banks only “rule the world” because the debt they lend out is essentially a promise to continue working until your debt is paid off. Of course if enough people fail to pay their debt, the bank fails like Bear Sterns or Lehman. > > Excessive debt IS a very real issue. Whether it is a household or an entire country, what out of control debt allows someone to do is take more resources out of the system than they are contributing. That is fine in the short term, but left unchecked, eventually the system will collapse as it cannot be sustained. > [@](#): > > How modern banking works: > The Central Bank lends money out to other banks. > The banks set their interest rates based on the Central Bank’s. > Banks lend out money based on what are in their reserves. Note I did not say that they lend out their reserves. Instead of lending out their reserves they simply add money to an account as a credit. > Of course the bankers have a lot of products for investors like CDs which accumulate interest, which allow you to put money (the more the better) in the bank for a lot. Those systems only seem to benefit the wealthy though. I wonder where they get the money… hmm. Pretty sure that sums it up quite well. oh and when they’re in trouble they’ll ask for trillions of dollars in bailouts… you say they’ve paid it all back, but i don’t know if I can take your word for it. MMM also could explain what happens to these people who do file bankruptcy on their bank… I imagine they lose everything. That’s what I really want to know. Tell me how the bankers have suffered through all this. Maybe they’ll come back more empathetic. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956/100 "2010-03-10T21:22:13Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > How would it evolve again from that point? Why would there be a need to do that? To make it easier to buy things, obviously. Explain to me how I pay for a place to live, buy food, or buy clothes without money. What on earth would I trade for them? Forget the central banks. You can have money without a reserve system if you want - it doesn’t work as well, but let’s ignore that for now. How do I get the things I need without money? What do I barter away? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-it-work-without-money/531956.md?page=6)