Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The reason money developed (well, at least the most plausible I heard) is that it can be exchanged for practically anything very quickly. For example, if you had a lot of corn but needed wool, yet I had no wool but plenty of beef and wanted your corn, you wouldn't want to make a deal with me. I have nothing you want, even though you have something I want and was willing to trade my beef for your corn. We'd have plenty of "stuff" objectively, yet my stuff would be of no value to you. That leads to a very inefficient trade system.
But along comes money. In this system, I could give you money for your corn, which you can then use to obtain wool with. So I get your corn, you get my money, the money that used to be mine but now is yours, you can buy your wool with. The wool owner, who likely does not want your corn but instead wants some hammers, now can use the "formerly my and formerly your" money to buy hammers. Everybody's happy, and much more quickly besides.
As for the fair salary of a professional athlete, that covers a huge number of issues one can hardly get to the end of. A large part of it is team profitability and the willingness of how many fans are willing to pay X dollars to see the team play.
you say the Money buy everything.then it would say the Money would buy anything(you).
there is example x person plant a crop,then he got not much.y person plant tomato and he got good enough.then they give each other some.it is good work.it going to make people love each other.we need that.and it is happen some day I think.
For example if you wanted to be ethical/moral. Hypothetically if the owners of sports teams were good people how much money should they pay their players? if it were legal to say that as little or as much as you could, if they make lets say 500 million a year, what percentage of that should be distributed to a player and how do you decide?. on the flip side how much should a player ask to be paid?
Or lets say someone makes cakes, lets say neither you nor the seller ever heard how much a cake is worth, you both are nice and are not looking to screw over the other person, how do you decide on a price to pay for the cake, to sell the cake?.
We obviously we live in a world where most most people/everyone wants to act as selfish as possible, people want to charge as much as they can get away with, people want to pay as little as possible
how would a world where everyone wanted to be moral/nice look like when it comes to what i just said? how do you decide how much to pay and how much to charge.
how did the barter system work if both parties wanted to act "fair", how did people in the past do it, ill give you this cow if you build me a table.. how did they decide if this was fair
not sure if im making sense
I object to the framework of the question because moral is not necessarily synonymous with "nice." This issue in particular really sticks out as being objectionable.
In the cow versus table example, the [total] cost of the cow would come into play versus the prospective value of a specific table that was produced. The way this comes into play is via voluntary transaction, where one party willingly agress that their cost to produce a viable cow is of equal worth to the production of a desired table, and, where the producer of the table agrees that such production is of reasonable value to their perceived value of one cow.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
