How our life would be like in a world without money if, no one with money knows what its like

What do you think life would be like if ,there were no money?

Society would have to come up with a system of exchange that would closely follow the system of currency exchange of the past in that it would mean that there would have to still be a banking system to hold what would be called credits and debits much like we have now,hopefully without interest,as interest results in inflation

Interest payments to a banks depositors for the use of 90% of their deposits to be used to lend to other people for home buying as well as home Improvements and car buying etc.

Interest payments to lenders due to Inflation creates a hidden tax on the money we earn. Which takes money out of cirrculation when those interest payments go to the banks.

Inflating the money supply eventually makes the increased supply worth less Which is one of the reasons the system fails in the first place.

Inflation is an artificial increase in the percieved value of an item be it a house,car,food,clothing or even money itself.when in fact the house and car may have the same value as before. Our perception of them having increased value is in reality an illusion that we are only too happy to perpetuate if we don't understand "natural" rather than "artifical" increases or decreases in supply and-or demand.

An increase in the value of a car, house or anything else of value that hasn't been Improved in some way Is Inflation unless it is a one of a kind and someone is willing and able to buy it without inflated money.

If It's intrinsic value hasn't increased due to it's rarity or some other natural demand for it then, it's value has to stay the same or decrease over time due to wear.

Deflation is the opposite of inflation of a currency by taking currency out of circulation through the banking system in interest payments or the government through taxes etc.

By reducing the supply of money or by reducing any commodity you artificially increase it's value by giving the consumer artifical buying power solely due to scarcity.Rather than the need, availability or value of goods and services.

When old worn out money is destroyed and not replaced except through lending the remaining currency should be worth more as a result.

The central banks won't tell you that !

The local banks should know that !

The reduced cirrculation of currency forces sellers to lower their prices artifically due to them being squeezed by the need to sell in order to make their loan payments to the banks that lend to them. Even though the decreased amount of currency - "Should be worth more " due to scarcity even if artifically -by the very banks that took the currency out of cirrculation.

Businsses may be forced by the banks to sell their merchandise at a price lower than a business may need to stay in business

This gives the customer the impression that the dollars they have are worth more when in fact that is not true because of the artificial reduction in the currency supply.

However,If,money or currency is in fact a commodity as we are led to believe than it's only logical to assume that it's value can Increased or decrease the very same way as commodities of every kind do.Through supply and demand.

However,the banks do not recognize this when they expect their customers to pay back their loans or they would have put it into their loan agreements.Otherwise payments in deflated currency would have to be re-valued based on it's scarcity rather than it's face value like gold and silver comodities are valued.

The fact is when you pay back loans with currency that has been inflated by virtue of oversupply then you are in fact paying back your loan with currency which has increased in value to you when paying back a loan due to the banks willingness to accept it at face value rather than it's true value which would be somewhat less.Ideally the currencies value should remain relatively stable.If,it hasn't their is a good reason.

The central banks can in fact lend the local or commercial banks up to a certain multiple of the deposits made by the local banks depositors.It has been a practice that should be illegal due to the fact that it creates money for the banks to lend out of the debts agreed to be paid back by borrowers. Even if the borrowers pay back their loans they also have to pay back the interest on those loans,and that extra money that the borrowers have to pay as interest takes more money out of cirrculation which reduces the money in cirrulation making each unit of currency in cirrulation worth more "atifically" as well as the deposits made to the banks themselves.Sure they will give you a small percentage of their take ,but both the central bans as well as the local banks make out like bandits on the promises to pay their borrowers made when they got their loans which they back with interest all based on the deposits of everyone in that bank multiplied many times over.

Those dollars are worth more only because of the banks manufactured scarcity of the available currency by decreasing the supply through Interest payments to them as well as taxes etc to the government and it's agencies.

After lending money to businesses or their customers with Inflated returns as a result of their lending out more currency than should exist in the first place and spending and or lending their returns and usery elsewhere before it's value decreased through Inflation as time goes by.

Increasing value although artificially of a currency by the banks through deflation is a scheme by the banks to give us an artificial or percieved increase in value of the currency even if it's by their own design rather than an authentic increase due to the production of goods and services.

This percieved Increase in a currencies value is not even recognized by the very same banks that created this artificial money supply out of nothing .

Businesses may also lose out to these banks manipulation of the currency supply.

Those who have any of the deflated currency to spend can now buy more commodities with less currency than when there was inflation,even if that increased purchasing power is not recognized by the banking system,they still require that their lenders pay the same amount that they contracted for on their loan applications even though the value of the currrency has been increased artificially by the banks themselves.

If a borrower has the money to make their loan payment all the better for the bank,as each dollar has increased buying power now than they had previously due to deflation of the currency .

If a borrower cannot make their payment then the bank forecloses on the borrowers property in the case of the average person which is all the more likely as less currency is in circulation as a result of the banks and or government taxation removing it from circulation.

Properties and or buildings are called R.E.O.'s or "Real Estate Owned properties that the bank claims it does not want.The fact is they would like to find another buyer for the property as soon as possible not only because they can loan more money,or sell it outright but then then don't have the responsablity of maintaining the property taxes,etc.But,some properties are worth holding onto because they would be a good investment in the future and they can write off much of the money they spend holding onto them at taxpayer expense.

Creating money out of nothing is artificially increasing the supply of money and decreasing the value of each dollar in circulation over time,because those who get to use that increased supply first, be it, money or goods and services at the beginning of the increase, have the advantage of knowing it has increased,and that increase is going to eventually be noticed by others in business who compete with each other for the supply of money in circulation as interest rates are raised by the very same people who increased the supply of money in the first place by lending it into existance without the backing of some commodity.Unless you consider your labor a commodity which it is to them.They will take your home,car or anything else of value you may have to pay your debts.Filing for bankruptcy is about the only way out of being in debt if you can't take in enough money to pay your debts which is getting harder to do these days.

In Inflation, although the value of a commodity is the same,the value of the money or currency used to buy that commodity is worth less due to the increased numbers of that currency that are in cirrculation.

If,there is an increase in the supply of goods and services than is needed or wanted then the value of those goods and services declines unless you can find a demand elsewhere.

"The same is true of money."

If,there is a lack of demand for borrowing because there is a huge supply of money in cirrculation then interest rates logically should go down.But,if there isn't enough money and the banks are willing to lend money they don't have and the borrower is willing to take all the risk in the deal then the bank is only too willing to lend them money that doesn't yet exist. What 's wrong with this picture?

Of course if,taxation and interest payments on the money supply in circulation increases to the point of taking too much money out of the economy; borrowing may increase as a result and that's a reason to be concerned with banking agreements that take advantage of the borrower. As well as government administrations that take advantage of the taxpayer while lining their pockets and the pockets of their "friends".

If,you supply more money than can be utilized at the time it is being supplied, then the increased money supply will eventually be seen by the sellers of goods and services and they will demand more money because it's value as a currency or commodity is overpriced by virtue of the increased supply of it.

On the other hand If the increased money supply can be "sold" or lent quickly as when money is lent by banks and borrowed by way of a personal or business loan and is returned quickly then inflation would not be a problem as demand and supply are stable.How often can that happen naturally?

Planning is the key,unless your just hoping things will workout by themselves.

Opportunities are made through advanced planning.So if you think inflation or deflation only happen by chance and never planned by someone for reasons of their own.Good luck to you.You'll need it!

Farmers know that an increase in a commodity can bring the price down of their commodities,if there isn't an increased demand from somewhere. But if history is any judge small farmers would have to guess what price they could get for their commodities and if they guessed wrong they broke even or lost money.

To make their farms profitable they had to form co-operatives so all the farmers could coperate with each other ,and plan how much of a commodity will be in demand and plan to only grow enough to bring them the price that they hoped for.In fact ,unless there is a co-op that can come together and agree on a fair price to sell their commodity or commodities if, we are talking about seperate co-ops for growers of different comodities.There would be only a single source that we could get those commodities from at a fair price for both the producer's and the consumers.

Think about it,if you were on a desert island,with all of the things necessary for survival ,food,water,the means for building shelter,and make clothing ,but you had no money

What would you do to get all of these things you needed ? PHYSICAL LABOR RIGHT !

The only difference would be if,you had more ,food,water,clothing,and shelter than you needed.

Then you might want to trade for some things that you didn't have.

Someone might know how to get or make and maybe trade with you for something of value you could provide.

If,you wanted to start a bank and charge people to store their excess valuables you might well find those willing to pay you watch their valuables.I would keep a close eye on my valuables though if I were You!

More by this Author


Comments 16 comments

lmmartin profile image

lmmartin 6 years ago from Alberta and Florida

An interesting thought. IF there was not money, we wouldn't be always worrying about it, and we'd be able to concentrate on those things real. Here in Florida an interesting thing is happening with foreclosed houses. The owners are forced to move, then the bank rents the house to people who had to leave their last house because if was foreclosed, and so on, and so on and so. Each of these families has moved to another house, to rent it and wait three years before they can buy the one their in. Does it make sense? I dub it the great Florida house shuffle.


poetlorraine 6 years ago

a world without money to me would be a wonderful thing, if we could take away the love of money and material possesions, from within ourselves even better, just use our skills and talents to help each other out all the time


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 6 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio Author

I agree it's the love of money that's the problem.

If,we could just get past that, then the world would be a better place to live in.No using money as a club over anyone ,to control them.Everyone should do their fair share in order to get their fair share of what is done collectively and those who do more than their fair share or even better work deserve more than those who do just enough to get by.I wouldn't deny them what they have earned,but at the same time I wouldn't allow them to try to use what they have earned to deny others the right to do the same or to get more than they rightly deserve.Money had a place in history as a way to account for what one has earned.If,it can be forfeited by someone through the manipulation of it's value then it becomes a tool for enslavement .Not that enslavement is ever acceptable for even those so enslaved demand a certain level of goods and services and somtimes even prilivages or they will rebell by not doing what they are told.We are not machines and we all should recognize that fact.


dusanotes profile image

dusanotes 6 years ago from Windermere, FL

Good Hub, Someonewhoknows. Where have you been. Did you and James go somewhere together. (Slap, slap, my face. Of course you didn't, he's married and so are you, I suppose). But really, the hub brings up some great ideas. Without money we would trade things and that would slow down commerce a great deal. My first thought when I read the title of your article was our problem isn't that of not having enough money - the Obama people have made sure we have plenty of worthless money by printing all of those new greenbacks. Their situation is they need to print up new money to pay off that which they have borrowed from China and elsewhere. But now China is onto us, and they don't want any more greenbacks. When we run the value of our money down to two cents, it will be then that we stop printing money and Obama starts paying back our debts by giving away large chunks of our land here in America. It's all we will have left. Your article was very informative. Don White


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago

Interesting concept and a well presented article. The old barter system. Where would the government get their taxes? The money supply has increased by 50% this year. The dollar has devalued only 18% so far as this runs behind the money supply. No use in hoarding money, I can tell you that. :)


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 6 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio Author

James -The south American and egyptian people would either voluntarily do some kind of public service or be forced to do a certain amount of work in lieu of using currency as we do to pay taxes.

Thank you Don for the commplement.


sannyasinman profile image

sannyasinman 6 years ago

I have just watched the Zeitgeist videos, and they echo my own sentiments entirely. I didn't know the movement existed. I have been aware for a long time that advertising, inflation, profit at any cost, greed etc has been destroying society. Maybe the time is near when enough people will turn their backs on rampant consumerism and things might begin to change. I also have a series of articles taking final shape on my A4 pad on the fallacy of ownership, a world without money, etc. Keep up the good work!


Nico 5 years ago

www.thevenusproject.com


Springboard profile image

Springboard 5 years ago from Wisconsin

Anything of value would still be considered money in some form, and so I think its virtually impossible to not have SOMETHING tangible to trade with. It just so happens that right now that happens to be money. But it would be no different if you had the most goats, or the most farmland, or the most trees to fell for lumber...

It would all be valued, tradable, expendable, and taxable to some degree.


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 5 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio Author

I'm sure you agree though that there is a difference.As,you said - "to some degree"

The government recently mentioned that they have a billion one dollar coins stored somewhere.They said they made them because the dollar bills weren't durable enough.I think most people would rather carry paper money than heavy coins.In ,fact that's one reason why we started using paper money in the first place.Countries where they only had gold and silver coins decided it was more convenient to exchange "receipts" or "I.O.U.'s rather than the actual money as it was so heavy to carry around.

In my opinion the whole idea of using gold and silver as money is practical only if the "banks" were honest enough not to Inflate the money supply by printing up money or creating money from promises to pay as has been the practice in America and probably worldwide for at least a number of centuries.We in America had a stable money supply for a while and the bankers in London England didn't like that.They wanted to make us dependent on them for our money.Even after Independence they continually contrived to take over our money supply over the first century of Independence.We had numerous financial crisis caused by private banks and even cental banks because of corruption in banking and the Rothchilds ,J.P.Morgan and the like.When the civil war started the private banks here and elsewhere wanted to charge outragious interest on any loans they would make in order to finance that war or as some say - police action.Andrew Jackson survived an assanation attemp before Lincoln's assasination for the very same reason and other reasons.Then we were forced to accept the federal reserve system in 1913 .Then Kennedy was assasanated for the very the very same reason among other reasons.

Using gold and silver as a way to limit the value of each dollar printed,(as soon as it's printed)prevents anyone from spending those dollars before they lose their artifical spending power as has been done numserous times.This cheating of the system has been rampent and deliberate by the government itself.They know the people will not recognize this scam until it become obvious oner time.They know that.


Daire Fitter 4 years ago

There was life before money, so if we didn't have money, we'd revert back to the trade system most likely. Or invent some new way of exchange. The trade system wasn't fair to begin with. So money was invented, but with society the way it is, not everyone has money. They'd probably invent something other than money/barter trade altogether without money


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 3 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio Author

Probably a cashless society where all transactions would be done by computer.In other words a system that is controlled by those who control the worlds governments namely the world bank or the IMF International Monetary Fund and what is referred to in the new testament of the New King James version of THE ENGLISH BIBLE.

THE MARK OF THE BEAST. Where all people would be treated like with no more respect than we would treat any other animal under our control.


maggs224 profile image

maggs224 3 years ago from Sunny Spain

It is the love of money and the power that accompanies it that is the problem, money is a good servant but a very poor master.

No matter what country you look at, you will find that the top 1% takes more than its share, at the expense of the rest, and protects at all costs its right to continue to do so.

In countries where the inequality between the richest 1% and the the majority 90% is greatest, you can see how much control this top 1% has.

Unfortunately both the UK and the USA are right at the top of the inequality league, and that 1% have no intention of letting things change.

The 1% are the power behind the throne so to speak, and they intend to make sure they stay that way.


someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 3 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio Author

Couldn't agree more! That one percent has increased I think! The rest just wish they could be in that top percent.Not likely though!


Rebecca Furtado profile image

Rebecca Furtado 2 years ago from Anderson, Indiana

Thank you for this wonderful hub. It explains a great deal of things many of us find hard to understand. I have more understanding of the emotional reality of money and the lack thereof ; than the way it works in theory or reality. Shared.


ShariBerry profile image

ShariBerry 23 months ago from Michigan

Yes, if you have money you do have some form of power. For some reason this 1% have been made out to be evil but some of these 1 percenters provide jobs, invest in business' that provide jobs and buy things that keep people employed. If you didn't have currency there would be another form of purchasing power. I still believe in the capitalist system we have even if it is flawed in some ways.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working