It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
medium of exchange: anything that is generally accepted as a standard of value and a measure of wealth in a particular country or region.
My opponent will also tell you that goods and services cannot be easily exchanged without a central currency
How to exclude the creation of credit by the banks? Simple. Instead of requiring a 10% or 20% deposit to the Central Bank for every loan given by banks, a 100% deposit should be required. That means, a bank can collect the savings of it’s clients, it can deposit them at the Central Bank and it can then, and only then, give out loans up to the same amount it has deposited.
The monetary system has created some of the most corrupt institutions in the world today. Governments no longer control the issuing of money and the money supply.
Because money and power are synonymous, people are driven to corruption in the pursuit for money.
money provides a necessary incentive for people to be productive.
State own firms have less incentive to increase efficiency (eg they do not innovate or conduct R and D). Laborers have little incentive for hard work, resulting in decrease in productivity
1: a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs
2: a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people
Money allows a person to build a universal sense of wealth. What I mean is, money can be saved by an individual for purposes of purchasing more expensive goods.
Without money a few scenarios, where implications might be found are
- Hire purchase or lay-by payments.
- Renting or buying a house -
A monetary system allows individuals to be given interest, or ''rewarded'' for saving money.
My opponent brings up a valid point, by saying, their is more debt owing, than money in circulation.
However, this is not so much to do with a monetary system as it is to do with the banks, in our monetary system.
This doesn't mean a monetary system is better.
If a person with deep knowledge lacks empathy and relationship management skills, he will fail as a teacher.
everyone has what they need not only to survive, but to thrive in their own individuality.
As I have demonstrated above, there is no reason for a monetary "reward." People actually perform better in cognitive situations when money is taken out of the equation.
Many would find prosperity and efficiency more desirable than a dawdling society and money serves an incredibly important role in a complex economy.
once you get above rudimentary skill, monetary incentives do not work
In an entirely centrally-planned economy, a universal survey of human needs and consumer wants is required before a comprehensive plan for production can be formulated
Economist Robin Hahnel notes that, even if central planning overcame its inherent inhibitions of incentives and innovation, it would nevertheless be unable to maximize economic democracy and self-management
You talk about oil rich nations, but did you ever consider that if we had no monetary system we might have already evolved past burning fossil fuels?
Education would be freely available, thus creating a highly skilled, very intelligent population.
TinkerHaus came out solid, rock solid, and had one of the best on topic openings I've read so far. Very impressive.
However, curiousrb responds nicely, and as a judge I looked beyond his confusing quotes to determine what he was actually presenting. He countered with very solid points about Communism and productivity.
I cannot give the round to either, as it is balanced between a strong position pro, and an equally preserved con. Tie.
TinkerHaus begins to shine in round two, presenting an ideology of a society where money isn't a primary concern, allowing menial tasks to be automated, and effectively negates the concepts of "Socialism" and "Communism".
curiousrb responds with a flurry of jobs that can't be automated, and furthers his point by asking about the benefits of an automated society. With that, he falls into a cleverly laid trap placed by his opponent, and allows himself to wander off topic.
The round goes to TinkerHaus.
TinkerHaus doesn't relent, and pursues his position tenaciously, reasserting the topic and providing many solid examples of how society would be better served by a cashless system.
curiousrb isn't finished yet, and goes on to state statistics about higher education and people abusing the system, as well as fortifying the point of the unwillingness of people to pursue higher education. Good points, but he stumbles a bit when he proscribes a system of "allotment", which becomes a reference back to Communism, revealing a bias that is not fully developed within the remainder of the debate.
I would like to see a rematch between these two opponents one day, as both turned in solid performances, but in all honesty, round three goes to TinkerHaus, and thus, the debate.
Both TinkerHaus and curiousrb bring clear and concise facts to the table in their opening statements. Both posts are thought provoking and manifest a will to position the grounds of their respective sides. Well played by both fighters. This first round is a tie.
The second post sees TinkerHaus strongly reinforcing his earlier statements while curiousrb’s counter post simply answers a few of TinkerHaus’ points. This round goes to TinkerHaus.
The final post, once more is an excellent read from both parties. TinkerHaus remained focused thoroughly and curiousrb does an excellent job at debating here, especially when he picks up on the major flaw of TinkerHaus’ position:
” We wouldn't have access to excess of what we needed. If there was no management of materials and resource, there would be inequality. People would take more than they needed, leaving less for others. Like I said earlier, there will be people that would take advantage of the system. It is inevitable.
This final round goes to curiousrb which leaves the match at a tie. Nevertheless, for showing a constant presentation along with a strong and factual hypothesis throughout the match, I must give this one to TinkerHaus.
An excellent read for sure and both fighters need to be congratulated on a job well done. Thumbs up.