The Instigator
Decanus
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ProNoob
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The notion of "money" is responsible for inhibiting an ideal society

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,143 times Debate No: 30091
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Decanus

Pro

I'm going to be arguing the PRO for this one.

Guidelines:
I don't want this to be a "debatey" kind of debate. Please don't use phrases like "extend through the flow" or "card." I'd like this to be a very relaxed discussion between two individuals regarding a theory I'd had a while ago.
I won't lie: I have a short attention span. Please try to keep your points as concise as possible. Keep in mind, there is a 24 hr limit on response time.

Structure:
This is a 5 round debate. The first round should provide a brief outline of the points that you will be arguing. The second round should expand on those points and respond briefly to the opponent's points. After that, it's a free for all until the debate is over. Questions may be asked at any time.

My vision of an "Ideal Society": my opponent can feel free to define "Ideal Society" as he or she pleases, as long as it's within reason. My vision of an "Ideal Society" is one in which people use their varied talents to operate on a "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" basis. For example, an architect builds a house for a baker who thanks him by providing oodles of delicious pastry for him and his family. Obviously it can't always be that simple, but that's the basic idea of what we're going for.

My points:
1) Many people will inevitably be defined by their salaries
2) The ratio of contributions-to-you-fellow-man to reward is inaccurate at best and completely skewed at worst.
3) the notion of money supports greed. Moreover, it uses the natural human trait of greed to keep others down rather than sustain an ever growing society.
4) similar to point 2, the hardness with which you work does not correspond to the reward you get.

I thank anyone willing to accept this debate.
ProNoob

Con

Without money there's no way for the government of a nation to assign a value to an item.

So if they need more engineer's, as there are in Britain required, they will have to increase salary for engineering and increase it relative to others. If there is an overflow of doctors then they must decrease salary for new doctors.

There is simply no genuine way to determine if an apple Mac or a sh*tty little windows computer is worth more (I'm talking Mac book pro lion edition versus windows 98 old school laptop). Thus, there's no drive or motivation to produce anything in high quality.
Debate Round No. 1
Decanus

Pro

But why does money have to be the motivating factor? Why, instead of directly rewarding one action (creating a higher quality laptop than all the rest) with another (giving the laptop maker some sort of good or service you specialize in) do we contrive this inefficient middleman? There is definitely a motivation to produce something in high quality with the non-monetary system. If you don't make the best laptop, nobody will want to give you their pastries in exchange for your laptop. In fact, I would argue that money inhibits the motivation to produce in high quality. If you make something with slightly worse quality than another product, but market it 10x as well, it's guaranteed to sell. Without money, all that's left is a genuine desire to see the technological world expand.

In terms of your first point, I think looking at the situation for educators in America can shine some light upon why eliminating money would help in that respect as well. Teachers, simply put, are drastically underpaid (and I'm not talking about state school professors. Those guys are overpaid). I and many of my friends have openly said that we would definitely become teachers (for which there is a drastic need) if only their salary was substantial enough to support a decent life. If the notion of money was eliminated, only a genuine love of education and a desire to enrich the minds of the nation's youth would be left.

Simply put, the non-monetary system provides just enough incentive for people to work for their wealth and also allows for fair treatment of people in all fields.

Also, I'd like to pick your brain about the idea of "individual success." I was watching "Shark Tank" the other day, and multi-millionaire Keven O'Leary said something along the lines of "I won't do business with you unless you move production from America to China." Doing so would be far cheaper than American production, but would detriment both the lives of American workers who are now without the manufacturing jobs and Chinese laborers who work under severely unfair conditions to create the product. People like Mr. O'Leary wouldn't be so inclined to do something as immoral as that if there was no profit in it. Instead, his decision would be based on the welfare of his fellow man because, simply, that's all that there is left.

I look forward to hearing the responses of my opponent, whom I thank for accepting the debate.
ProNoob

Con

I think that I will answer the proposed rebuttals/questions one by one.
"Why, instead of directly rewarding one action (creating a higher quality laptop than all the rest) with another (giving the laptop maker some sort of good or service you specialize in) do we contrive this inefficient middleman?"

The point is that the middleman isn't inefficient. It's a common ground on which everyone can trade. An eighteen year old who has just become an adult wants to buy a Mac. They work endlessly on a job that pays them as few pastries per hour as is legally allowed and eventually have saved up enough to buy one. Now they go to the shop selling the Mac and ask to buy it, the shopkeeper says "Dude, I don't like chocolate pastries and half of your pastries are rotten, you must have been paid them months ago!" now what the heck should he do? Do you really want him to be selling the pastries he is paid on top of doing his 12 hour shift job in order to get something worthwhile to trade? The inefficiency of the middleman is nonexistent, for without the middleman of money a truly inefficient system arises.

"There is definitely a motivation to produce something in high quality with the non-monetary system. If you don't make the best laptop, nobody will want to give you their pastries in exchange for your laptop."

Firstly, Apple has to pay all of its workers across the world who not only may not want pastries but also might be half way across the world from the retail store and the pastries would be rotten by the time it got to them. There is simply no universal trading means, such as money, in the proposed system and thus it's so ridiculously impractical to impose.

"I would argue that money inhibits the motivation to produce in high quality. If you make something with slightly worse quality than another product, but market it 10x as well, it's guaranteed to sell. "

The exact same issue would exist in a non-monetary system. Advertising leads to brainwashing regardless of the means of trade.

"If the notion of money was eliminated, only a genuine love of education and a desire to enrich the minds of the nation's youth would be left."

False. Your system means that the love of 'pastries' and the number of them per hour would be the new motivation.

"People like Mr. O'Leary wouldn't be so inclined to do something as immoral as that if there was no profit in it."

What if Chinese workers required less 'pastries' than Americans? Same issue.
Debate Round No. 2
Decanus

Pro

My arguments are being misunderstood. I'm not suggesting we replace money with pastries. That, I agree, would also be woefully inefficient (although I wouldn't mind working for pastries :P). I'm saying instead of using money to exchange goods, we just exchange the goods straightaway. The aforementioned 18yr old wouldn't work hours on end for a company like mcdonalds or whatever in exchange for money with which he would buy his mac, he'd work at apple and be paid with a mac. Then, he could expand his horizons and work somewhere else in return for other goods. Not a bad life, if you ask me.

Just to re-affirm, I am *NOT* saying that money should be replaced with pastries. I'm saying money should be eliminated straightaway, so I'd be interested in other arguments you can make that don't assume people would be paid only pastries to teach. There wouldn't be a "pastries per hour" system.
ProNoob

Con

So unless one works for the company that makes the good (for example Apple) they then cannot purchase the god (the Mac). This is obviously going to fall flat on its face because there would be no way to make profit and thus no motivation to hire workers in the first place.

If you don't replace money with pastries what will you replace it with? With what can a lower class worker buy the Mac? Money? That doesn't exist. Pastries? Long gone rotten. Sex? How much sex would one have to give in order to gain the laptop?


You're really suggesting exchanging a good or service on the spot for the others good or service. While it's cute to think that a porn star would be willing to do whatever amount of sex is required of him/her on the spot for a good or service do you really want to force them to use their only professional talent to buy something as simple as groceries or water? Money allows them to do what they do for a 'middle ground' good that then is traded for what they want later on. It is the lubricant of the economy, the catalyst of trade.

Without money, the most inefficient and unjustifiable system of all arises: One where there is no way for a porn star to get food or water without using her talents for whatever the shopkeeper says to use them for. This is slavery at its finest.
Debate Round No. 3
Decanus

Pro

again, a misunderstanding arises. I'm not saying the shopkeeper forces the pornstar to make a porno for him in exchange for groceries. I'm saying the shopkeeper does his job because he likes selling groceries. The pornstar does his because he likes having sex in front of a camera. Everyone recieves the fruits of everone else's labor as well as their own. A perfect society, no? Certainly not slavery.
ProNoob

Con

Pro claims that they are "not saying the shopkeeper forces the pornstar to make a porno for him in exchange for groceries."

Yet when I requested them to further expand on how their system worked they stated that "instead of using money to exchange goods, we just exchange the goods (and services) straightaway." Now, the only professional skill of a pornstar is to act in a porno (assuming this is their full time, only, job). So the only thing they'd have to trade for something as frequently bought and needed as groceries would be their ability to have sex in front of a camera.

Quite frankly, to force them to do something as tiring as this, outside of their job, on top of all the porn they'd be doing for paying off things like their internet, electricity and gas bills is on the verge of sexual slavery.
Debate Round No. 4
Decanus

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for what has been a very informative and thought-provoking debate and close with what I hope will clarify any confusion.

the main problem with my opponent's argument is that he jumps to conclusions that don't exist. He (or she, I'm not really sure) immediately assumes that a pornstar would have to produce hours upon hours of porn just to get along in a non-monetary society. This isn't necessarily the case. Instead of focusing on specific instances in which a non-monetary society can be perverted to the point of slavery, I'd like to see a more fundamental closing argument explaining why exactly money is necessary. Why would it not work for a pornstar to simply make a sizeable amount of porn and then go to the store to recieve the shopkeeper's services (groceries) as well as internet, TV, etc?

What I'm talking about is building a society off the natural goodwill and camaraderie of human beings. One may be tempted to call that a childish fantasy and that people are just morally bankrupt at their core, but if you look at how our society is structured, people only act like jerks because it means making a lot of money. That's what it's all about. Money. What if, instead of putting all our time and effort into making money, we put that effort into helping others. An economy based on friendship. Call me a romantic, but I think it's very achievable with only one step: the elimination of the notion of "money."
ProNoob

Con

Before I begin my closing statement I shall list all uncontested contentions that I have raised throughout debate and my opponent completely failed to either address or successfully refute.

"Without money there's no way for the government of a nation to assign a value to an item."

"If they
(the people of a nation under a government) need more engineer's, as there are in Britain required, they will have to increase salary for engineering and increase it relative to others. If there is an overflow of doctors then they must decrease salary for new doctors."

"There is simply no genuine way to determine if an apple Mac or a sh*tty little windows computer is worth more (I'm talking Mac book pro lion edition versus windows 98 old school laptop). Thus, there's no drive or motivation to produce anything in high quality."

"Without the middleman of money a truly inefficient system arises."

"There is simply no universal trading means, such as money, in the proposed system and thus it's so ridiculously impractical to impose."

"So unless one works for the company that makes the good (for example Apple) they then cannot purchase the god (the Mac). This is obviously going to fall flat on its face because there would be no way to make profit and thus no motivation to hire workers in the first place."

"Now, the only professional skill of a pornstar is to act in a porno (assuming this is their full time, only, job). So the only thing they'd have to trade for something as frequently bought and needed as groceries would be their ability to have sex in front of a camera.

Quite frankly, to force them to do something as tiring as this, outside of their job, on top of all the porn they'd be doing for paying off things like their internet, electricity and gas bills is on the verge of sexual slavery."

All these points were left conceded to or completely unaddressed throughout the debate.

In pro's closing round they request me to give " a more fundamental closing argument explaining why exactly money is necessary. Why would it not work for a pornstar to simply make a sizable amount of porn and then go to the store to receive the shopkeeper's services (groceries) as well as internet, TV, etc?"

I have only got a few hundred characters left and will keep it concise.

It's really simple. If the company leaders of all available grocery stores and/or gas, oil, internet, water or electricity corporations of the area of the pornstar are either ethically opposed to porn or simply find the pornography that person produces disgusting then they can't have these basic needs.

Let's be realistic now.

Two people both produce pastries, one produces pastries tell me now how it's fair that one can give one pastry to a company who loves pastries for a whole Mac but the other has to give 4000 because they happen to be in a bad mood at the time of asking? No set price, no fairness.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.