TED Conversations

Mats Kaarbö

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Why must we pay to live on our own planet?

The question may seem childish to some, but I want you all to really think about this. Why must we pay to live on our own planet?

Why did we make an economic system that is completely decoupled from the laws of nature, when we know that we live on a finite planet?

Why do we work for money that we then have to use to get access to resources we need, when the resources is already here?

And why do some people inherit land and claim it their private property, making other people pay or wok for having access to their property, even when everybody is born on the same planet and there is more than enough room for everybody?


Again, why must we pay to live on our own planet?

Topics: critical thinking economics education epiphany life society
+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Arkady Grudzinsky 50+

    • 0
    Oct 13 2012: Ownership does not seem to have much to do with money. First, paying money is just one of multiple ways to acquire ownership rights. Ownership may also be acquired through inheritance, gifts, claim of resources that do not belong to anyone, to say nothing of stealing and violent capture. Second, once the exchange is complete, money does not matter any more. What matters is our ability to enforce the ownership rights. It can be done through physical force - our own, the sheriff's or any other agency or by making resources unavailable to others - fencing, hiding, etc. Ownership only makes sense when our right to use resources is challenged in some way. When there is no need to protect our right to use something, the whole concept loses meaning. As for "intellectual property" - what it means, how to define it or enforce the "ownership rights" and how it is related to money - I don't even want to touch it here.

    I'm not an expert on this, but there seems to be a disconnect between the concept of ownership and necessity of money. Any thoughts?
    • thumb

      chen xin

      • 0
      Oct 14 2012: Ownership and money are totally two concepts
      we use money to achieve ownership e.g we spend money on house and then it belongs to me .the company will write our name on the contry .then we have it .

      also i think we can have a ownership of money .like the Forbes ranking says 'who have aproperty of some money .

      • john allan

        • 0
        Oct 15 2012: Hi chen. Well I will have a go at linking ownership and money.
        In my earlier post I talked about the 'hunter/gatherer' times when ownership meant
        what you could carry. Anthropologists and historians tell us that it all changed when farming started.
        To do farming you have to 'own' the land, you have to settle and defend the crop, and the seed for next year, and if you are successful and develop a surplus you can then trade/lend/ barter and the whole commerce thing kicks off. From this a 'division of labour' develops and you have the basis of contemporary society. From this stems social systems and hierarchy.
        This is where money comes in. It is the Political leader who determines and controls the currency (first known was in what is now called China). Notice whose name or image was pressed into most of the coins.
        The money was always under State Control and largely used to pay for goods and services to maintain the State and wage war. The peasant was given a coin for the chicken, then, when he wanted a chicken again he exchanged the coin for a chicken (or equivalent).
        This is the connection between State, Money, and ownership.
        Extension 1 :- Tax. The state decided to demand some coins back from the peasants so they could pay the soldiers etc they needed to wage increasingly expensive wars.
        Extension 2 :- Paper money and promissory notes.
        Paper money (known as Fiat money by experts) enables the State to operate in a constant state of Debt (I promise to pay the bearer printed on in the UK)
        Promissory Notes = beginning of stocks and shares - nominally related to Paper money, but this is no longer tied to Gold Reserves or any kind of 'Reality'.
        The theoretical money can be exchanged for goods/services and property, of course, but only whilst the State prevails and survives. State fails and all bets are off !
        Why does the state survive? Vested interest !
        Some of us are doing very nicely thank you very much.
        The above is not the truth but aid to discussion. Enjoy

    • John Smith 30+

      • 0
      Oct 14 2012: This is one of those cases where it doesn't matter if you pay in dollar bills, bananas or energy credits. What you have is a resource transfer between two parties, or at the very least a transfer of the rights to a certain amount of resources, it's easier to think of it that way than in terms of money (you don't have to think about inflation and exchange rates anymore).
      • thumb

        Arkady Grudzinsky 50+

        • 0
        Oct 14 2012: Money or other medium of exchange (sometimes) matters for the act of exchange. After I buy something, it does not matter how much I paid or how much money I have to determine my ownership. What matters is whether I can protect and enforce my right to use the resource. Money does not seem to have much to do with this ability. Is there a flaw in this logic?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.