Given Money, human can create food

Post Reply New Topic

Hamburgers for example.

With French fries.

Given no money, Plants can create food,
Birds can sing and eat berries and build nests,
and nature works the way it does,
and aboriginal tribal peoples are not exploited to oblivion.

without money people can make food

A gun could do that too.

But there might be some side effects (trial, prison, etc.)

A gun can not make food - ESPECIALLY without people and money.

OOPS! Anything is possible. You could probably churn butter with a rifle!

Technically a gun could turn people into food. But that might violate... something.

But it could also make food --> see video for example:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eREiQhBDIk[/youtube]

`Technically, calling them tribal is wrong. They prefer "groups" not "tribes".

One of the few things I learned in school.

Well, actually, money is an abstract representation of completed work. It allows a diverse range of completed work to be exchanged for a diverse range of desired goods. In very small societies, the work that one person does can be clearly valuable to another and so there is less of a need for a currency system. But in a larger society where the work that I do may have no obvious advantage to you, we need an intermediary system of exchange.

The problem for small groups of indigenous people, I think, comes when larger groups use their larger buying power to try to artificially inflate the value of the their own work while lowering the value of the small group's work.

In one ideal world each individual would get the standard of living that their efforts naturally provided. But if no one person or group were able to amass more than his fair share, there would be no ability to build enough capital to launch ambitious projects. This still might be an ideal civilization, but it would be a far simpler one that we currently have.

You might be able to have a collective where individuals pooled their resources for the greater good, but you still have the problem of conflicting agendas. Governments could allocate resources, but governments are made of people who come with their own agendas. There may be times and places where this sort of communist collective might be the ideal society. Capitalism too has it's advantages, but also has a great potential for corruption. So long as a minority can effectively out vote a majority through the use of greater buying power, there is a potential for damage to society as a whole.

In some instances, a benevolent dictatorship can produce valuable results. Apple computers is a good example. While led by a very focused person who is driven to create the best products he can, the company can indeed create some very well designed products. (But you can look at Apple in a different light and see that this focus can lead to horrible problems such as labor law violations if no one in the company makes the effort to prevent it) Other companies that are driven more by a desire to maximize profit within the stock market can lose sight of any actual valuable product they create. It is here where the dictatorship model fails to provide for the overall good.

I think an economic system that combines elements of communism and capitalism has the potential for greater benefit to society.

Hmmm... I intended to write a mildly amusing comment comparing photosynthesis to money but lost my way somewhere along the line.

I think I'll shut up now...

Lars

edit:Sorry. Deleted paragraph. Tribe is correct except in Australia I guess.

@Lars: I don't recognize Politics or -isms or -ologies as true aspects of Reality.

Money is only a medium of exchange. It is not a primary substance.

ruveyn

Given solar panels and a greenhouse, ROBOTS can make food.

Given a net, people can get fish out of water.

if i plant a $ note in the ground - it will not grow!! ! Seeds make food