Ad Lib Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 What would happen if everything was made free? You're trolling, right? Not only is this literally impossible (people would acquire this "free" stuff by scrambling to hoard it all then start bartering it for things they actually want) but even if it were, it would mean nothing is valued and therefore either no one consumes anything or everything is consumed with reckless abandon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipperyP Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 You're trolling, right? Not only is this literally impossible (people would acquire this "free" stuff by scrambling to hoard it all then start bartering it for things they actually want) but even if it were, it would mean nothing is valued and therefore either no one consumes anything or everything is consumed with reckless abandon. I don't think your dealing with Adam Smith here to be honest. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeeperDee Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 What would happen if everything was made free? You're trolling, right? Not only is this literally impossible (people would acquire this "free" stuff by scrambling to hoard it all then start bartering it for things they actually want) but even if it were, it would mean nothing is valued and therefore either no one consumes anything or everything is consumed with reckless abandon. Well no I'm not. I'm just curious, I stated economics was not my strong point but I've always been interested in what a world would be like without the system of money. I reckon it would be a better place tbh. Everyone gets what they want, right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeeperDee Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 You're trolling, right? Not only is this literally impossible (people would acquire this "free" stuff by scrambling to hoard it all then start bartering it for things they actually want) but even if it were, it would mean nothing is valued and therefore either no one consumes anything or everything is consumed with reckless abandon. I don't think your dealing with Adam Smith here to be honest. Definitely not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeeperDee Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 If everybody was prepared to work without being paid, and to take only what they needed without paying for it, then one result would be a lot more leisure; no need to have bankers, security guards, checkout workers etc. etc. The problem is to stop greed kicking in so that people amass more than their share of goods, and getting them to do their share of hard, tedious jobs in agriculture, industry and other fields that would still be required. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 You're trolling, right? Not only is this literally impossible (people would acquire this "free" stuff by scrambling to hoard it all then start bartering it for things they actually want) but even if it were, it would mean nothing is valued and therefore either no one consumes anything or everything is consumed with reckless abandon. I suppose there is a reason why utpopian sci-fri always deals with post scarcity cultures where hoarding stuff becomes meaningless since there is always an infinite surplus of 'stuff' Alas, Adam Smith, and the rest of us, are stuck with the laws of thermodynamics...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Hey man what if, like, there was no money and everyone just had an abudance of love man, it'd be totally like amazing. We can do it man. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) Hey man what if, like, there was no money and everyone just had an abudance of love man, it'd be totally like amazing. We can do it man. Anyone know where I can get a pair of flairs with a 28" waist let out to 34" 36" 38"? Edited April 10, 2013 by Granny Danger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeeperDee Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Hey man what if, like, there was no money and everyone just had an abudance of love man, it'd be totally like amazing. We can do it man. If you're trying to imply that I am some sort of "free love" hippy type character then you are not understanding what I am trying to say. Though what you are saying is right, if everyone loved each other and had an abundance of love then the world would be a better place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 SIR Mark Thatcher! on the news. Didn't know that he had inherited his fathers title. We are all in it together right enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipperyP Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) Hey man what if, like, there was no money and everyone just had an abudance of love man, it'd be totally like amazing. We can do it man. Sent me all your money in notes, I will burn it for you. I could light my spliff off the flames and chill out. Remember notes, preferably used notes. Edited April 10, 2013 by SlipperyP 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliche Guevara Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 It's about incentives. If you create a society which values only things which are in abundance, there will be no motive to use all resources for absolute gain. I suppose you could create a society that has been brainwashed to place high economic value on, say, oxygen, nitrogen, water, grass, desert, rock and mud, but it wouldn't be one that makes very much food, develops, well, any electronics, builds many houses, or generally try to make, well, anything, more abundant. You see this is the kind of idea that sickens me! The notion that you have to create suffering, and people are then incentivised to work by having to alleviate their own suffering. Human beings are capable of being incentivised to invent, create, innovate, achieve, etc without there having to be a fucking dollar in it! And to reduce any form of human achievement, or any example of civilisation or society, as being motivated simply by economic value is a brutal indictment on the human condition. There aren't that many of us that require to be slaves in order to be productive you know! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paranoid android Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 "She created today's housing crisis, she produced the banking crisis, she created the benefits crisis. It was her government that started putting people on incapacity benefits rather than register them as unemployed because the Britain she inherited was broadly at full employment."She decided when she wrote off our manufacturing industry that she could live with two or three million unemployed and the legacy of that, the benefits bill that we are still struggling with today."In actual fact, every real problem we face today is the legacy of the fact she was fundamentally wrong." [Ken Livingstone] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
As We Rise Again Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Well no I'm not. I'm just curious, I stated economics was not my strong point but I've always been interested in what a world would be like without the system of money. I reckon it would be a better place tbh. Everyone gets what they want, right? Manking has always traded with one another. Even as kids in the playground we will swap things with one another and attach values to these things based on scarcity or how much the other person desires it. Take fitba stickers. I had the Argentina 78 sticker album and I had to swap half the Scotland team to get Daniel Killer from Argentina to complete that particular team. It was a simple trade off, I wanted it, the other guy had it and we reached a negotiated conclusion based on the value of the goods. No money changed hands. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paranoid android Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Thatcher deserves credit for what she got right, and discredit for what she did wrong.Economic issues aside, I'm old enough to remember a sense of community that definitely existed even in the 1970s - a sense of community that no longer exists - it's impossible to put a price on that.People might say that I'm looking back wistfuly with rose-tinted specs on so-called 'golden ages' that never existed...but they'd be wrong. [Me] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 "She created today's housing crisis, she produced the banking crisis, she created the benefits crisis. It was her government that started putting people on incapacity benefits rather than register them as unemployed because the Britain she inherited was broadly at full employment. "She decided when she wrote off our manufacturing industry that she could live with two or three million unemployed and the legacy of that, the benefits bill that we are still struggling with today. "In actual fact, every real problem we face today is the legacy of the fact she was fundamentally wrong." [Ken Livingstone] the subtext of this is that she abolished the GLC, rED Ken has been in a thirty year sulk about it. The sad old Marxist fanny. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 becoming a hippy survivalist living hand to mouth as a subsistence hunter gatherer in the wild. Reynard? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 the subtext of this is that she abolished the GLC, rED Ken has been in a thirty year sulk about it. The sad old Marxist fanny. If the original incredible sulk were still alive, he and Red Ken would be having a real old natter about how awful she was. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paranoid android Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 the subtext of this is that she abolished the GLC, rED Ken has been in a thirty year sulk about it. The sad old Marxist fanny. I think there's a wee bit more to it than that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.