It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Money a good or a bad idea?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:43 PM
The invention and use of money dates back to the origin of civilization as neolithic man started to farm. Without money you have no medium of exchange, you may have a goat, but what you want may be only be worth 1/10 th of a goat. However when you take into the argument how much bad money has allowed to be done, was it such a good idea? Even communism has money and there seems to be no replacement. But is it a good idea? If there really are no replacement then what characteristics should it have? Should it depreciate, be on the gold standard, be backed by a basket of commodities. It seems that if we could just get the concept of money sorted out, most of the worlds problems would disappear.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 03:33 PM
The positive of money is that it creates an artificial median to which trade and commerce can take place. If i have chickens, and you have cows, and i want your cows and you dont want my chickens... without a median (money) to which we both value, trade would be impossible.

However there are so many negatives which come with money, consolidation of power and control, shifting morals values throughout humanity, global conflicts, the list is infinite.

The more i look into it... the more a Resource Based Economy seems like a good idea.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 03:47 PM
A Trade/Credits system has always been an intriguing method of currency in my mind and would eliminate the need for foreign exchange when traveling, but that's always been seen as a hand-in-hand with the NWO, and as such has always been frowned upon by most.... also Credits aren't useful on Tatooine, so there's that.

Personally, I don't think money is a bad idea. It's the false assumption that price/wealth = value/worth is where the problem comes in.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 03:48 PM
Wherever money exists, poverty will also.

Unfortunately, whatever 'more' is, we always want it, to the point where $1million which could last most individuals a lifetime, isn't enough, for some to last a year, month, or even a day.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 04:08 PM
reply to post by s12345

As others have said, money is a great method of allowing trade and commerce, but with it there needs to be restriction and control.
No single person should be permitted to have a monopoly on such a resource. It's a free flowing entity, like water or air, and if any person amassed so much power and control over either they would be stopped.

We recognized a long time ago that monopolies were dangerous, and that's why we have organizations to assess how much dominance any single person or company has over any specific industry. Yet we haven't done the same when it comes to money - the fundamental driving force behind all commerce and business.

If currencies were pegged to gold, there would be a finite supply. Every couple of decades we would have a collapse of some kind if there were no controls. That's not because the idea is flawed, it's because some are greedy and will take more than they need, at the cost of others. Then those others would come to take it back. It's a natural process to keep greed under control.
But without being pegged to anything of value where there is only a finite amount in supply, they've allowed those greedy people to continue to become even more greedy. Instead of sorting those greedy people out every couple of decades, we just kept printing more, and they just took more. Now we've reached a point where even the printing of paper money isn't enough.

Without that finite supply, the routine revolutions, and the resulting example being made of unbridled greed, the greedy have been allowed to become megalithic monsters of consumption, where even the constant printing of money would not be enough to feed them.

People who amass extreme wealth should be under scrutiny, just as a global corporation should be when trying to buy out other companies.
We've allowed some individuals, families and corporations to amass far too much wealth - and power - without any concerns. And then we're so shocked to discover that those same people, families and corporations are bribing, polluting, stealing and killing all over the world for more money and power.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 04:41 PM
The concept of freedom in the modern westernized/"civilized" world is based solely on economic status.

Democracy is an illusion, keeping the economically viable in control.

Money has replaced the scales of justice and IMHO has always been a bad thing for the masses and a good thing for the few.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 04:50 PM
In future, when the corrupt global military-industrial complex is long dead, people will still carry the "mark" (their consumer spending ability linked to a subcutaneous microchip, or to verified finger or retina prints) but there will be no heredity at all.

new topics

top topics


log in