Abolishing and Eliminating Currency is a viable proposal.

I get how your system works. I'm saying, that the government will require certain hours in order to acquire certain things. I'm just using more concrete examples than you are. I get that we are free to choose where we take our business to, I'm just pointing out that there will be no choice. The reason is because there will be a monopoly. There isn't choice with a monopoly. You have failed to discuss even one iota of my five reasons businesses succeed argument. And to be honest...that's all I really talked about last round. You blindly state that there will still be risk and reward to business, but don't give me an example of what reward there is. There reward is survival. Not very rewarding if you ask me. I prefer thriving over surviving. Granted, one comes before the other, but people don't strive to survive meagerly. They strive to survive extravagantly. Let's discuss this idea of businesses being able to hire more effectively. I'm creating a new paragraph because of how important this is...One of two things is guaranteed to happen...Either the restaurant owners (who if you've ever worked in a restaurant know management puts in a lot of hours and has a lot of stress) is going to have a good time hiring because they're perfectly content with all the stress and long hours to receive the same benefits their dish washer gets, or they're going to have a very difficult time hiring because people don't want to work a meaningless job. I don't think you fully understand your own argument here. People aren't clamoring to be servers. People aren't clamoring to be dish washers. People aren't clamoring to do jobs that suck. I'm from a very oil rich state, and the jobs on rigs, are some of the longest, hardest, and most difficult jobs on the face of this earth. But they get compensated extremely well for it. If you tell a rig hand that he's going to get the same rewards as the guy who writes crossword puzzles, he's going to quit working on a rig. And so is everyone else. So now there is no more oil because you've de-incentivized the very key jobs of GETTING IT OUT OF THE GROUND! So now, because we don't have oil, we don't have people driving cars. Good thing for the environment, bad for jobs. Because this means we don't have people making cars, and you can ask Detroit how that works out. We also don't have car dealers. So our transportation sector of the economy is non-existent. But turns out...that a lot of people doing research on how to get greener ways of transportation, are car companies. So now, not only do we not have cars, but we don't have people inventing newer ways travel. So now that people can't travel, they have to find jobs very close to their home. They have to eat very close to their home. They have to vacation very close to their home. They have to do everything very close to their home. This would be devastating on tourism in many areas. This would devastate the rural areas. People can't farm massive farms because their combine doesn't have any gas. So now they're forced to hire more labor on farms or just work a small farm. In situation A (hire more people) you have to have a lot of people who want to work on a farm. I de-tassled corn for a summer as a teenager, and it's not enjoyable. So now we're faced with the dilemma of people still not wanting to work difficult jobs for the same reward they can get easier. That's where you're misunderstanding my point. People don't have a passion to work crappy jobs. They want to work easy jobs. How many people would claim to be professional video gamers and just sit at home playing video games all day? They'd have to get paid for it because it's a legitimate profession in the status quo. What about professional poker players? There are way too many holes in this idea. But let's discuss situation B. When they work a smaller farm, there isn't as much food as there is now, and even if there was, there is no way to get it around the country. So we see a massive influx of people moving to the areas where food is able to be produced. This massive influx of people that don't want to work farms are now required to be fed by the food these smaller farms produce. That's not going to happen. And because very few people have a burning desire in their heart to toil endlessly picking beans...we don't have enough food. Do you see what's happening here? I'm making easy, step-by-step arguments that are logical and based on fact. This plan just can't work. But let me reiterate why having currency is such a good idea. 1. Currency is a means at valuing one good over another. There are certain goods that are more desirable, less abundant, and higher quality. That doesn't mean that those are the only goods bought. In fact, lots of goods purchased are more abundant, lesser quality, and less desirable. The reason is because they are cheaper. You don't have cheap goods without currency. But cheap goods drive the economy. In fact, they create a lot of jobs. Walmart is a major industry that not only creates jobs for the people it hires, but also is a big enough corporation that its suppliers are able to just supply it and maintain profit if they want to. So their suppliers are able to hire and grow. Because the more money you make while being successful, the more money you can invest so that you can be more successful. It's funny that you brought up medicine, because right now because almost half of the top 49 pharmaceutical companies exist in the United States, and those companies have a much more significant R&D cost than those overseas. And this is because there are no price caps on how much companies can sell their medicines for. When price is able to be set by the companies, they make more money. When that happens, they have more money to invest into developing new drugs. You say that there is no money in finding cures...and I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about. Because the company that finds the cure to AIDS or cancer is going to be the richest pharmaceutical company in a matter of hours. There is a lot of money in helping people. And that's the understatement of the year. People want to live. Fix dying, and they'll give you as much as you want for it. Wall Street doesn't manipulate prices. I already told you all of this. It's a consumer driven economy. There's a point where the consumers are willing to pay for something, and the producer is willing to supply it. The producer doesn't just simply put a pricetag on it and people pay for it. They have to meet the consumer demand. Now for my own quote... "Well first of all, tell me: Is there some society you know that doesn"t run on greed? You think Russia doesn"t run on greed? You think China doesn"t run on greed? What is greed? Of course, none of us are greedy, it"s only the other fellow who"s greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn"t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn"t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you"re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it"s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system." R13; Milton Friedman