Money is the "evil" of our societies (especially now) so some manage to do without it completely ... obviously they are extremely rare ... you have to dare !! Respect!
5 testimonials here with video: http://alternatives.blog.lemonde.fr/201 ... -exemples/
Living without money is possible..il enough to dare ...
-
Christophe
- Moderator
- posts: 79330
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 11046
Yes, it was true for a long time in the sense that it facilitated exchanges: an improved barter, in a way.
The structure of the exchange carried out was as follows: MAM
in which a first swinger sold a surplus of his production to a second for money, money transferred to a third against a commodity useful to the first swinger; we therefore start from a commodity to end up with a commodity of approximately the same value (all the money is not necessarily converted in this single transaction) and of a different nature.
Today, this structure is radically different with an apparent and deceptive similarity.
The formula is now written AMA '
This means that a sum of money is invested in the purchase or production of goods in order to carry out an exchange for a sum of money greater than the initial sum (if the formula remained AMA, the operation would not have obviously strictly no interest).
Therefore, in the first formula there is a search for a qualitatively different use value, which is why the swingers present themselves before the market, while in the second, only the exchange value, purely quantitative and sought after, the value of use is only present in the residual state, only to allow the exchange to take place.
To assimilate this is to understand many things, e.g. the reason for the planned obsolescence.
M = commodity
A = money
A '= money + profit
The structure of the exchange carried out was as follows: MAM
in which a first swinger sold a surplus of his production to a second for money, money transferred to a third against a commodity useful to the first swinger; we therefore start from a commodity to end up with a commodity of approximately the same value (all the money is not necessarily converted in this single transaction) and of a different nature.
Today, this structure is radically different with an apparent and deceptive similarity.
The formula is now written AMA '
This means that a sum of money is invested in the purchase or production of goods in order to carry out an exchange for a sum of money greater than the initial sum (if the formula remained AMA, the operation would not have obviously strictly no interest).
Therefore, in the first formula there is a search for a qualitatively different use value, which is why the swingers present themselves before the market, while in the second, only the exchange value, purely quantitative and sought after, the value of use is only present in the residual state, only to allow the exchange to take place.
To assimilate this is to understand many things, e.g. the reason for the planned obsolescence.
M = commodity
A = money
A '= money + profit
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 18 Replies
- 14794 views
-
Last message by Ahmed
View the latest post
21/05/12, 22:04A subject posted in the forum : Economy and finance, sustainability, growth, GDP, ecological tax systems
Back to "Economy and finance, sustainability, growth, GDP, ecological tax systems"
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 196 guests