Vernon Nolan

This conversation is closed.

Why do we allow money to limit the supply of all food?

Supply and distribution of food depends on the actions and intelligence of people. Eating food is a very simple process known to every living creature. There is no evidence that money is an essential ingredient. People often volunteer their time and energy. Food does not require to be transported into the mouth by by means of a V folded banknote. Suppose everyone in the World agreed to give some of their time and energy to allow us to guarantee every one on the planet would get sufficient free food forever?
Food must be given maximum priority above all else. Starvation is a deadly killer, and destroys life and life styles as effectively as any disease. Enough food can already be produced already. But only those with money can get it, and those with lots of money can waste enormous amounts of it. We must learn and apply the best methods of production and do it all as efficiently as can be.
There is some talk of financial crisis is about to destroy the whole financial system and billions of people will be eliminated.
If we isolate food from the financial system, the machinations of the money people need not affect us at all. The whole population would lose their fears and be confident knowing that they never need to go hungry.
This has to be on a global scale. It is apolitical, just humans co-operating with each other. Perhaps it could be called "Humanism".

  • thumb
    Aug 4 2011: Nich
    Self reliant people try to isolate themselves. The only way the human race can survive is by co-operating with each other, much more than now.
    I have written a small book which sets out some advantages, but I did not know that The Zeitgeist Movement had already covered this quite thoroughly. Perhaps, we can make this the subject of another question. Economy means money. I am not trying to change peoples minds, I am hoping they will be open to ALL possibilities. Clearly, many people are changing, People Power is growing everywhere. The Arab Spring is not about oppressive despots so much as, against a system where a very few people have money(= power) and the rest are poorer. It is not only the desperately poor who are protesting, everyone who feels less than rich is joining in. Notice that this situation happens in every country. Arab Spring may soon become Cosmopolitan Autumn. This is not Communism, it is Humanism. All people joining together to create a fairer and more equal society. Even the Elites must be willing to join in.
    Take away money, and power is gone. People will then learn to co-operate to, not only survive, but do everything they choose between them. People will not purchase service, they will just ask for what they need. Would you refuse to help? Would anyone you know refuse? People are already stressed. They would feel better if they realized that they can get all they genuinely need by just asking.
    • Aug 8 2011: Yes, you're right in a way. Have you not heard of the current "crisis" sweeping Britain in regards to benefits? There are people who have no disability, spawn multiple children for the money, and so on. Now add into the mix the people who are working and slogging through the poor economy, and then those who are actually in need of benefits, and see the disgust and antipathy that these two groups feel towards those that contribute nothing to society.
      What I'm asking is, if you gained everything by just asking for it, where would the balance be?
      Humanism and Communism go hand in hand (TO SOME DEGREE), if you remove the money...another valuation system would be put into place.
      An extreme example is the Fallout games serious whereby you play a man/woman in a post-apocalyptic society where bottlecaps serve as the currency. Whilst money may be evil, it is only because we made it so. What you ned to understand is that removing it would be wrong.
      I understand where you're coming from, you believe that people would become better and band together at the loss of money. I would contest this and say that as valuation is ingrained in out societies across the globe, it would be replaced by something else.
  • thumb
    Aug 1 2011: so you would say it is more important to feed one children than to save a thousand from losing a leg? because that is what "maximum priority above all else" means.

    but this is just a little issue. the big issue is: money does not limit anything. money actually makes economic growth possible, which enables mankind to produce the food and all other stuff we needed.

    i recommend you to study how the economy works, so you get a better understanding of the world.
    • thumb
      Aug 4 2011: If economic growth relies on money and we live in a world with only so many resources.
      How does it not limit anything ?
      Economic growth can’t last indefinitely can it?
      • thumb
        Aug 4 2011: you certainly have an idea what you have a problem with, but you obviously struggle with understanding the basic elements of our economy.

        growth does not rely on money more than it relies on the internet, transportation, language and so on. money is a tool that facilitates exchange. it makes thing easier, but it is not a fundamental element. the fundamental elements of the economy are things like exchange, division of labor, saving, capital and so on. economic growth relies on savings and capital accumulation.

        some resources are limited, but it does not matter too much, since we don't directly consume resources. lithium can be limited, but we can build better and better devices using the same amount of lithium. so lithium won't limit the amount of satisfaction or joy we can get. in the same manner, equal land can produce much more food with better technology, as demonstrated in the last 50 years.

        so in terms of lithium, growth is limited. in terms of energy, it is also limited, but the limit is growing. but in terms of personal value, joy, satisfaction, quality of life, there is no limit.
    • thumb
      Aug 4 2011: Ah but Kristzian, the newest research is proving that economists do not have all the answers and that their focus on the old concepts are being superceded by the work on cooperation!
      Money has value because we decide it does. Food has intrinsic value. Lives have value when WE decide that they do. My 'educated' value system puts a human being's right to live by not starving to death above someone else's 'right' to make a profit.
      • thumb
        Aug 4 2011: "economists do not have all the answers"

        no kidding!? :)

        i'm still can't wrap my head around the fact that you try to oppose my views bringing up cooperation. i believe in cooperation! cooperation is what i believe in! according to my views, free economy is a grand scheme of cooperation! government actions, however, are not. they are coerced.

        if you don't see free economy as a cooperation, i challenge you to make a pizza from nothing but what nature gives us.
        • Aug 8 2011: Whenever you are in Gothenburg, Sweden, please knock on my door - I make you a pizza from nothing but what nature gives us - that's the easiest challenge I ever had in my life!Andrea

          ok, just realized, is it ok to use my swiss army knife? otherwise it takes a lot longer! :-)
      • thumb
        Aug 8 2011: dear andrea, one day i might show up. but in advance, please tell me that recipe.
      • thumb
        Aug 9 2011: no army knife, no fireplace, and no wheat either.
        • Aug 11 2011: ok, i get the army knife, but fire made with sticks and wheat is nature or how do you figure what is pure nature?
          and the thing with recipe is difficult, a good cook has her secrets! I often prepare food from what nature gives, being a scoutleader and liking the adventures of survival weekends, but yes, I cheat sometimes with my beloved swiss army knife! :-)
      • thumb
        Aug 11 2011: andrea, by fireplace, i meant constructed fireplace. you can make one for yourself of course, using stones, wood, etc.

        actually, it is possible to make a pizza from scratch. i love this example because after some work (most of the time will go to making pots in order to make the dough, building a makeshift mill, and such things) there is satisfaction at the end.

        should i request a pen to be made, you would be at a complete loss, for your entire life is not enough to produce one. and for a mobile phone, your entire life is not enough to even create a plan.
        • Aug 11 2011: You got me there, I am not a technical person, I couldn't even think of creating a phone, even though I can't live without one these days!
          But the guy sitting next to me he can plan a mobile phone from scratch ( he designed one long ago working for philips) but he refuses to make the pestle without a CNC lathe. :-) but we can always use clay and handform it.
          Sorry, I hope I am not wasting your time, just found it irresistable to answer your pizza question, having a big smile on my face answering you and reading your comments.
          Btw, quillpen?
      • thumb
        Aug 11 2011: andrea, final note on production of stuff: definitely check out matt ridley's ted talk.
        • Aug 11 2011: will do, and an email coming soon - you wanted tips on improving the world - thats what I do!
  • thumb
    Aug 1 2011: Because in the existing economy the food has to belong to somebody... every single infrastructure and services that deliver that food belongs to somebody.

    Why do they own it ? To make money.
    Why do they need money ? To buy/grow food.

    Chicken and egg... viscous I know.
  • thumb
    Aug 9 2011: subject: natural food.
    why are man made goods considered unnatural? You are a man Andre, if you make pizzas won't they be man made? It is not machinery that makes unhealthy food, It is people who choose what is made that spoils the produce. Like everyone they have try for a profit. unless there are some complaints they are doing too good a job, Maybe you should be their quality inspector. Really. V
  • thumb
    Aug 9 2011: To: Judge Pau.
    When money finally collapses, which seems very soon, we will have to adjust our thinking to suit the new paradigm. Without money nothing would have any value. In truth, everything is priceless AND worthless at the same time. If it is something you need desperately it is worth all that is asked for it. If it is of no use to you, it's value is '0'. Values are human judgments, not natural law. As free people we can choose what serves us best. Capital is based on value and suffers the same fate. It is what money does that counts, not o what it can or cannot do. That is true for all of us.
  • Aug 8 2011: Yes, feeding starving kids is important, but with industrial made food? Famines rarely ever occur do to lack of food, but do to lack of money for people to buy food. So what we actually should do to avoid starvation and hunger is to give the developing countries the means to be self sufficient - industrialize the countries, create jobs, help to create the infrastructure needed to add value to whatever they have, to build and create things needed themselves, not give stuff or have them import stuff to prizes nobody can afford.
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2011: Hi Nich,
    I condemn no one. We all live as well as we can in the present. But you cannot blame me if I am not prepared to leave it at that.
    Self reliance will never work, but co-operation with others can work miracles.
    Why is time a factor? I am over 80 and I am in no hurry. Taxes are gauged on money income. Without money no taxes will accrue. Just one of the many benefits of eliminating money.
    Be real lucky.
    • Aug 4 2011: Why would self-reliance never work?

      Eliminating money? Sure, ok, could you expand on the other benefits?
      And furthermore allow me to rebutt before you even answer, by eliminating money you eliminate the economy. If that were to be snuffed out can you imagine the damage that would do psychologically and physically to everyone alive.

      So if you were to eliminate money, how would you purchase a service? By eliminating money people would have to become completely self-reliant as they could not "purchase" a service. Therefore your preposition that self-reliance will never work cancels out your thought on eliminating money.
  • Aug 2 2011: I don't understand why people take such a combative position on hunger. We all post these comments, whether you feel that we do or do not have the resources to end world hunger (and again, I don't know why people would want to argue about that - look at people like Larry Ellison or the like - we have the resources), well fed. We are not hungry when we sit and argue nonsensically with one another about who is right or wrong. Let us concern ourselves more with the fact we like being fed, as that others would too. Let us think of that and stop bickering!! And also for those talking about cost of food - she said that chickpea packet costs 17 cents!! If we just didn't go to starbucks for one week, suppose we make coffee at home, save a few bucks and some paper - we could put that towards several of those chickpea packets and help out some people who desperately need it. But let's not consider these words... Let's argue some more...

    Check out Peter Singer's part in the movie Examined Life. I think Singer's a little looney on some issues, but he's got some good points.
    • thumb
      Aug 13 2011: This conversation starts with the question: "Why do we allow money to limit the supply of all food?" Discussing the role of money seems appropriate to me.
  • Aug 2 2011: I would ask that before condeming food ownership, that you tell us all where you get your food from?
    Or do you operate a complete self-reliance in this issue, by raising your own meat, growing your own vegetables and processing everything yourself?

    And if time is a factor, remember that unfortunately taxs are a certainty...and theoretically everyone must pay, ergo requiring them to proceed with paid work on their part.
  • thumb
    Aug 2 2011: PS. What makes you think everything has to belong to someone?VN
    • thumb
      Aug 9 2011: Precisely...
      It doesn't HAVE TO... but the current economy model demand that you got a capital... which translates to properties.
  • thumb
    Aug 2 2011: Hi Judge,
    what happened before money? VN
  • thumb
    Aug 2 2011: Thanks Kristian, the trouble with specialists is they only see things from their own point of view. You know I did not say that.
    Be real happy,