Try to imagine a world where money does not exist… I bet you can’t do it. Go ahead… try.
Er, Um…we have some knowledge of groups who used a barter economy. I’m not sure what we have to imagine here.
You have not even tried. You see no point in trying. To you a world where money does not exist does not exist. Anything that does not exist for you as an acccepted, unspoken normality does not exist.
In fact trying to imagine what another person feels does not exist for you either, or what another person thinks does not exist for you.
All that exists for you is your own normality.
Um, er, did you actually read my post? My point was that it’s not necessary to imagine this. We can read about it in history books. Probably there are even movies that show this. I get the impression that your point isn’t actually about currency. I let it be known that I am on the edge of my seat, waiting for the bomb to drop.
If it is not necessary to imagine it: then why are you wasting your time ansdwering a post that is not worth your bother?
Because “it’s not necessary to imagine it” is my answer.
I’m not trying to be tricky, here.
Turak, Faust’s point is that a no-money world already exists.
You seem to be trying to say that such a world is impossible. Since such societies exist, you are wrong. Twisting Faust’s words around to mean something he didn’t say or imply won’t change that.
Next topic, please.
And on that note:
Your rationalized answer idoes not make any sense. If you think it is not necessary to imagine it: then please leave this thread to those that think it may be necessary. Unless you can give more than your own prejudiced opinion without anything to back it up except… ‘Because I say so.’
You say that a world exists somewhere in the Universe full of humans but has no money?
Please tell me where this world is. I would like to see it for myself.
Turak,
Do a web search for the words “barter economy.”
But if that teaches you nothing we can always imagine what human history was like before money was invented, which accounts for the vast majority of human history so it shouldn’t be too much of a stretch for any of us materialistic narrow minded unimaginative and prejudiced rationalizers.
wow Turak, you’re the next John Lennon…only with different ideas 
:o Alright yeah I’ve got it, okay so now what?
I’m going to do my best to give an utterly “faustian” reply:
Due to the fact that there is always some form of recompense, even in situations that only loosely fit the definition “economic transaction”, currency is present.
To wit, in the case of barter economies, the act itself becomes the agent of currency, ergo, the definition of economic transaction has been fulfilled.
(how is that faustest? close? close? throw me a bone here!!!)
I repeat: if it is not necessary: then why are you bothering to answer something that is not necessary?
You seem to be doing nothing but trying to ‘pooh-pooh’ the human imagination. In fact you seem to be trying to head off people from even trying to imagine what a world without money would be like; by trying to disdain even the idea of imagining anything. In fact I detect a complete contempt for the human imagination from your attitude towards this post: by you tossing your personal opinion that it is: ‘not necessary to imagine’…
In fact it seems to me that you yourself are so bereft of imagination that you cannot imagine anything. I would respectfully suggest that the imagination contained in such works as Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, or Nietsczche;s Thus Spake Zarathustra, of Plato’s Republic… are much more important than your lack of imagination. It seems as these writers had more imagination in their little fingers than you do in your entire brain… since you feel no ‘necessary’ need for the use of the human imagination.
If you see no use for the use of the human imagination. Then please go beck into your unimagiunative little corner of the world, and allow other people like artists and thinkers, to use their imagination without you sticking your unimaginative oar into the waters of imagination and muddying it with your completely unnecessary thoughts.
Excuse me for teaching you to read: but nowhere in my challenge did I mention the past. Nor did I ask you to try to imagine the past. I am speaking of the present. Now. Today.
Also: I fail to see anything that you have added to this thread: except another ‘pooh-poohing’ of the idea of trying to imagine anything except what is in front of your nose. Why is this? Is every first-time poster here attacked by people who not only refuse to stick to the issue, but refuse to even try to deal with it? This does not speak well of this forum, or of your attitude towards first-time posters.
My challenge is simple. If you do not want to take it: then why are you here in the first place? Just to try to invalidate the challenge? To prevent anyone else from trying to use their imagination?
I would bet that you are incapable of imagining any form of society except the one you live in today. Your assumption that there was some fictitious kind of society where money did not exist: does not let you off the hook.
First: there is no historical proof that such a society ever existed: there is only scientific conjecture.
Second: even if it may have existed: there still remains the fact that you are incapable of imagining what kind of society it may have been.
Thirdly: I was not speaking of the past in the first place: so please stop trying to deflect the simple post into something it is not. I was not trying to get people to imagine what society may have been like in the past. I was challenging people to use their imagination and see if they could imagine a world in which money did not exist. Now. Today.
This is a very simple exersize in imagination. Like imagining what the world would be if shoelaces did not exist. All you have to do is delete one thing from society as we know it: and see what the repercussions are. Nothing else.
Again… People who are not interested in taking this challenge: in my opinion have no place in this thread. If you are not interested in taking the challenge then please let others who are: take it. Your attempt to disdain this idea has no place in this thread because you are not adding anything of value except sticking your tongue out at the idea even before it is attempted.
Many people have stuck out their tongues at ideas that they disdained before actually tryingon the idea, and seeing where it led. People sneered at the idea of the earth being round for hundreds of years… until they were proven to be wrong.
The idea… of people in a philosophy forum… trying to prevent other people from thinking and using their imagination… seems to be the opposite of philosophy. If you do not want to think, if you do not want to use your imagination… then why are you here at all?
I am still waiting for someone to actually try this idea on for size.
If you do not want to try it… Fine. Then leaave: as you have nothing more to say except:
‘Don’t try it! This shouldn’t be attempted! Don’t think! Don’t use your imagination!’
Your negative attitude towards this post is clogging up this thread. please leave this thread for people who actually want to try this challenge.
No you have not got it.
You are saying that it is impossible to imagine a world without money. You are saying is a disdainful way thqat it is a silly fantasy. Sneering at challenges without trying them: does not prove anything except you are only interested in sneering. Anyone can sneer. The entire Internet is full of people who sneer at each other.
Since youhave no imagination of your own: why are you responding to a post that challenges the use of the hhuman imagination? Are you sneering at imagination? By using other people’s imagination?
Do you have any imagination yourself? And if you do… is it only used to sneer at things? In other words: if you have nothing psoitive to add to this thread: why are you responding to it?
imagine-john lennon
Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today…
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace…
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world…
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will live as one
close thread
Mas - to some extent that is true. However, there is a material difference between a head of cattle and a gold coin. One difference shows itself readily when you need to transport half a gold coin an appreciable distance, as opposed to transporting half a cattle that same distance. There are also substantial differences when extending credit, especially at interest. A stock company engaged in international trade is difficult without currency. It’s not the trade as much as the stock that provides the difficulty. An international consortium is quite cumbersome in a barter system. In short, money is by far a better way to “store” value than are commodities. I’m sure there’s a Wikipedia article or two about this. There must be.
As for you, turak - ah…er…um…
What I am saying is that imagining a moneyless economy is like imagining that I am sitting at a table. I really am sitting at a table!
Oh, never mind.
Your reply means nothing.
My challenge was to use your imagination. You did not use your imagination. instead: you throw definitions out: as if copying dictionary definitions make you by some magical process: ‘intelligent’.
As far as I know… there has never been any important thinker in the history of philosophy who became intelligent by copying definitions from a dictionary. They became important by using their own thoughts and their own imagination…
If you do not want to use your imagination: fine. then please leave this thread and let others who do, enter the discussion.
You have as usual, missed the entire thrust of the question.
My question was asking what the world would be like if money did not exist.
That is an open-ended question.
What is your world like with money in it?
What would your world be like with no money?
In order to answer this challenge… you actually have to use your brain for more than copying definitions you find in a book. You have to look at your world, and see it, and evaluate how money works in it. Then you would have to compare another world where money does not exist.
This is an intellectual challenge. It challenges your entire brain. For instance: Heinlein wrote a book called ‘Stranger in a Strange Land’ where an alien human from another planet raised by Martians comes down, and looks at the world humans take for granted as normal, and sees them all as being insane apes. From the perspective of this Martian-cum-human: he made a comparison between what he was taught by the Martians to be normal, and what humans assume to be normal.
Today in the world: the existence of money is taken for granted. So is the existence of air. if there was no air: everyone would be dead. there is no intellectual challenge in comparing a world with air, and a world without air.
But in a world without money: nobody has to die. The comparison between a world where money exists, and a world where money does not exist can be done…
Only… you have to use your brain to do it… You have to use your imagination to do it.
Apparently you either cannot or do not want to use either of these human potentials. Nietszche tried to imagine a world where god did not exist… He failed. Because he could not imagine anything to replace the idea of God with, except a superhuman who was a human god. Einstein tried to imagine a world in which everything was relative to everything else. He failed: because he could not do it without using the false ideas of absolute constants.
This is a thought experiment. If you do not think this experiment worth trying: fine. But do not pretend that you have already tried it when you have not.
To my knowlege: no human living on this earth today knows what kind of human society there would be if money did not exist.
It is a simple question. Buit the answer is not simple, or easy. Your glib response is an empty exercize in meaningless defintiions that do not address the question.