jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (39 posts)

Could America survive on a Non-Business economy?

  1. dutchman1951 profile image60
    dutchman1951posted 5 years ago

    Could we make it on amix of things like sharing, bartering, charity, or would we destroy each other?  Your Thoughts if you care to?  Thanks

    1. Hugh Williamson profile image89
      Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm afraid not. Sharing, bartering etc., are the way commerce works in many poor third world countries. Yes, I think that we could "survive" (if you mean to exist), but there would be too little wealth generated to provide things like medical facilities and research, urban infrastructure or advanced education.

      Those who survived the ravages of disease, crime, hunger and lack of opportunities to improve themselves, would continue to exist, and I think "survive" is a good name for that condition.

      Many nations are armed with nuclear weapons and before they would accept living in such a condition, they would probably use them on someone else to take what they had. Then, as Pres. Eisenhower said, we'd all be "out in the mud grubbing for worms".

      1. dutchman1951 profile image60
        dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree Hugh, I guess I am looking to see if folks will admit the US will also use those weapons too!

        1. Hugh Williamson profile image89
          Hugh Williamsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think that anyone would use Nukes casually but as nations vie for diminishing resources for growing populations, conflict might lead to war which might lead to nuclear attack.

          Would the U.S. use a nuke first? I doubt it since the U.S. has missle defense capabilities and wouldn't necessarily have to. However, who knows?

          1. dutchman1951 profile image60
            dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            This Middle East has made me think about when a time may be possible where Goverment structures can not sustain nations, even like the US.

            Could we do as maybe anchient societies did, the top 10% goes in a wearhouse for the mass and the rest is yours to use tyrade with, help others etc.  I wounder about us as a nation now, I really do

    2. Susana S profile image92
      Susana Sposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      This kind of economic approach can work in small communities, but on Country sized scales? No, I don't think it could.

    3. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Conservatives could. Liberals would resort to begging and after a while conservatives would stop feeding them, viewing them as nuisance scavengers.

    4. prettydarkhorse profile image65
      prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, we have come this far and technology won't support bartering etc. Transactions become faster, we have computers now (online transactions) and social organizations are big. Barter etc.. are conducive for small communal setting.

  2. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    Could America survive on a non-business Economy? The title makes no sense.

    To have an Economy- you must have a marketplace, consumers and businesses with products/goods or services.

    There is no such entity of a non-business Economy. Now, that that's been dealt with, can America survive without an Economy? Absolutely not.

    Sharing is a personal aspect. Bartering is what America's Economy is based on. Charities are just other businesses, which don't actually do much versus what they claim to do.

    The problem with America's Economy is that there are too few small businesses and/or home based businesses. The "BIG" corporations continue to use greed, as a tool to destroy competition, in more ways than one. It's absurd.

    1. DTR0005 profile image86
      DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No....

    2. dutchman1951 profile image60
      dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      cag; there most certinly are economies that are non-business. 3rd world countries do this all the time, everything from sharing fish catches with other villages to make and trade.  I mean non formal Business, no monies exchanged

      think..around rthe world, could we do this also to survive, if it comes to this
      would we?  thats what I meant, I may not have been clear enough, in my question.

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Interesting... hmm

      2. I am DB Cooper profile image68
        I am DB Cooperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think what you're saying is there are economies that survive without the use of fiat currency or any type of credit/banking system. Any time there is a division of labor and an exchange of goods and services, there is business taking place. Although rudimentary, there isn't a fundamental difference between barter and trade between two farmers with different produce and me buying food at the grocery store.

        There is a reason why no large economy is restricted to a barter and trade system. It limits the ability to divide labor efficiently, thus increasing costs (in this case not in terms of money, but in what you have to give up in exchange for what you want).

        Economies also suffer without the use of banking and credit, because innovation tends to be stifled when the ability to take risks is limited.

  3. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    The answer is obvious.

    If you spent your entire day farming corn, would you give it away to someone for nothing?

    Of course not.

    Ta-da. Capitalism works again.

    1. dutchman1951 profile image60
      dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      if that other person had meat and you wanted to eat and have some corn with it, you may just trade it for some Evan, especially if money is imposible to own..? Iff you Hord the corn, it eventualy goes bad, so why not trade for other need.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What if I want food, a place to sleep, and running water, but I'm a Computer Game Code Programmer?

        ... do I need to look around the world for a location where farmers, landlords, and utility operates need people to design video games?

        Of course not.

        And this is why money exists. It is a "means of trade".

        Ludwig Von Mises, Carl Menger, and many other countless Austrian Economists have illustrated this point precisely and succinctly.

        I recommend the book "Lessons for the Young Economist" by Robert Murphy. The man who wrote it doesn't believe in intellectual property (because IP is dumb), and so he has it for free online.

        http://mises.org/daily/5126/OMG-Theres- … g-Industry

  4. Eaglekiwi profile image73
    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

    Sadly no,too much greed.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Why is it greedy to ask for something in return for my own labor?

      Why is it laziness to not work for that which I want?

      These two points fully explain why capitalism makes sense.

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Evan, you are confused! Monetarism does not have to be capitalist.

        It is perfectly possible to work for money in a none capitalist state, try co-ops for one or many charities that do not work to capitalism.

        1. Susana S profile image92
          Susana Sposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Heartily agree! I'm a big fan of co-ops.

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Co-Ops use money, they just don't call it money.

          They call them "vouchers" or "tickets" or any other word that means  money, but isn't money.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Wrong, they use money Pounds and Pence or Dollars and Cents, whatever you choose to call it!

            They produce balance sheets and pay taxes, the works, in fact if they didn't tell you, you'd have no reason to believe that you were dealing with a coop.

            I know plenty of co-ops, none of which use vouchers or tickets!

          2. Susana S profile image92
            Susana Sposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The difference between a co-op and a regular business is not the use of vouchers (I've also never seen a co-op using vouchers), it concerns how decisions are made in the business (one member one vote), who owns it (employees) and how profits are distributed among the members.

            If your interested in the co-op model of business read about John Lewis, a major department store in the UK which is also a co-op. Each employee owns shares within the company and they get extremely good yearly bonuses. I think employee owned businesses is a great model.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah but a bit too much like anarchy for Evan lol

              1. Susana S profile image92
                Susana Sposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I can't speak for Evan, but I wouldn't call co-ops anarchic. Fringe maybe smile

                1. Eaglekiwi profile image73
                  Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I would say that many small towns and villages all over the world already operate like this anyway.

                  Back in my day it was just called something else.

                  For it to work ,everyone must have the same mindset,which is harder to keep stable with a larger population.(IMO)

                  But yes it can be done-why not.

                  1. Susana S profile image92
                    Susana Sposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The community type co-op you're speaking of is alive and well in many small communities. For instance in the small village I grew up in in Spain people swap their produce with each other all the time. But I'm not sure it could work on a large scale? Or could it? Just thinking aloud here, but I guess countries could swap produce if they really wanted to.

                    I kinda moved onto thinking about co-op businesses rather than co-op communities. Personally I think the co-op business model reduces exploitation, increases productivity, increases personal responsibility and is generally a much more ethical mode of business. smile

                2. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Neither could I but to somebody who worships big business as much as Evan does, anything less than big business with lots of foreign investors must seem like pure anarchy lol

                  [I use foreign as an indicator of foreign to the business rather than foreign to the country]

                  1. Susana S profile image92
                    Susana Sposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah I guess it could be seen as a quiet kind of anarchy. It does blow apart the normal capitalist model somewhat big_smile

      2. Eaglekiwi profile image73
        Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No I mean sooner of later greed would enter in,someone always wants to make a profit.

        The barter system works in smaller communties I think. I know Ive experienced it.

        I thought Capitalism was already alive and well in the U.S?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          what's wrong with profit? that means that you helped someone that was desperate.

          If you think profits are evil, then you misunderstand how prices are generated.

          "Hey, you wanna buy X for Y?"

          "Sure"

          BOOM - a price was made.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Again, confusing monetarism with capitalism!

          2. Eaglekiwi profile image73
            Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hey I agree with your concept.

            Like the Nike advert says:  Just do it smile

            Its not exactly that foreign to me (the concept).

            I grew up without Walmart and all of the other super box buidlings anyway.

            1. recommend1 profile image71
              recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Your choice of Nike is more than apt answer to Evan and the naive theories he prescribes
              - Nike has it you want it - boom a price is made - and the company makes gross profits at the expense of cheap labour mills in third world countries.  To pay the inflated price that you are convinced is ok through advertising, you go and ask your boss for more money - yeah - I can just see how that all works out ok big_smile

  5. recommend1 profile image71
    recommend1posted 5 years ago

    Of course other economies would work - the problem is coming up with a working system that replaced the money in some way.

    But the question is incorrectly aimed I would say - the issue is how to divide   state and business.  It used to be religion and state working for the few who have big money, now that big money openly owns the state, business and the military.

  6. DonDWest profile image89
    DonDWestposted 5 years ago

    We call this system you mention "tribalism" or "ecological-capitalism," it was developed by the native Americans. It isn't "non-business" by any means. I also can't help to laugh when I read all these posts from people with college degrees who believe capitalism requires a credit system in order to function. The propaganda is churning so well that people think credit and capital is now the same.

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image73
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yea I see the humour too. Gosh my dad would have many letters after his name ,if credits matched wisdom.

      I do belong to a tribe and the custom still remains ,although watered down, the concept is still alive and well.

      Seems like adaptation works one way ,but not well the other way.

      For instance people from my tribe adapted to white mans money system,because they had to.

      I am not so sure the transition would work the other way round.

  7. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 5 years ago

    You labor in a factory producing cars.  Would you expect to be "paid" in food?  Chickens maybe?  Must you now find someone with excessive electricity to trade your chickens for?  As soon as it requires many workers to produce one item barter does not work unless it comes down to "govt" bartering with "govt".

    The rest of your question seems to be aimed at communism; everyone depends on charity and gifts.  This, too, does not work as very few will put out much effort - there is nothing to be gained by working hard.

  8. knolyourself profile image59
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Anything is possible. But the big banks are not going to allow it. Private banks print money for the price of the paper and the ink. Then they lend the paper to the government. And the tax payers have to pay them interest now amounting to $46,009.28 per citizen. Such a deal.

 
working