No world currency needed ....

It's pretty clear to me that all the world's currencies will fail by sometime in the 2010s.

What should replace it? IMO, a system that equates time with money literally.

Let's say instead of a global currency, cities start minting "One Hour" coins/bills, valued at an hour's worth of work (any kind of work. babysitting to lawyer work, it would all be paid with a "One Hour" coin).

If one is spending money in another city, they can put their money into the City Treasury, convert it to electronic, online money, and then pick it up in the next city's currency (which would be of equal value in every city; an hour's worth of work) at that city's treasury.

There would be no "World Bank", just money minted by cities that honestly stated how much work the money was worth.

If that sounds like communism, it's not, because people could still sell things and start their own businesses and become rich.



[edit on 3-8-2009 by Donnie Darko]

So.... lemme see if I got this right. You're saying that an unskilled worker like your babysitter is paid at the same rate as a highly skilled worker like a lawyer, doctor, pilot etc..

The janitor is on the same money as the CEO.

I think that idea would go down like a lead balloon.

Originally posted by triune
So.... lemme see if I got this right. You're saying that an unskilled worker like your babysitter is paid at the same rate as a highly skilled worker like a lawyer, doctor, pilot etc..

The janitor is on the same money as the CEO.

I think that idea would go down like a lead balloon.

Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying. Isn't it arrogant for a lawyer or doctor to say their work is worth more than that of a babysitter anyway?

reply to post by triune


Ya know...here's my take on that...

A big fancy building and company without someone to clean the toilets and maintain the building would be a pretty lousy building to be in, in short order (and likely a health risk too). However, a big fancy building with a CEO in charge of the business would likely function quite awhile without him/her based on all the lowly, unskilled labor that keep the corporation functioning day to day.

Frankly, I'd rather live in a world full of janitors, nurses, cleaning people and doctors that do what they do because it is their CALL to do so - not because of the profit they'll make. Or a world where we get that it's a balance of all types - scientists, academics, farmers - every skill is valuable and a disparity in pay rates of over 500% between the top honchos vs. the so-called "grunt" workers is pretty criminal and ridiculous if you ask me.

But what do I know? I mean, heck, our predecessors throughout our ancient history just couldn't SURVIVE without CEO's, Lawyers, Bankers...so how could we ever manage? I mean, I'm sure every prehistoric hunting party was absolutely dependent upon their bankers and CEO's to keep them eating and foraging.

your not mentioning teachers i think teachers get little to no credit....having to deal with high school students i would think can be very ummmm stressful?
and i would like to know why the hell are people paying money to the "superstars' of the world that are getting ridiculous amount of money to throw a rubber ball in a basket or kick a ball past someone....but hey spend your money where you want i guess....

people have been brainwashed to think it's "un-American" not to allow criminal CEOs to get paid a zillion times more than honest, hard-working people, and it disgusts me.

it is NOT communism!

btw, the "Hour" would be worth roughly the equivalent of $15 USD.

Keep it as simple as possible, going back to the BARTERING SYSTEM is a much bettr value.
If you have something of value that someone else does not have then it's value is based upon the person needing that service.

A negotiation is undertaken into so that each get the percieved value back.

Money was invented to make bartering simpler and we all know where that ended up.

Valorian

Originally posted by Valorian
Keep it as simple as possible, going back to the BARTERING SYSTEM is a much bettr value.
If you have something of value that someone else does not have then it's value is based upon the person needing that service.

A negotiation is undertaken into so that each get the percieved value back.

Money was invented to make bartering simpler and we all know where that ended up.

Valorian

The problem with that, is if can't strike a deal with anyone, you're out of luck.

Fair enough, but in this day of social networking you would never be out of luck.
An Ebay type system with 'values' and not $£ involved would work.

Originally posted by Valorian
Fair enough, but in this day of social networking you would never be out of luck.
An Ebay type system with 'values' and not $£ involved would work.

True. I still like my "hours' system better, but both beat what we have today.

So where does 'incentive' come into this. Why would a person put themselves through the hassle of gaining higher qualifications, say four years of university or six or more years of med school to earn the same as the lollipop lady at the school crossing.

Give it twenty years and the country would collapse. No more skilled workers, mass unemployment, industry shut down all over, everybody broke, crime rate through the roof.... holy crap thats what we got now Sh!t, howd we get into this mess

See, I'm one of those silly "treehuggers" who believes that somehow the world would manage to survive, even without those amazingly skilled and educated individuals. And I definitely think a world without CEO's, lawyers and bankers would be UTOPIAN. As for healers - my guess is most of them, like their earliest predecessors, would be incentive-ized to do what they do for:

1) the benefit of themselves and others (stronger survival likelihood in groups as opposed to going it solo). So its not altruistic to heal people - its in your own best interest to keep those around you who are skilled in other functionally necessary abilities alive as well.

2) Like artists paint, singers sing and writers write, the curious explore, etc. - natural selection and personal affinity suggests then, that it's likely that healers would heal.

Most of us, at one point in time, did what we did because it was in our nature to do it. Oh, and this silly little factor - our innate desire to survive would incentive-ize most of us to - oh, you know - plant crops, feed ourselves, clean up after ourselves. In fact, frankly - I think that was EXACTLY how the world was intended to be.

Technology or advancement without moral center or compass is just as horrific as any atrocity you can name. And the need to control, using tools like wealth, commodity hoarding, skill hoarding are actually defined as deviant behaviors according to the FACTS of psychology. We've just managed, somehow, societally, to culturize these things as a "norm" while those who DO get it correctly - ya know, treehuggers, do gooders, people who believe in environmental responsibility - we've marginalized them. And even when we SEE time and again that having ALL the money in the world and all the POWER in the world actually ends up making these people even more deviant and sociopathic - we still perceive it as the ultimate GOAL in life. Tell me how THAT isn't crazy and lacking logic!

A revolution is coming - they always do. Whether its humans against humans, or mother nature (the universe) against us - its coming. And I don't think the "educated elite" will ring in very high on the ladder of necessary or useful to our future survival in either scenario. Education, btw, isn't the problem - its the need to CONTROL KNOWLEDGE, brokered like any other power-mongered commodity that is.

Originally posted by Skeptical_Seeker
See, I'm one of those silly "treehuggers" who believes that somehow the world would manage to survive, even without those amazingly skilled and educated individuals. And I definitely think a world without CEO's, lawyers and bankers would be UTOPIAN. As for healers - my guess is most of them, like their earliest predecessors, would be incentive-ized to do what they do for:

1) the benefit of themselves and others (stronger survival likelihood in groups as opposed to going it solo). So its not altruistic to heal people - its in your own best interest to keep those around you who are skilled in other functionally necessary abilities alive as well.

2) Like artists paint, singers sing and writers write, the curious explore, etc. - natural selection and personal affinity suggests then, that it's likely that healers would heal.

Most of us, at one point in time, did what we did because it was in our nature to do it. Oh, and this silly little factor - our innate desire to survive would incentive-ize most of us to - oh, you know - plant crops, feed ourselves, clean up after ourselves. In fact, frankly - I think that was EXACTLY how the world was intended to be.

Technology or advancement without moral center or compass is just as horrific as any atrocity you can name. And the need to control, using tools like wealth, commodity hoarding, skill hoarding are actually defined as deviant behaviors according to the FACTS of psychology. We've just managed, somehow, societally, to culturize these things as a "norm" while those who DO get it correctly - ya know, treehuggers, do gooders, people who believe in environmental responsibility - we've marginalized them. And even when we SEE time and again that having ALL the money in the world and all the POWER in the world actually ends up making these people even more deviant and sociopathic - we still perceive it as the ultimate GOAL in life. Tell me how THAT isn't crazy and lacking logic!

A revolution is coming - they always do. Whether its humans against humans, or mother nature (the universe) against us - its coming. And I don't think the "educated elite" will ring in very high on the ladder of necessary or useful to our future survival in either scenario. Education, btw, isn't the problem - its the need to CONTROL KNOWLEDGE, brokered like any other power-mongered commodity that is.

Yup. Ya just need to think "outside the box", "incentive" for being a doctor, etc? What about the incentive of helping people and loving it!

I think wages should reflect the attractiveness of the job. The least desirable jobs should attract the highest pay.