A hypothetical question in regards to money/currency

Sandtrap · March 31, 2015, 05:05:35 AM

Now. Let's sit down here, and imagine a really, really big damn hypothetical here. Let's just say, that for whatever reason, money just suddenly dissappeared. Every single piece of currency, the dollar, the pound, you name it. It's all suddenly gone as if it never existed and there is no way to produce it.

My question here is, in the abscence of currency, let's say you introduced a new system into play. This is a system where, if you play a part in it, aka you work a job to some degree, you don't get access to money, but intstead you get access to what you could buy with money.

Basically, you work and play your part, you get access to everything that's offered. You go up to the store, show you credentials, walk in, and take what you want.

Now!

Would it not be logical to assume, at this point, that because technically, crime and theft rate would plummet because why steal something when you yourself could get it from simply working? Would a country's population of people, with a rising unemployment rate not change if all they had to do was just simply work, for a bare minimum of time?

Turkey · March 31, 2015, 07:53:20 AM

Sounds like Star Trek, where they reached a sufficiently advanced technology to do away with currency and give everyone access to goods and services based on an intrinsic drive to contribute to society by working.

I don't think that would work any time soon. You'd have to see a global change and have enough resources to completely end hunger and poverty.

challengerX · March 31, 2015, 08:10:28 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · March 31, 2015, 10:15:07 AM

This is pretty much the economy we'll have post-scarcity, with the caveat that nobody will actually be working but still have access to the goods and services.

Forgewolf · March 31, 2015, 09:35:02 PM

Quote from: Sandtrap on March 31, 2015, 05:05:35 AM

Now. Let's sit down here, and imagine a really, really big damn hypothetical here. Let's just say, that for whatever reason, money just suddenly dissappeared. Every single piece of currency, the dollar, the pound, you name it. It's all suddenly gone as if it never existed and there is no way to produce it.

My question here is, in the abscence of currency, let's say you introduced a new system into play. This is a system where, if you play a part in it, aka you work a job to some degree, you don't get access to money, but intstead you get access to what you could buy with money.

Basically, you work and play your part, you get access to everything that's offered. You go up to the store, show you credentials, walk in, and take what you want.

Now!

Would it not be logical to assume, at this point, that because technically, crime and theft rate would plummet because why steal something when you yourself could get it from simply working? Would a country's population of people, with a rising unemployment rate not change if all they had to do was just simply work, for a bare minimum of time?

This is exactly what I've thought many times! : D .. One big problem though is many will see this as Communistic ideal; so on paper, sounds great, but many would probably abuse it to prove a point.

Sandtrap · March 31, 2015, 09:56:48 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 31, 2015, 07:53:20 AM

Sounds like Star Trek, where they reached a sufficiently advanced technology to do away with currency and give everyone access to goods and services based on an intrinsic drive to contribute to society by working.

I don't think that would work any time soon. You'd have to see a global change and have enough resources to completely end hunger and poverty.

You know what I'd wager?

We've got enough resources to do so. They're just being mismanaged terribly.

DAS B00T x2 · March 31, 2015, 09:57:44 PM

Quote from: Sandtrap on March 31, 2015, 09:56:48 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 31, 2015, 07:53:20 AM
Sounds like Star Trek, where they reached a sufficiently advanced technology to do away with currency and give everyone access to goods and services based on an intrinsic drive to contribute to society by working.

I don't think that would work any time soon. You'd have to see a global change and have enough resources to completely end hunger and poverty.

You know what I'd wager?

We've got enough resources to do so. They're just being mismanaged terribly.

No, not really.

The Lord Slide Rule · March 31, 2015, 10:03:55 PM

This kind of deal would only work post-scarcity(arbitrarily close to post scarcity actually). Seeing as, barring a few select technological advancements, scarcity would still exist its not unlikely that a currency analogue would emerge.

Sandtrap · March 31, 2015, 10:08:07 PM

Quote from: challengerX on March 31, 2015, 08:10:28 AM

Work where, how long, and would those with huger skills that contribute more get access to more? Cause then we'd be back where we started.

See, I was thinking on that. Skill level wouldn't get you access to more. Just simply participating in the system with a job would give you the benefit of having access to everything the system is capable of producing.

Now, what his means, is consumption rate will go up. If people had access to whatever they wanted, without having to pay money or bills, I'm sure a lot of them would go for it. That would essentially create more job openings to produce said content.

Now, you might think that having a sewage worker go work for the entire day, vs somebody who worked less time, or the respective ends of the scales of a service based on their benifit all equally having access despite the amount of effort or skill their trade requires would be unfair.

That's why I'm just thinking about another question.

What if you lowered the amount of time in a day somebody had to work? Say, 5 hours. 5 hours a day for everybody. Even 100 year olds can do some sort of job for 5 hours a day.

Now. You might say that there would be a problem. Medical services, technicians, laborers and such wouldn't get shit done.

So I ask what if you did shifts?

Better yet. Make it 4 hours.

4,8,12.

Three periods of the day, three shifts where people go to work.

They already do it at 24 hour gas stations. Nobody works a 24 hour gas station for 24 hours. They do shift rotations.

Now.

Think about that. Think of the job openings.

I'd like you to imagine how much more you'd be willing to go to work, no matter what kind of work it was, for only four hours a day, and then having the rest of your day free.

Especially, if those four hours granted you access to whatever money would have bought.

DAS B00T x2 · March 31, 2015, 10:12:47 PM

Quote from: Sandtrap on March 31, 2015, 10:08:07 PM

Now, you might think that having a sewage worker go work for the entire day, vs somebody who worked less time, or the respective ends of the scales of a service based on their benifit all equally having access despite the amount of effort or skill their trade requires would be unfair.

Now. You might say that there would be a problem. Medical services, technicians, laborers and such wouldn't get shit done.

See now, in a semi-functional model of the economy type best compared to the hypothetical, these fields would have been fully automated long ago.

Sandtrap · March 31, 2015, 10:13:45 PM

Quote from: DAS | Loli Soul on March 31, 2015, 09:57:44 PM

Quote from: Sandtrap on March 31, 2015, 09:56:48 PM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 31, 2015, 07:53:20 AM
Sounds like Star Trek, where they reached a sufficiently advanced technology to do away with currency and give everyone access to goods and services based on an intrinsic drive to contribute to society by working.

I don't think that would work any time soon. You'd have to see a global change and have enough resources to completely end hunger and poverty.

You know what I'd wager?

We've got enough resources to do so. They're just being mismanaged terribly.
No, not really.

Oh really? Take a look at how fat the population of mexico and america, and even canada is.

Canada, Mexico, the US, Britain, South America, and parts of Africa and Asia are all heavy producers of food.

Arguably it's probably the states and canada that are produce juggernaughts. Siphon some of that extra shit off that people make, that people waste, and drop it off in other countries.

Betcha you could make a dent in poverty problems.

Last year in my province, there was an excess of wheat. So much so, that companies selling steel grain bins went empty. There was so much wheat that nobody bought anymore. So the wheat was either

A) Packed into a grain bin
B) Burned because there was nowhere to put it and nobody wanted to buy it

Excess like that could easily be shipped off to third world countries.

rC · March 31, 2015, 10:16:58 PM

Quote from: Sandtrap on March 31, 2015, 10:13:45 PM

Quote from: DAS | Loli Soul on March 31, 2015, 09:57:44 PM
Quote from: Sandtrap on March 31, 2015, 09:56:48 PM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 31, 2015, 07:53:20 AM
Sounds like Star Trek, where they reached a sufficiently advanced technology to do away with currency and give everyone access to goods and services based on an intrinsic drive to contribute to society by working.

I don't think that would work any time soon. You'd have to see a global change and have enough resources to completely end hunger and poverty.

You know what I'd wager?

We've got enough resources to do so. They're just being mismanaged terribly.
No, not really.

Oh really? Take a look at how fat the population of mexico and america, and even canada is.

Canada, Mexico, the US, Britain, South America, and parts of Africa and Asia are all heavy producers of food.

Arguably it's probably the states and canada that are produce juggernaughts. Siphon some of that extra shit off that people make, that people waste, and drop it off in other countries.

Betcha you could make a dent in poverty problems.

Last year in my province, there was an excess of wheat. So much so, that companies selling steel grain bins went empty. There was so much wheat that nobody bought anymore. So the wheat was either

A) Packed into a grain bin
B) Burned because there was nowhere to put it and nobody wanted to buy it

Excess like that could easily be shipped off to third world countries.

Who would pay to ship it? Who would pay to process it once it gets there? Who would pay to distribute it to the population?

DAS B00T x2 · March 31, 2015, 10:18:06 PM

Quote from: Sandtrap on March 31, 2015, 10:13:45 PM

Excess like that could easily be shipped off to third world countries.

It's kind of just like trying to fill in a moat with a few shovels of sand though.
To say we currently have to the resources to wipe out world hunger and poverty is grossly overestimating the current status of the world's production and wealth.

Sandtrap · March 31, 2015, 10:26:20 PM

Quote from: Rape Culture on March 31, 2015, 10:16:58 PM

Quote from: Sandtrap on March 31, 2015, 10:13:45 PM
Quote from: DAS | Loli Soul on March 31, 2015, 09:57:44 PM
Quote from: Sandtrap on March 31, 2015, 09:56:48 PM
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 31, 2015, 07:53:20 AM
Sounds like Star Trek, where they reached a sufficiently advanced technology to do away with currency and give everyone access to goods and services based on an intrinsic drive to contribute to society by working.

I don't think that would work any time soon. You'd have to see a global change and have enough resources to completely end hunger and poverty.

You know what I'd wager?

We've got enough resources to do so. They're just being mismanaged terribly.
No, not really.

Oh really? Take a look at how fat the population of mexico and america, and even canada is.

Canada, Mexico, the US, Britain, South America, and parts of Africa and Asia are all heavy producers of food.

Arguably it's probably the states and canada that are produce juggernaughts. Siphon some of that extra shit off that people make, that people waste, and drop it off in other countries.

Betcha you could make a dent in poverty problems.

Last year in my province, there was an excess of wheat. So much so, that companies selling steel grain bins went empty. There was so much wheat that nobody bought anymore. So the wheat was either

A) Packed into a grain bin
B) Burned because there was nowhere to put it and nobody wanted to buy it

Excess like that could easily be shipped off to third world countries.
Who would pay to ship it? Who would pay to process it once it gets there? Who would pay to distribute it to the population?

Dunno. How about if somebody got their shit in gear and started a company who would do that sort of thing? Or how about an aid organization since Africa is trawling with aid organizations?

Sandtrap · March 31, 2015, 10:29:19 PM

Quote from: DAS | Loli Soul on March 31, 2015, 10:18:06 PM

Quote from: Sandtrap on March 31, 2015, 10:13:45 PM

Excess like that could easily be shipped off to third world countries.
It's kind of just like trying to fill in a moat with a few shovels of sand though.
To say we currently have to the resources to wipe out world hunger and poverty is grossly overestimating the current status of the world's production and wealth.

Does it mean that you can't try however? If you can raise at least a small percentage of a starving population out of the gutter, isn't that a step in the right direction? You'll have that much less to worry about in the future.

Instead of tying to find an end all magic button to poverty and starving people that will magically shut everything down overnight, why not work at it, in bits and pieces?

That's how you beat a problem. You work away at it piece by piece. It's like a puzzle. Not a magic lock and key.

DAS B00T x2 · March 31, 2015, 10:37:18 PM

Quote from: Sandtrap on March 31, 2015, 10:29:19 PM

Quote from: DAS | Loli Soul on March 31, 2015, 10:18:06 PM
Quote from: Sandtrap on March 31, 2015, 10:13:45 PM

Excess like that could easily be shipped off to third world countries.
It's kind of just like trying to fill in a moat with a few shovels of sand though.
To say we currently have to the resources to wipe out world hunger and poverty is grossly overestimating the current status of the world's production and wealth.

Does it mean that you can't try however? If you can raise at least a small percentage of a starving population out of the gutter, isn't that a step in the right direction? You'll have that much less to worry about in the future.

Instead of tying to find an end all magic button to poverty and starving people that will magically shut everything down overnight, why not work at it, in bits and pieces?

That's how you beat a problem. You work away at it piece by piece. It's like a puzzle. Not a magic lock and key.

And that's happening right now between governmental foreign aid, charity missions, and religious aid groups. It's a long process, one often hindered by the charities or natives themselves moreso than a lack of stateside funding.
You can't really just hand a bunch of Africans money. It's non-sustainable. Infrastructure has to be built. Plans have to be followed. Armed defense has to become a concern.