i think the stupidity of that post is obvious, youre complaning that in a world were money dosent exist, that people have no money? i mean, in this world we dont have Dragons, but im not complaining that we dont...

besides, that was one idea i through out there for a Utopia, its completley irelevant to the debate

I see the problem now. You don't attach money to anything, it's just money.

Money is nothing more then the conversion of my time into something tradable. If I desire more things in my life, I must either expend more effort, or increase the value of my efforts to society. (work harder/longer, or learn a more complex skill).

If I expend the energy to do those things, I am rewarded with more tradable value, and thus can improved my quality of life.

The old saying “Money is time, and time is money” is 100% true. If we had no money, we would have no way of improving our standard of living through work.

Star Trek is a happy fantasy land utopia because they have magic machines that can produce infinite food, clothes, and just about anything else you can imagine.

Unfortunately, we don't have magic machines to make infinite goodies like in Star Trek. Which is why trying to setup a Star Trek Utopian society is doomed to bankruptcy. At least until we invent the magic infinite goodie machines.

this is niave, people dont allways have the option to work harder or longer or to learn a new skill.

Bullshit. People just don't want to expend the energy to do it. (why the people who do get paid more).

again, its not that simple, a CEO may work more hours than say a nurse, but surely the nurses job is more important, under a soley capitalist system, the quality of life for the working classes (who are essential to the economy) is poor, how do you justify that?

The CEO gets paid more, because there are far less people who can do his/her job as well.

A nurse saves lives, and because it's a very rewarding job, lots of people want to do it. If you lose a nurse, you have another one right there to take her place. You lose a good CEO, it might take a year or two to replace them.

Again its not that simple, working longer hours dosent neccesarily mean you have done more actual work

That's for the person paying you to decide. If you used to work 6 hours digging a ditch, and now you work 8 and dig the same amount of ditch, sooner or later, your going to get paid for 8 hours what you used to get paid for 6.

So, what is money to you then? Just something lucky people have more of?

the answers you gave, are why you and i will never agree Mafoo, theyre all based upon opinion, we both hold opposing opinions on thoose matters, i dont agree with what you said at all. some of your answers i dont feel i can even dignify with a response, as to do so would give them respect that i feel they dont deserve

At @OP,

I do have some left leaning ideas, but I really don't have anything against how your restaurant is set up. At a restaurant, the scrub waiters would all get paid the same for the same basic work. HOWEVER, there is incentive because of the quality of work would naturally mean a higher tip.

the General Manager guy gets paid more because he has the responsibility for all the stuff to work. He's the one who will get the axe if the restaurant goes wrong. He does more work, he has more liability and responsibility, and so therefore he gets compensated more for it.

If I were just a regular manager, perhaps I don't want to carry all that extra responsibility and am just content making 40k a year.

If everyone was at the restaurant was happy with their roles and accepted the money they made, then I don't think there would be any problem with that system.

Iono, I guess I'm not really understanding your point. Its not capitalism you're describing; its just how the world is supposed to work. More responsibility = more money, right?

In my opinion the best economic system would be the economic system which increased the standard of living of all people at the fastest rate. Consider the following:

1. The only way to increase the standard of living of all people is to develop the technologies of the future
2. The education required to be able to aid into the development of new technologies takes a lot of work to get
3. The effort required to develop advanced technologies is very high
4. The vast majority of people are lazy and will put in the minimal amount of effort required to achieve an acceptable standard of living; and this acceptable standard of living is based on what currently exists with very little consideration for what is possible in the future.

The more effort you put into "Spreading the Wealth" the less incentive there is to put in the hard work to get the education necessary to advance society, and then to put in the hard work to actually develop the technology that advances society, so the result is that more and more people hit a level of mediocrity and give up (because they have hit an acceptable standard of living).

Now, over a person's live-time the advances in technology will eliminate "Poverty" as you know it and replace it will a new form of "Poverty" which has a dramatically higher standard of living ... Ask someone who is in their 80s (or older) and grew up "Poor" whether they see poverty like they were raised in; if they're anything like my grandfather they will probably say no because the "Poor" of today all own multiple sets of clothing, eat several meals a day, and countless other little observations about things that we all take for granted.

You think your way, and I will think mine. I will continue to drive my Porsche 911 convertable and live in my 2300 sqft home on the lake. (and I was someone who used to only have 20 bucks a month to eat off of).

How has your view of the world worked out for you?

Because it is. Plain and simple. Live in a communist country and you will soon find out for yourself.