The debate "Would it be good if money didn't exist and people traded instead" was started by
June 1, 2015, 3:39 am.
By the way, DanielleR123 is disagreeing with this statement.
18 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 24 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
vumtucks posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Sosocratese posted 1 argument, toughgamerjerry posted 1 argument, bearunter posted 1 argument, Damn3d posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
KimUri, toughgamerjerry, vumtucks, kidcisco, thatjonathanguy, ombatra1997 and 12 visitors agree.
DanielleR123, PsychDave, WordSpeller, Sosocratese, Damn3d, bearunter, Bodaciouslady16, Hanif_abdat, rishab, I_Voyager, thatmathewguy, sabrina, xbulletwithbutterflywingsx and 11 visitors disagree.
You argument that Bill Gates would starve because no one wants computer chips is inherently flawed. You are using computer chips to read this right now. In the world you are fondly envisioning, things are simpler because no one can live comfortably. How many chickens is a house worth? What about cows, they are bigger and can give milk, so they must be worth more, so how many cows is a house worth? How many chickens would I have to trade to buy feed for my cows if I had a bad year for crops? Money isn't the bad guy that allows people to amass wealth, it is the tool that let's people set a value that is understood by everyone. Barter systems work on the small scale, but cannot function in a larger, more complex society.
Money facilitates trade. It allows a buyer and a seller come to terms even if one doesn't have a good that the other is looking for. If I am looking to trade my old car for a motorcycle, I can still make a deal with someone who doesn't have a motorcycle. I can sell a good to someone and use the money he has given to me to obtain a desired item from someone else.
It may mean the never existence of civilisation in one hand but on the other hand it will entail a level playing field of amassing wealth. Just think, what will bill Gates be had he no food to eat. Back in the past none will trade computer chips with grains of rice.
it would cause a lot of confusion and a strong steady form of trade already exists but taking away money which is used in trade would just complicate things as well surely objects would become money. and are you suggesting you take a table leg to a shop because the woods worth a carrot. for example
When you but something with money what are you doing? You are trading money for what the other person or store has. I know what you mean though. And my answer is that it wouldn't because, when you're at the store and you want to buy groceries, are you gonna have your couch and bedside table with you to pay for your food? You could but it would be a lot harder. Paper money is easier to carry around with you, and now we even have electronic money that you can just have one card or a check book with potentially millions of dollors on one piece of paper. Paper money just needs to be cared for carefully. That is why the mints are government owned and they hire professionals to print money.
Money is a form of barter. It's just a constant value. It's the whole reason why we have global commerce. It's like asking if we'd be better off without international trade