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
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".
I agree Hugh, I guess I am looking to see if folks will admit the US will also use those weapons too!
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?
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
This kind of economic approach can work in small communities, but on Country sized scales? No, I don't think it could.
Conservatives could. Liberals would resort to begging and after a while conservatives would stop feeding them, viewing them as nuisance scavengers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Yeah but a bit too much like anarchy for Evan
I can't speak for Evan, but I wouldn't call co-ops anarchic. Fringe maybe
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.
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.
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
[I use foreign as an indicator of foreign to the business rather than foreign to the country]
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?
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?"
BOOM - a price was made.
Again, confusing monetarism with capitalism!
Hey I agree with your concept.
Like the Nike advert says: Just do it
Its not exactly that foreign to me (the concept).
I grew up without Walmart and all of the other super box buidlings anyway.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
by Harvey Stelman 12 years ago
Our Politicians think they can. Tell me if you or the government can; and how?
by aka-dj 12 years ago
Here is a 4 min video. You (we) are about to give up our freedom(s).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40What do you think?
by thecounterpunch 11 years ago
by Moderndayslave 10 years ago
With the income gap between the wealthiest American's and the soon to be decimated middle or working class ever increasing. How much more proof do you need that tax cuts for the wealthy isn't creating jobs or supplying wages that are holding their own against inflation....
by Scott Belford 8 years ago
Unemployment hasn't been this low since 2008 while 113,000 more jobs were added during one of the worst winters America has seen. E\What do you think?
by Moderndayslave 9 years ago
With wages adjusted for inflation either stagnant or losing ground and commodities and the cost of living going up. Is the US economy being systematically gutted or is this just a coincidence? What's your opinion and why?
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|