[Ghastly]

Big Chief, on Dec 24, 2012 - 3:38 PM, said:

@Ghastly


That, or a system to quickly calculate value more quickly. Considering people traded produce, animals, information, land, jewels, artwork, etc., before coins and currency.

So are you telling us trade is a slavery system?

Or are you trying to define the people who use money for such things. Even then, money only does so much.

As a wise man once said, "Righteousness, is a father teaching his kids, that what's better than wealth is respect in itself."

Trading for resources is very different from the monetary system. In a resource system you can grow your own food, you don't pay rent or mortgage to anyone, you trade for what you want and aren't forced to trade. It's all up to you. That's freedom

Quote

As for the land part:

The existence that defended it the best and/or took it, told (be it physically or metaphorically) that they claim this land for them and their peoples, because they need it/want it/both.

The animals who had a tendency for territory, fought other animals. Tribesmen fought off wildlife to make and keep their homes. Tribesmen were raided, attacked, enslaved, massacred, etc. by other tribesmen, future military, sometimes natural disasters.

I'm not against countries defining (outlying their country's border). I'm against individuals claiming that they own land, they don't, the country owns all of the land. In a resource economy you would have a government to handle all this land stuff. But for individuals to claim that they own half of the country, yeah. Looking at you Wall Street people

[Big Chief]

Ghastly, on Dec 25, 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

Trading for resources is very different from the monetary system. In a resource system you can grow your own food, you don't pay rent or mortgage to anyone, you trade for what you want and aren't forced to trade. It's all up to you. That's freedom

That's because a resource system is obsolete, or hasn't been expanded on.

You would have to seek out a rent or mortgage for land if it isn't yours, or if you don't have any but need some.

Remember, renting is paying someone for a service for a period of time. Mortgaging is to borrow money and paying it back.

I'm not sure how you are forced to give up your own goods on your own land, unless your being bullied. But I digress.



I ask that you elaborate for me, on what you mean.

Ghastly, on Dec 25, 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

I'm not against countries defining (outlying their country's border). I'm against individuals claiming that they own land, they don't, the country owns all of the land. In a resource economy you would have a government to handle all this land stuff. But for individuals to claim that they own half of the country, yeah. Looking at you Wall Street people

I wasn't talking about countries. Borders aren't that old, and countries have been trampled over over the years.

I'm not sure what the executives of Wall Street have been doing, but I'm sure they've been saying things of that nature metaphorically. Due to it being a good source of capital.

A country is run by a type of government one way or the other. A good example of the government handling land, is either the USA government promising 40 achers to slaves or casinos and reservations to native Americans.

As we all know, the government is something you can't simply trust with land.

This post has been edited by Big Chief: Dec 25, 2012 - 1:18 PM

[Ghastly]

Big Chief, on Dec 25, 2012 - 1:17 PM, said:

That's because a resource system is obsolete, or hasn't been expanded on.

You would have to seek out a rent or mortgage for land if it isn't yours, or if you don't have any but need some.

Remember, renting is paying someone for a service for a period of time. Mortgaging is to borrow money and paying it back.

I'm not sure how you are forced to give up your own goods on your own land, unless your being bullied. But I digress.

I don't think you're understanding the concept of the country owning the land, not the individuals. In a resource economy you wouldn't have to pay for rent or to try to buy the land. You would just have the piece of land allocated to you by the government.

Quote

I wasn't talking about countries. Borders aren't that old, and countries have been trampled over over the years.

I'm not sure what the executives of Wall Street have been doing, but I'm sure they've been saying things of that nature metaphorically. Due to it being a good source of capital.

A country is run by a type of government one way or the other. A good example of the government handling land, is either the USA government promising 40 achers to slaves or casinos and reservations to native Americans.

As we all know, the government is something you can't simply trust with land.

You can't talk about money and economy without talking about countries and government. Government is the main issue here. If they worked without money and allocated land based on a well thought out blueprint of where people can farm (for themselves) and where people would prefer to be placed, etc.

You nee to see the picture, you wouldn't have to worry about land as no individual would own it. The country (thus the government) does. In essence you own it and do what you want with it but you wouldn't be allowed it to sell it or rent it.

[ElysiuM]

Pretty funny that I came across this. Before winter break, I wrote a paper on what the normal person perceives happiness as. I used this article as one of my main references. You might enjoy the read.

This post has been edited by ElysiuM: Dec 25, 2012 - 1:39 PM

[Shaigh]

Have to wait til western release to see if money can buy happiness, but I can already say, the person that lacks the money to buy it will feel unhappy.

[Big Chief]

@Ghastly

I think I see. So money does not bring happiness, but grief, because the system around it can be replaced with a fairer one. One that lets people work on the land for the purposes the government gives it. You can only do what the government tells you to do on it. That is basically what allocation is. Setting things aside for a purpose.



Now, do you assume that this is better than giving people money to buy things that others make? Do you not think this is a form of enslavement? In this economy run country, you're only free to do as you're told. The government will not be able to workout all the issues or look after all the land it gives out. Same for the people who are head of the states, and cities, and districts, for example.


Yes, while buying land may not be a problem, gaining what you need to survive from land, will be complex if not impossible in certain locations. For I am not sure who will get things like food, shelter, cloths, and other things, unless you ship resources here and there. But not every land, is capable of having or making what is needed. Especially if the government gives out land for it's on purposes.


The government may not own the individuals, but the individuals most certainly don't own the land. Something they need in order to exist.

It seems you think the government is not as problematic as companies that let you rent and mortgage land. That is a mistake, as the government is attached to companies as well. But I could be wrong. and my apologies if I am. I do not think you can simply trust one power with everything.

This post has been edited by Big Chief: Dec 25, 2012 - 2:08 PM

[Ghastly]

See you're seeing it wrong Cheif
I've said countless times that the government gives them the land to do with it whatever they please. Now, based on what the head of the family wants (what type of land, farming, mining, or just live in a city) the government will place them there. They don't have to farm or mine or whatever, that's up to them.

But the great thing is that these families and individuals will have the freedom of choice to live/do what they want. Of course some communities will be known for certain trades and sciences (technology, farming, etc).

[BloodJoker]

idk if this is the right place to tell this story but the hell with it ill tell you guys anyway. theres an old folk tale in my culture about an old husband and wife who were poor as poor can be, living off the small land and the tiny home they had, but nonetheless they were happy. every night the husband would sing and his wife would dance until one day the king himself came to see why these two were the happiest in the kingdom. When he saw how they lived he felt sorry for them and gave them a big sum of gold so they could truely be happy like he was, but that night the husband and wife didn't sing and dance, they sat, nervous and scared that someone would come a steal all their new found wealth..... blah blah blah its a long tale but i think you guys get it. its simple and I think a very good tale, its what ill tell my kids when they ask me this question.

This post has been edited by BloodJoker: Dec 25, 2012 - 2:36 PM

[Big Chief]

So the only reason for government to hand out land, is for the people to do as they please with it.

And now there are families establishing hierarchy on the land given?

You were throwing me off with information I couldn't find, and allocation.




I just don't see land being given to every single person and family, ever working out.

I don't see how using money to buy things from companies is as bad as you say, everybody doing there own thing, and having a choice wither to work the land. Who's going to do it for them, they have the choice not to work the land? How will they get paid, if they can't use a renting system? In resources? How will they use it? How will the government survive? On it's own land?

How will things get done if people don't have the ability to work, or if they chose not to work all together?

How will cities run or be built? By the people who own the land it's sitting on? Collaboration? Don't forget people have a choice. So they could easily not build cities, that need many different kinds of resources that one patch of land simply can't hack on it's own. Or probably even support on it's on. Remember the sensitive lands in Nebraska? They want to run a oil line through it. Resources can't go everywhere, because the land might not be able to handle it.



It's a pretty idea. Working on land you were given, and not needing to rent it out or use a mortgage system. But what will get done? What will happen when land runs out and population grows? What if resources run dry on land given? (Oh, and they will. Trust me.)

This post has been edited by Big Chief: Dec 25, 2012 - 2:49 PM

[oshiokiyo]

I do think that money can buy happiness to a certain extent. Because the world is so revolved around money (meaning you need it to do, anything... really) the only way for you to make memories or have fun is to have money. There are only a few things you could do for free, but with money you could basically do whatever you want (that isn't illegal :p) For me, my happiness is in Japan, and going to school, both of which need money in order for me to do them. Also, although I'm really poor right now, I have a lot of happy moments with my mother, it has made us closer, but it has also made us completely stressed and heart broken- if we had money, we would be able to live a relatively stress free life, and be able to travel and reach our dreams which would make us happy. So all and all yes, I do think it does xD (sorry if this sounds funky.. I'm on pain meds Q_Q)

[Naom]

it depends on how one defines happiness.

This post has been edited by Naom: Dec 25, 2012 - 4:01 PM

[Ghastly]

He explains it better



It will have to be a multi-national system but it's the only system that works.

Here's an even better one



And here is the real truth

[KingOfAce]

simply ,money can buy happiness,with money i can travel with my love ones,debt free = stress free,do what ever i want and buy supplements for building good health.

when will the world don't needs money? well that depends on A.I robotics mechanical versions of ourselves,that would take at lest 100 years to be ready for that

This post has been edited by KingOfAce: Dec 25, 2012 - 9:11 PM

[Big Chief]

@Ghastly

Sounds like a Travian set up so far, as well as the metropolis in Destiny Deoxys.

Such a lovely world.

= w =

I WANNA SEE IT ONE DAY!!! JEBUS, I DO!!!

[Shinaji]

Big Chief, on Dec 24, 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

So why exactly can't removing obstacles, bring happiness?

Why can't being able to use money to get things make you happy?


Doing as you like, should bring happiness, no matter how you look at it.

If money bought happiness all these rich people wouldn't be unhappy or on drugs or whatever it is that's their crutch.
Didn't say removing the obstacles wouldn't make you happy, but the money isn't your source of happiness. It's just the tool you us to keep the problems that deter your happiness at bay.
The sooner we realize that it's not the money itself that makes you happy the better.
We just live in a world that we've crafted to have money bar people out of everything they want.
Some people get a bunch of money and start spending it like crazy and just focus on the idea that the money should make them happy and they loose sight of why they wanted the money in the first place, the obstacle that the money was supposed to remove so they could be happy, they by pass it so they can spend the money all over the place, constantly looking around for something to make them happy.

See this a million times. Sometimes someone wanted money so they could take care of family but as soon as they get it they disregard their family and start living the "good life" and still always feel like something is missing, so they spend more money. This is a topic I come across often when counselling people.

Money doesn't make you happy, it's just a tool. Understand that, that's all.

[Big Chief]

Do you have a chart for that? Sources? Web-links? Who exactly or what country's rich people feel that way?

And I don't mean movies like Richie Rich.

I'm not saying it can't happen, but it's not like rich people feel this way all the time. I'm sure some never feel this way.



I never said money is happiness in itself. The topic is about how it brings happiness. But you never know, collecting it can bring happiness to anybody.




The people who you've counseled, probably needed it. I know there exists people who have ruined lives because money, but you can't assume it's gonna happen to everyone because of those who've been consoled.

On average, how many people do you console? On average, how many people make enough money for the Good Life? How many of those people do you see? How many people do you know, that have gotten so mixed up in the Good Life, that they forgot to take care of the things that used to be important to them, like there families?




A Tool/Tools can't make you happy? Using that tool/those tools, getting more tools can't make you happy? You can always find your own happiness in things.

If anything, everything could be a tool, or

-anything used as a means of accomplishing a task or purpose: Education is a tool for success.

And plenty of those things, mess up more lives, and make people even unhappier, than money.



I'll keep looking for charts and surveys on what makes most people unhappy, but who knows how old and how many people took them.

But if you're finished posting, that's fine too.

This post has been edited by Big Chief: Dec 26, 2012 - 6:31 AM

[Zenek]

That is depend by needs. You can not buy feelings like love, friendship... at last not true.

But money give power. Power to do what you want. And definitely allowing to avoid many factors what can ruin your happiness. But also not all - it will not protect you from disease.

So money are able to give happiness, but it is not ultimate factor.

[Ghastly]

Big Chief, on Dec 25, 2012 - 9:52 PM, said:

@Ghastly

Sounds like a Travian set up so far, as well as the metropolis in Destiny Deoxys.

Such a lovely world.

= w =

I WANNA SEE IT ONE DAY!!! JEBUS, I DO!!!

My real problem with money is that countries value/devalue other country's money based on debt, that should've never ever been there. No country should control any other country.

Resource based economy changes all that.
When countries use their money inside their country and use fake money outside to trade with other countries then that's a better system.

[Sir B]

Ghastly, on Dec 26, 2012 - 1:51 PM, said:

My real problem with money is that countries value/devalue other country's money based on debt, that should've never ever been there. No country should control any other country.

Resource based economy changes all that.
When countries use their money inside their country and use fake money outside to trade with other countries then that's a better system.

I agree with you here, my actual goal in politics is getting rid of the monetary system. It has its well known advantages but doing the aftermath I came to the conclusion it is morally wrong.


Back to the topic:

I think there are many ways to achieve happiness. Money is just a way, it makes it easier or harder. You can't buy love but you can get a gym subscription, attend some hooking up lessons and the list goes on.



The conclusion: If you can obtain happiness without money, please, enjoy it and pass the knowledge, if you can't, ask for advice. Did this help?

This post has been edited by Sir B: Jan 12, 2013 - 5:46 AM

[Juana]

Anyone who ever said "Money doesn't buy happiness" never bought a bag of weed.