Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What is after money?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Here is your chance to be an inspiration. Lets keep it short and sweet and hypothetical. Your are the President. The dollar collapses. People will not abandon iphones and bmw's. Materialistic desires continue to exist. Your solution is....
edit on 19-9-2012 by RABiam because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Probably the same as what was before money



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
Probably the same as what was before money


would that be slaves or animals? cause I don't think those are viable anymore.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Money.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   
There will never be a time "after money"

They won't let money die. EVER!!!



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   
It would take true cornucopia technology to do away with money, as it would destroy all need for it.

Baring that Id say credits are next, digital currencies with no physical analog .



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by faryjay

care to make a guess?

still would like to hear from those that claim otherwise. All talk and no plan.

BTW, i agree with you! i can't see a modern society function without a form of purchasing power.

There are many on this site that wish to see to concept vanish. But never offer a solution.

Just being fair and giving them the chance



please no more

It's simple: Let the current system crash and remove the concept from the grid


with no proposal of the after. I thought it was simple! I look forward to a genuine discussion, because it almost time
edit on 19-9-2012 by RABiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by RABiam
reply to post by faryjay

care to make a guess?

still would like to hear from those that claim otherwise. All talk and no plan.

BTW, i agree with you! i can't see a modern society function without a form of purchasing power.

There are many on this site that wish to see to concept vanish. But never offer a solution.

Just being fair and giving them the chance




Doing such a thing now would be a horrible disaster, it would take massive government control on all resources, a North korea style dictatorship, Socialist and Communist attitudes to even begin such a process.

Clearly man is not mature enough to share properly, it would be a disaster with out some miracle tech to accomplish it.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   
The money system isn't that bad, there has to be a way to assign value to people who are carrying a high responsibility. The problem is the culture of how money is used and the corruption of economic oversight.

Anyway, if the dollar collapses we beg the world governments to help us through with a new currency so as many people as possible can keep their jobs and 3/4 don't starve.

And the theory that the dollar will collapse is unlikely, in the first place. America is the backbone of the world economy.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   
A tier system based on contribution to society. Say tier one affords you all basic necessities, including accommodation, food, clothing and utilities with a base amount of luxuries. The top tier would have all of these, plus a much greater amount of luxuries. One could move up tiers based on years of contribution. Of course, government would need to assume control of all industry for this to be put into effect.

There would need to be set limits on how much each tier is entitled to and what professions would fit into each tier to begin with. I would say things like scientists, doctors, teachers (those that contribute greatly to society and that require years of study) should occupy the top tiers, but even someone starting at tier one could eventually reach higher tiers by working for society for a set number of years depending on that profession.

No idea how this may work though!



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaesDaemar
A tier system based on contribution to society. Say tier one affords you all basic necessities, including accommodation, food, clothing and utilities with a base amount of luxuries. The top tier would have all of these, plus a much greater amount of luxuries. One could move up tiers based on years of contribution. Of course, government would need to assume control of all industry for this to be put into effect.

There would need to be set limits on how much each tier is entitled to and what professions would fit into each tier to begin with. I would say things like scientists, doctors, teachers (those that contribute greatly to society and that require years of study) should occupy the top tiers, but even someone starting at tier one could eventually reach higher tiers by working for society for a set number of years depending on that profession.

No idea how this may work though!


thank you for putting forth an idea! This is what the thread is all about.

Come on ATS, most of us know that we need some kind of money or purchasing power,

I've been told the solution is simple, but those that say it is, never want to share...



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   
A moneyless society could exist if everyone was honest, ethical, willing to share, and conscious of the fact that some people do more and should be compensated.

I've read that in some Native American societies wealth was generally measured by the amount of giving a person did, as opposed to earning. Of course, who was maybe the top hunter or local tradesman, was always coming home with luxury furs and tools they would be given a big share come mealtime and a comfortable bed.

The economy as it exists causes problems because it isolates each individual as a single earner. Maybe we should have communities as the lowest owner, with units containing anywhere from a few dozen to a few hundred thousand collectively sharing and distributing resources. It'd be sort of like a modern tribal system, localized socialist entities in a federal republic. These communities would trade with one another in a mass barter fashion. But a pricing system and currency would be more efficient.

Economic activity can be improved, for sure. But pricing and currency isn't necessarily the problem.

All problems derive from lack of ethic.
edit on 9/19/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 


I think that's the main problem, ethics. We would need to move away from coveting what our neighbour's have, becoming small communities that work together to create a greater one. The problem is that a system change can't just happen, peoples minds need to be changed and our leaders need to be less corrupt.

Laws would need to change too. A good way to do this and to keep politicians in line, would be to have a referendum on every decision. As leaders, they look for what's best for society, propose it to the population, and the population decides on whether they agree.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   

DaesDaemar:I think that's the main problem, ethics.


PatrickGarrow17 All problems derive from lack of ethic


So all three of us are in agreement that money is not the root of all evil. Instead our emotions and ethos are the root of problems.

Do either of you feel, that our currency must be backed by something tangible? or as long as we can block counterfeits, we are okay?



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by RABiam
 


No need to have currency backed by a commodity, in my opinion. To me that actually doesn't make sense. A nation's currency should be backed by the entire economy, not a single good that makes up a sliver of total worth. Money is a way of assigning standard numerical values to goods within the total economy, not an expression of a state's gold or oil holdings.

It is impossible to fairly back a currency with a material good because services have a higher total value.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by RABiam
 


No need to have currency backed by a commodity, in my opinion. To me that actually doesn't make sense. A nation's currency should be backed by the entire economy, not a single good that makes up a sliver of total worth. Money is a way of assigning standard numerical values to goods within the total economy, not an expression of a state's gold or oil holdings.

It is impossible to fairly back a currency with a material good because services have a higher total value.


we indeed are on the same page
Our government is given cash/credit in exchange for treasury bonds. Money from air, exchanged for IOU's. Sounds like me and you could do this. Any idea on how to implement a change away from their system, to a system more like yours, without a collapse?



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by RABiam
 


I believe most problems can be solved over the long run simply by increasing activism and participation in government. I don't have any suggestions for overthrowing the current establishment, but I think the young people want to change and would be receptive to better messages which would allow for gradual progress. I believe there needs to be a third party that challenges the 2 major parties and holds them accountable.

I don't think the world is facing imminent collapse if things don't change drastically in the short term. We just need growing numbers that want things to change drastically in the long term.

Also, I'm not as cynical about the current establishment as most here. There are certainly negative element, but I prefer to reserve judgement as I don't have the full picture concluded.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by RABiam
 


I believe most problems can be solved over the long run simply by increasing activism and participation in government. I don't have any suggestions for overthrowing the current establishment, but I think the young people want to change and would be receptive to better messages which would allow for gradual progress. I believe there needs to be a third party that challenges the 2 major parties and holds them accountable.

I don't think the world is facing imminent collapse if things don't change drastically in the short term. We just need growing numbers that want things to change drastically in the long term.

Also, I'm not as cynical about the current establishment as most here. There are certainly negative element, but I prefer to reserve judgement as I don't have the full picture concluded.


I agree that a legitimate and competitive third party may be the only option and will serve to hold them accountable. but I worry that after a few cycles, it would be back to same ol buddy system but now with 3 parties. almost like the other 2, would corrupt the 3rd.

i do believe lobbyists are also to blame and usually get unnoticed. We vote someone in and the lobbyists pay for things, that we could only dream of getting passed.

lots of issues, but the discussion is interesting!



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Money now is based upon its ability to get you fossil fuels.

Remove moneys ability to buy fossil fuels. It's definitely in our future.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by RABiam
 


If money fails there will be no government, there will be no electricity
When money fails we will go back to the barter system.
edit on 19-9-2012 by zonetripper2065 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join