Being rich is not about money solely. Happiness or health are things money can not buy and one realize it only when they are lost.

After all we use money to make exchanges, so why dont we make more exchanges without the need of money ? (I do, and thats why I'm on this forum!)

Keeping this on the money level rather than the quality of life side of things....

If you have enough money to do the things that you want to do with a little bit left over, then you are rich. Money lets you take advantage of opportunities that come your way. For me living in Switzerland as as single person I think 100K salary would make me feel rich, for a family then 200K.

But you can be very happy on much less!!

Tell me more (or PM me)...I like the idea of 'bartering' but could never see it working in a country as rich as Switzerland.

Yes, I think we all agree about that. It is just a bit frustrating that as the OP I did specify that I was asking from the money point of view.

Let me ask the question the other way around. Why not use money to make the exchanges? Can you tell me a good reason why you would rather not use money? Is there something better?

I wanted to remember about how money makes people less rich, not only in Switzerland but everywhere.


While money is a powerful financial instrument, most easily to exchange, the other side few people see is that it is a scarce resource, (high demand, less quantity available - unlike water) and also not in peoples' control (people dont print money). If people focus solely on money they end up making less exchanges therefore earning less, and become dependent.

After all, can you buy your health back after loosing it by not sleeping enough nights ( if you are an entrepreneur) ?, or supporting high levels of stress ( if you have a job) ?
Universe is a trial and error experiment, so something better will come up when we all contribute for that something.

A boy i used to know bought a franchise of the company Bartercard (in Seeeedneee)(Sydney)

Unfortunately he went bankrupt, but thats another story

In NZ (possibly AU? dunno) there is a culture of helping each other:
- you "invite" all your mates over when you move house, to help you move, and have a barbie and a beer at the new place. Here they higher people.
- it is "normal" to "borrow" the neighbours lawnmower/chainsaw/power drill - here everyone has their own.
- You brother in laws, neighbours cousin is an electrician, so she'll rewire the house for you at "mate's rates".

This company is trying to commercialise a part of the culture that comes more of less naturally.. (in my expert opinion )

Isn't that how the idea of money started though?

__________________
11. Knowing deep down that you gave your dreams a fair chance. – Most of the time the only difference between a dream that came true and one that didn’t, is a person who wouldn’t give up and one who did.

I think it is people and governments that make people less rich. Money is just an instrament and thus does not and cannot have any motivations or act by itself.
I think the folks in Sudan would disagree with you, as would a majority of the world population that have no access to clean drinking water. I am sure they would want water first.
Yes, they do actually, through either their government or their central bank, whichever tool they ageed on as a nation.

A fool with a tool is still a fool. Hardly the tool's fault?

Cancer would disagree, then I would hope to have enough money as it is a killer without expensive medical care.

Now on this I agree with you fully. The current method that we have for running the world economy is not really fit for purpose. Central banking and goverments and religions around the world are constantly pushing growth, growth and more growth. If you economy, your population or your money is not increasing, then you are failing.
The problem with this is that there are only a limited set of resources on this planet. The more people there are, the less resources each individual has.
Thus, the only way forward to allow the population to keep on growing (and I don't see a way to stop it) is to make sure that each person makes more efficient use out of the resource allocation that he can obtain.
To this end I have a little saying that I teach at my courses: Better is better than more.
So, yes, I see an end to the consumer economy and a change to a more resource based economy. I can't see money not being part of that. However I do sincerily hope that there will be less idiocy and greed involved.

__________________
Living it up in Gersau.

There is no poor in Switzerland. Nobody has to walk 3km to get water and then 3km back home to bring it to the family.

HTH

I think that culture exists in each and every place that two people look at eachother and say, yes, this is the way things should be, reach out and make it so. We are a little comfortable in Europe to see that all the time, but yes, community is very important. I think community exists nicely in this country, just on a slightly larger scale that I generally find makes for excellent neighbours but then it could just take a while to integrate. I don't know yet.

Commodity money, yes, that started with the idea that you would give somebody something of value for something else. Precious metals were often used for this due to the fact that they are easy to carry around, have high percieved value and little practical value.
Fiat money on the other hand is what we use today and it is not tied to an object with value, but rather to the law of the land that it is issued in.
From what I can tell though money itself was created for convenience and to help support the idea of capital in its most basic form.

__________________
Living it up in Gersau.

But the Swiss government tells us that 4% of the population live under the poverty line. Just because those people do have access to clean drinking water, I don't think that we should turn around and say, "Hey you, you are not poor, shut up and get on with your life and be glad you have clean water." I think we rather need to figure out how to make those people better off.

How should we fix it for 4% of the population to be better off? Simply give them money, food, etc?

Frankly, there will always be a percentile below a poverty line. Just how many of those 4% are there voluntarily?

The winos in towns are maybe there but don't need help. If someone is old or disabled, I agree, they should not be in that 4%.

But they don't poop in a hole in the ground and worry where their next clean water will come from - so in worldly terms, they're fine.

Rose-tinted utopian glasses need not to be worn

Your way ahead on me ... also 38, all in my 'wealth fund' but I do have a kid coming along nicely ( does that count as an asset toward retirement? - risk based, of course)

According to a wonderful gent who studied these things and came up with a very cool pyramid there are a number of levels of things that people need in life to be fulfilled.
1. Physical Needs: Shelter, water, food.
2. Security Needs: Resources, phyical security, etc.
3. Social Needs: Love, friends, community.
4. Self-Realisation: The ability to understand that you as a person can contribute and are part of the bigger picture around you, no matter how inconsequential you feel at the time.
5. Self-Actualisation: The satification of being able to see your contribution and how it benefited both yourself and others around you.

The fulfilling of these 5 different aspects of life lead to what Maslow called Transendence, when one realises that it is all just one big system that we are each a very important part in.

Keep in mind though that the problem created by most charity and many societies is that they focus on trying to travel through the pyramid in a direction. The folks in Hollywood focus on the physical needs, yes, which could be sports cars and expensive clothes in order to feel the higher levels. The folks in Tibet focus on the spiritual and forsake the physical needs.
The only mature way to approach this is to focus on ensuring that everybody has sufficient of all these factors to be able to live a satified, happy and content life.
From my point of view, education is a key corner stone to this whole effort, that and community. So to raise those 4%, no money is not going to help...the only thing to help is to find out why those people have been left behind and help them like that. I have a suspiscion that you are correct in saying that in a country like Switzerland there may be a much larger percentage of that group that are there by choice....but why did they make that choice and if we educated them and integrated them into the community, would they make a different choice? Some will always choose to stay behind, but then, that is Darwinism.

__________________
Living it up in Gersau.

you know this is bollocks, right?

When we interfere, it will most likely cause the 4% to grow.

The solution cannot be achieved for this generation but can be improved for the next.

Specifically?

Do you have any evidence of this? I thought that education and community building generally did good things for a community but if you have access to any papers or information that show that interferance increases poverty, I would be facinated to see it.

I don't agree but do feel that helping the next generation is easier than helping the current one. But then I am a person who believes in reuse rather than consumerism, so would like to help the current generation. I think part of the problem that they face is this sort of attitude that says to them, "just get on with it, have a kid that we can make better than you becuase we are just waiting for you to get out of the way."
Another question though......how are you going to improve the next generation without interferring? Because I thought you said that interferring would just make things worse? Does that not imply that they are pretty doomed, or are you suggesting that you would like to increase the 4% in the next generation?

__________________
Living it up in Gersau.

Of course there are some poor people in Switzerland. That's why we have a social welfare system. You shouldn't be applying a developing world definition to a developed country.

Of course many definitions of poverty will be relative, so there will always be a bottom 4% and of course some people are responsible for their own situation. But that doesn't mean that society and individuals don't have a responsibility to care for the less well off . . . even if that simply means helping people to help themselves.

BTW: Does anyone know how the Swiss government defines the 4%?

Social welfare causes poverty and minimal government alleviates it?

Nah . . . that's bollocks.

Of course you don't want the welfare provision to grow too much, but it's a balance and it's definitely good for there to be safety net.

The social welfare system is there, in theory, to deal with the 4%.

I believe applying a global perspective to this consideration of rich and poor is essential and something that too few people consider.

If we were to help the bottom 4% then that number of people would grow. Why? Because someone just above the line would elect to drop below the line so that they get more for less.

Evidence? I present the United Kingdom to you. A place where 3 generations have never had jobs and never will because the social system gives more for less than getting off their backsides and getting a job - which would pay a tiny bit more but need 40 hours of not being on the PS3 or watching Jeremy Kyle.

You're making a silly absolute argument. And starting to sound like the Daily Mail.

It's about finding the level and designing a system where it pays to work. Of course, some people will always choose not to, but you at least have to make sure their kids have shelter and food.

The choices are not no welfare or total welfare. It's about providing a safety net and alleviating poverty. Of course, there are many many countries in the world with no welfare system - poverty and suffering are readily observable in those places.

GG, I agree. 4% below a defined poverty line means to me that the system is working. And those 4% have a place to sleep, health care, food and running water.

Sorry that I think that's still a reasonable situation to be in. I am just thinking about 4+ billion people on the planet who are probably less well off.