The Future of Money: None

[Castout]

I know this will terrify people whose mindsets are so entrenched with the accumulation of possessions and money. I will be called names and derided as a fool and crazy. Just sharing a thought.

We are moving towards a moneyless society (Not digital money or a cashless society but no money at all). Money has been the primary problem for our species and in order to help free our society from a fear-based living, money has to go. A lot of people will fear and oppose this change though. The alternative to a moneyless society is a world rife with enslavement, discrimination, and persecution. Any authoritarian government is only a manifestation of the fear-based world we are co-creating that stems from an unequal and unfair distribution of money and thus, influence and power.

Don’t mistake this with a lazy unproductive society. On the contrary, in the absence of hoarding money, humanity can strive to pursue what really matters and to strive to live their lives to the fullest of their potential. If people could get anything they wanted, completely free, there would be no reason to hoard anything at all and to destroy the planet just to hoard money.

This is not extremism. This is not a crazy, unrealistic idea. This is no propaganda. If you think this through, it is very workable. We are responsible in co-creating our interactive movie in this life. If we put everything at monetary value then we will get a humanity enslaved to money. Capitalism doesn’t work. Less than 10 people own half of the world’s entire wealth. Around 200 people probably own as much as 75-80% if not more of the world’s entire wealth. This interactive movie, this dream is turning into a nightmare for too many monadic ‘consciousnesses’ by a world pandering to just so few people. Currently, we don’t get the best of things produced simply because they would be unaffordable for most people. By doing away with money altogether we can start producing what we can actually produce totally unrestricted by monetary constraints. We must do away with a fear-based living. A life based on the mindset of illusory scarcity. Deep sea mining would become possible if you took away cost. So would lunar and asteroid mining. Even mining other planets would become possible eventually giving us the means to harvest our sun’s energy. Many of these aren’t done simply because the costs would be prohibitive. There probably isn’t enough money in the entire world even to try to mine our moon on a massive scale. Thus, money impedes progress and raises inequality through a fear-based living creating a world rife with persecution, oppression, poverty, envy, and enslavement of humanity to money.





https://www.elephantjournal.com/2016...ady-happening/

Imagine yourself growing up in a society where there is never any want or need or financial insecurity of any sort. You will be a very different person. You will be absolutely uninterested in conspicuous consumption. … You will probably be interested in things of a higher nature—the cultivation of the mind, education, love, art, and discovery. And so these people are very stoic in that sense, because they have no worldly interests that we today could relate to. … I usually say that they’re all aliens, in a way.

https://www.wired.com/2016/05/geeks-...rek-economics/

It’s one step at a time,

[Castout]

Just as a background:
If you think logically, it becomes clear that banks are a means to facilitate a transfer of wealth by giving the advantage to the haves at the expense of the have-nots. This is so because there's almost nothing to gain by putting your money in the bank nowadays. What little interest banks give you, is further cut by fees. So, you give banks your money for essentially nothing. The banks in return loan the money at much higher interest rates to the haves since only the haves would have the collateral that exceeds their borrowing. So, the haves fueled by borrowed capital enrich themselves and the banks at your expense...Banks precipitate inequality and thus stagnate the economy in the long run (although banks do help economic growth in the short run). Only when the underprivileged are made to prosper that you can have a robust economy. But banks aren't loaning money to the poor. Today, those who manufacture are starting to run out of people who could afford their products. Essentially making themselves the buyers of their own products. This will become evidently clear when inequality is further raised to greater unprecedented levels. So, banks work to impoverish the average man and accelerate wealth gained by the rich. It is a means to transfer wealth.
Today, ONLY 6 richest men own as much as 50% of the rest of human population. Without banks, this would not have been possible. Certainly, you can see how this would impact politics everywhere, our global economy, and societies. Don't kid yourself. The divide is only going to get bigger.
Do you know HOW MUCH JUST 62 RICHEST MEN OWN compared to the rest of the world, TODAY? You would be outraged! Our politics, economies, and societies pandering to just 62 men...and we wonder why our democracies are failing us. We all have been made irrelevant, LOL.

[Von Due]

Something a friend of mine said in all seriousness a long time ago:

You can not do anything without money, it is simply impossible. With no money, humans will starve to death because even getting a fish to bite a hook costs money.

He meant every word. So, it seems to me, do most people. We simply are too deep into the belief that money is above humans, like a god money just _is_ and must be obeyed.

Humans are not sophisticated but we are what we are, superstitious, simple minded and stubborn, come hell or high water. We also make the calls so I don't see the moneyless society happening before we are all gone.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Von Due

Humans are not sophisticated but we are what we are, superstitious, simple minded and stubborn, come hell or high water. We also make the calls so I don't see the moneyless society happening before we are all gone.

True, we will all be dead before we see a moneyless society but assuming civilization continues, a moneyless society is simply the most logical solution to enable that leap of civilization advancement.

It's part of the natural evolution of living.

Chasing after money is unnatural and it inhibits humanity, stalling personal growth and creating all sort of ills in society and for the environment.

I know all too well that human beings are not sophisticated...Was almost killed for doing nothing wrong, defamed mentally ill, and subsequently persecuted for about 7 years. It was only due to the unhappiness and insecurity of some people in power. My past ordeal too stems from money. Dictators always hoard money in the conviction that it adds to their influence and power factor. Society seems to share the idea that more successful people can get away with crimes especially if they hold a high public office. At least in Southeast Asia.

This fear-based living is destroying human's natural evolution. Women now marry for money and bad leaders get elected and followed simply because they command or have the support of vast sum of money. Money becomes the goal unto itself. It has become a universal perversion.

When just a few hundreds of people command 80-95% of the world's entire wealth, where does that leave the rest? Enslaved to work for money that will never be enough until the day we die.

[Skybird]

Who does the dirty jobs that everybody hates, but that must be done?

How to decide ressource allocation if no economic standaridzation- by calculation ressources, time, cost-effect ratios in terms of money - is possible?

People act stupid, and selfish, not rational and altruistic. For thsi reason I already argue that most voters should be banned from a general right to vote. Voters must earn the right by contirbtuion, and must qualify by competence and knowledge, in an idela world. Why would I want to assume that if money must no more be earned, people would not live lazy and contra-productive? Heck, i even live like that myself since some years, since I can afford it!

Too much surreal idealism there, and no sense of realism.

Money is no god, I do not dance around it at all. But - it is a tool hat is indispensable in a complex world to make sure you can establish coplex prudction chains and have industrial mass-production in a scale capoable to fee and dress not just some hundreds, but severla billion people.

Just another one of these insance socialist follies that already were tried so iften, with brilliant ideas causing the starvation and dying of millions. Afterwards, the heaps of bodies mount high into the sky, and those who apllauded the dieas still will claim: it wa snot us, for they corruoted our brilliant conception, if only they wuld all have hinestly supported our vision, then it would have worked.

Two hundred years and over 150 million dead later, we really should know it better.

The world is no tiny, clean (and boring as hell) Star Trek city where you can lick food from the street, that clean it is. Its a dirty world, with chaotic events.

You want me to work, you pay me, give me a reward that is worth it for me. Just altruism and your idealistic vision is not worth it for me, so why should I work for just that?

And again, to not be misunderstood: money is a tool only, but an indispensable tool. The function it fulfills is what counts. You cannot replace it with nothing more than singing "Just do not be like you are, just be somebody different." That is not how the plebs works, that is not how humans are.

I recommend to read Gustave LeBon-The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, in which he concludes - correctly, I say - that crowds (societies) are not just a collection of individuals, but that crowds form their own super-individual dynamics. And these dynmics are what is against the idea of thinking that if you enobble the individuals you get a world of altruists that all are eager to come to each other's rescue.

And please, no talking now on that robots will take all the work. That is a.) in doubt for principle problems ith that idea, and b.) still would be decades and decades away.

And finally - and that may be the most important point in the long run - who says that a perfect world windeed would chnage people for th ebetter? I claim, and I man it serious: it would bring out the worst in man in unforseeable ammounts, right becasue he must not prove himself anymore and must not care anymore. Mill thught that pltical work would turn the plltical acting indivodual into a more responle, more ennobled being. When I see modern democracy at work, i see right the opposite being the rule today.

Money last but not least is an incentive, a convincing one. I claim yu need another incentive to repalc eit wiorth, if you take money out of this function. Not a sentimental, altruistic incentive, and certainly not pure force by a givenrment that tells people to work (that would be leader-related dictatorship again), but an incentive that respects and takes into account the nature of man as a a lfie form that fights to survive and that acts therefore necessarily egoist and selfish. You cannot get around that.

Money is a tool, not more, not less. But an indispensable one. I touched the econmic importanc eonly on the surface, but it should be obvious anyway. Try to run a mass-producing economy without such a tool. Communism and money-lessness only works in the sallest of smallest possible comunal contexts. And even then it tends to raise troubles sooner or later.

[Skybird]

P.S.

What I would agree on, however, is that today's papermoney is no real money, but is a selfdeception that most people do not understand, and a fraud by the ruling elite. The distortions and rifts it causes in the economc base structure, reach deeper and deeper, and there will be no escape from the devastating consequences in the end. whenever that will be.

What I mean is: we already live in a money-free world, if "money" shoukd be a word of real value, should be a real money indeed. Obviously, this has not enobled mankind, nor has it freed society from greed, need, and the effort by many to form monopolies of their own. One has evaded into surrogate values instead - material assets and knowledge monopolies, and left the crowd to its illusions.

Imagining a world without something that serves in the role of money - that is like demanding not to eat food anymore, but to simply stop feeling hungry.

[Castout]

I see that the roots of money are very deeply entrenched that people lose their objectivity and critical thinking when it comes to discussing that money is holding us back. That it is obsolete.

People are encouraged to be bad and not to prove himself in a money-based world.

Naturally, human beings are inclined to do good. It is fear that makes them do otherwise. Fear begets insecurity which begets hate, hate begets violence which begets violence and more fear.

This is why so few people reach Maslow's transcendence level. In corporations, the highest attainment of mankind isn't even acknowledged.

To realize that the highest attainment of mankind has NO place in a society speaks volumes on just how perverse our society has become.

[Von Due]

I wouldn't say humans are more inclined to do good. Stability, status quo, certainty, predictability, I would say, are more fundamental keywords, even if this stability, status quo and predictability means our own downfall.

As for "us" in my first post, I don't mean you and me but the species as a whole, humanity in its entirety. What I was saying was, the moneyless global society will never ever happen again. It was moneyless but that's more than at least 6000 years ago, before the first city states, probably much longer. That humans can be bothered to work for no money, the first few 100,000s of years before Ur and Babylon tell us loud and clear. They worked for the stability, certainty, survival and passing of genes. It's only when we attempt to apply our modern rules to the ancient game that we get absurdities.

[Skybird]

I hinted at the technical function that money has. Just demonising it on grounds of troubled emotions, or declaring people as psychologically inhibited, will not get you around certain factual needs and tehcnical chgallenges in the real world that you cannot avoid. Its not as if money has been "invented" by man just for fun or boredom. Mone yis neither a tool of evil wickedness, nor is it just a creation of random chance. From science, technology, physics, biology, we learn that function dictates form. Have a form that fails, and the fuction cannot be met.

You can leave it to just imagining you were not hungry, but nevertheless: you still need to eat at times. If you don't, you starve - even when you hold out and still imagine that you are not hungry and that eating is not necessary.

Its currently en vogue a bit to declare money obsolete since there are so many debts and some states already have started to collapse under their economic mismanagement in the past decades. The debts should be made disappearing by declaring money as obsolete. Others try to fight the debts by wanting to force people to chnage the format of money from paper snippets they cna carry out of reahc by the ECB and the government, to a digital format that makes it impossible to evade plundering and stealing by the state (not even mentioning the lacking security against ordinary hacking criminals). Lst century they waged war on a gold-standard for money, to weasel around state spendings that could not be paid for (Vietnam). Now they wage war against the result fo that: the "paper-standard".

There are so many insane follies en vogue today. Genderism. Cultural non-identity. Unlimited relativism. Money-lessness. To me it all shows how far beyond our cultural climax we already are.

The real problem with money and the need to earn it is that we still stick to a model of sopciety wherte earning money is a must in order tomake your living, but many jobs get lost to automatization or shifti89ng them to other contionents, so that there are lesser opportunities for the crowd to earn money with jobs of lower qualification. That we import migrants as crazy currently, also has a problem, a dimension that maybe is more relevant than the strawman argument that demographic developments and shrinkign, overaging societies must be compensated for (if jobs get lost, we maybe should expect to be better off in the future if less people actually need to to look for job). That has somethign to do with the fact that there is far more state bonds, than there are stock holdings. And somebody must buy these ever inflating ammounts of worthless state bonds, else they canot maintain the illusion of that states mantain their spending on sustainbable levels. And so people get imported additonally to serve as biond-buyers, if not as "investors" then at least as insurred emplyes whose pensions and insurrance secfurities to dominant lewvels base of fonds that are forced by the state cartel to base on buiynf state bonds.

As I said earlier, our money system is totally corrupted and rotten. That does not mean that the function of money is not necessary. It only means that we have abused it. The status quo is no argument against the token named "money", it only is an argument against the crowd allowing political elites to abuse the system and make their living and fame by damaging the system of money, since decades. Which, in the end and if ulook close enough at it, is an argument against today'S understanding of state - and democracy - itself. Individualism and collectivism are antagonists, and their conflicting natures do not get settled by reason and rational argment, but simply by raw force and its implementation according to the law of the strongest.

Now there you would have a point worth to go after, where you would have my support. But being against money? That is like wanting to end wars by being against knives.

P.S. For a brief overview on how money came into the world, why it is needed, what it does and why they try to de3stroy good money, there still is this marvellous and brief introduction by M. Rothbard: What has government done to our money, that explains the historic origin and the modern times in a fashion easy to understand, and brief. It can be legally downloaded for free here: L-I-N-K

Should be mandatory read in schools' higher classes.

[Castout]

@Skybird: I'm not demonizing any opinion. Just speaking my mind.

@ Von Due: Yeah I know you didn't mean you and me. If you read developmental psychology you will understand human nature. We are inclined to do good and to reciprocate good with good.

I tend to think moneyless society is the future.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Castout

@Skybird: I'm not demonizing any opinion. Just speaking my mind.

You said: "I see that the roots of money are very deeply entrenched that people lose their objectivity and critical thinking when it comes to discussing that money is holding us back."

I replied: "Just demonising it on grounds of troubled emotions, or declaring people as psychologically inhibited, will not get you around certain factual needs and technical chgallenges in the real world that you cannot avoid."

Naturally, human beings are inclined to do good.

Says who...?

It starts with changing standards that decidce what is seen to be good and bad. It ends with the fact that you are heading for a frontal head-on crash with empiry over your claim. Imagine you were talking to some IS dude.

A Buddhist would say the one thing all people have in common is that we all try to gain what makes us happy or gives us satisfaction of any kind, and that we want to avoid aversive stimuli.

A dentist drilling my tooth's hole, is an aversive stimuli.

The boy whose family always fought for survival, may find happiness in collecting ever more gold and wealth and even betray others for that, and steal and plunder.

Where is your goodness now? Your evil? You have to look deeper, beyond the shallow surface of what is just terminology.

Buddha also was asked how many people in his opinion spend their lives in a valuable fashion. He picked some dirt from under one of his fingernails and said: "compared to all dirt on all beaches of the world, not more than this."

Man is an animal that has an inbuild feature called instinct/drive for survival. This can - and often does - lead man to act egopist and selfishly. THAT is natural, and part of human nature. The discussion amongst philosphers whether or not even altruism in itself is a form of egoism, is old and does not really seem to lead anywhere. Being altruistic, may give you rewards that are egoistic in themselves. What means that for the altruism in the beginning? Can altruism even exist?

Most people do what serves their interests best. That simple and obvious it is. If they only would follow the golden rule, already very much would be won.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You said: "I see that the roots of money are very deeply entrenched that people lose their objectivity and critical thinking when it comes to discussing that money is holding us back."

I replied: "Just demonising it on grounds of troubled emotions, or declaring people as psychologically inhibited, will not get you around certain factual needs and technical chgallenges in the real world that you cannot avoid."

Says who...?

It starts with changing standards that decidce what is seen to be good and bad. It ends with the fact that you are heading for a frontal head-on crash with empiry over your claim. Imagine you were talking to some IS dude.

A Buddhist would say the one thing all people have in common is that we all try to gain what makes us happy or gives us satisfaction of any kind, and that we want to avoid aversive stimuli.

A dentist drilling my tooth's hole, is an aversive stimuli.

The boy whose family always fought for survival, may find happiness in collecting ever gold and wealth and even betray others for that.

Where is your goodnessnow? Your evil? You have to look deeper, beyond the shallow service of what is just terminology.

Buddha also was asked how many people in his opinion spend their lives in a valuable fashion. He picked some dirt from under one of his fingernails and said: "compared to all dirt on all beaches of the world, not more than this."

Man is an animal that has an inbuild feature called instinct/drive for survival. This can - and often does - lead man to act egopist and selfishly. THAT is natural, and part of human nature. The discussion amongst philosphers whether or not even altruism in itself is a form of egoism, is old and does not really seem to lead anywhere.

Most people do what serves their interests best. That simple and obvious it is. If they only would follow the golden rule, already very much would be won.

Man is infinite consciousness manifested as flesh and blood. The nature of man is divinity. The natural mode of being is non-duality.

I will say no more.

Man is inclined to do good as testified by our babies who exhibit natural inclination for collaboration and sharing without being taught anything. If men were inclined to do evil then our laws and constitutions would reflect that. Everyone finds murder unacceptable. Everyone finds rape unacceptable. Everyone finds lying unacceptable. We have evolved to do good and to be good simply because we are social creatures. A selfish man has no place in a natural society. A natural society takes care of its weak and impoverished.

Evil is not a terminology. It is a philosophy of life that puts the self over all other things. It's a philosophy of the fearful.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Castout

Man is infinite consciousness manifested as flesh and blood. The nature of man is divinity. The natural mode of being is non-duality.

Every political election tells me the opposite.

You can want to adress pragmatic reality by metaphysics, if you want. Maybe that is even noble to want, or not, I don't know.

But I live in this world laid out before my eyes, and just wishing does not get anyone anywhere in it. The acchieved completion of the deed is what counts. And thus, a strong sense for realism is of the essence, as is practical knowlege and competent skill.

BTW, I once was engaged for many years in social projects, in counseling and treatment, and teaching meditation, and I did it for free. I worked as a free teacher, as family counselor in unregular church community work (Yes, i know the irony: atheist me, and the church. Call it pragmatism from both sides), I even helped pout in tgraumata treatment for people from the Balkan war. But then somethign happened that changed my attitude on free aid. I realised that people took it for granted that a.) they got these "services", and b.) that they got them for free. They thought they had a natural claim for it, and their claims grew. Tjheir dependency, so they often thought, gave them claim, gave the rights over me and others. Their needs - are our commands...? That I took queer, especially when it were people from Germany, having lived in quite stable, secure and reasonably comfortable situations, materially.

Short time later I cancelled my last such personal engagement, and since then insist on getting paid for any work or help I should do for somebody not being a friend or family member. There aint no such thing as a free lunch, my friend. You want something of value from me? You give me something of equal value for me in return, or have soembody else paying me. Reciprocity. Can be linked direcly, or indirectly - but free lunches I do no longer provide. Stuff must cost. Services must cost. If somebody wants me to aid somebody else who cannot afford it - let the first somebody pay me then.

I do not need the money, I could afford to pick up these social and wellfare activities again and do them unpaid. But I do not want. Not wanting is possible.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Every political election tells me the opposite.

Yeah, agree.

It's just one big shame. God decides to sleep and have a dream and while dreaming He's forced to toil for much of the rest of his dream for money. The purpose of dreaming in the first place, to experience being is thus lost to making money. Humanity has created a somewhat nightmarish dream for God unless God dreams of becoming a human billionaire.

Perhaps God has a better dreaming in ET intelligent life and some of the unseen.

Perhaps this rather bad dreaming of becoming man ought to be ended sooner than later so God won't have worse dreams.

[Skybird]

Dreams are created by the brain dreaming. Don't hold the dream responsible for the brain's nature in the first.

The Bible says that man is made in God's image. What does this tell us about this God then, if we are made by his image? And how could this God then dare to punish us for wrongs he has built into us?




How the deitie'S nighmarish dream may end? Google for "big rip". To me the most likely of the three cosmological scenarios debated. And the most poetic one (but maybe I am just queer).