The Future of Money: None

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is an interesting topic, and I'm glad to see it. I'm curious, though, as to why you chose to start it with an argumentative and defensive attitude. Claiming that you will be called names and derided seems to me to be begging for a fight. That said...

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.

Is it the primary problem? Does it have to go? I don't have an answer to that, but the first question that comes to my mind is "How?" How did money come about in the first place? Skybird's link offers a good explanation. It seems to me that we have money as a common means of exchange because the old system of barter only works on a small, local level. If I can only produce one thing, and no-one wants that one thing, how am I to survive?

A lot of people will fear and oppose this change though.

Maybe. Maybe not. When you word it that way it sounds like more defensiveness, rather than an honest argument. It also sounds like a sales pitch. Note that the term "sales pitch" doesn't necessarily mean "selling something for money". It also means selling ideas, such as religious or political.

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.

People need things. People have things. If you have something I want, how do I get it (not yours, but one of my own)? Is everyone to produce whatever they can for no reason? Whether it's greed, lust, or an honest desire to have stuff, whether it's cool stuff or just the basic essentials needed to survive. how exactly do we get that stuff?

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.

A nice idea, but how do you propose to make it happen? What would you change?

This is not extremism. This is not a crazy, unrealistic idea. This is no propaganda. If you think this through, it is very workable.

Possibly. I'm still curious as to how.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

This is an interesting topic, and I'm glad to see it. I'm curious, though, as to why you chose to start it with an argumentative and defensive attitude. Claiming that you will be called names and derided seems to me to be begging for a fight. That said...

It's your perception that tells you I'm being defensive. I was merely stating an opinion that I was likely to be thought of as a fool and were crazy.
The reason being we are really the products of our age and money is a big part of our second industrial revolution. So, expectedly, most people will defend money.
But I will only be derided as a fool and being crazy or a communist ONLY if the idea has begun to gain a traction or a foothold in society. In the absence of traction, the idea will simply be ignored.

If you really observe the world today, most of our problems can be attributed to money, directly and indirectly. Money makes us discriminate people. It takes away power from many groups of people and hands it to a few small groups of other people. Democracies are failing because money takes over genuine concern for people's interests.

For economical reason (money), we justify polluting our world to the brink of our own extinction with climate change. Even money works against the effort of mitigating our folly in ruining our planet, one which we can't escape from, yet.

Today, just 6 persons own half of the world's entire wealth. 62 persons probably own as much as 80-90% of the world's entire wealth (money).
This means our world is pandering to just so few people. The rest of us have been made irrelevant and are forced to scrape a living off the marginal 5-10% of the world's wealth. This is the perfect recipe for enslavement in one form or another, for injustice, persecution, and oppression.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Is it the primary problem? Does it have to go? I don't have an answer to that, but the first question that comes to my mind is "How?" How did money come about in the first place? Skybird's link offers a good explanation. It seems to me that we have money as a common means of exchange because the old system of barter only works on a small, local level. If I can only produce one thing, and no-one wants that one thing, how am I to survive?

We did small barters only because we didn't have the technological capacity for mass production. It had nothing to do with money.
A moneyless society is termed a resource-based society that would enable us to produce what we CAN produce instead of what is affordable.
There can be no hunger in such a world because foods will be produced according to the needs of all people instead of affordability or prices. Foods would also be produced in the highest level of quality now that cost is out of the picture.
We would be able to mine deep sea on a massive scale now that cost is out of the picture, according to our need since we wouldn't need to destroy the planet just to hoard money. Likewise with mining the moon on a massive scale, even other planets. There isn't even enough money in the entire world to mine our moon on a massive scale. Even if we had we would still not do it on a massive scale since the profit and cost consideration would not appeal to entrepreneurs even when there's demand for it. People would still form enterprises but out of a common passion and purpose rather than chasing after profits. It would be a world based on value and purpose rather than profit.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Maybe. Maybe not. When you word it that way it sounds like more defensiveness, rather than an honest argument. It also sounds like a sales pitch. Note that the term "sales pitch" doesn't necessarily mean "selling something for money". It also means selling ideas, such as religious or political.

It sounds like a sales pitch to you because it appeals to you. I'm merely stating an idea which I believe will work and will work for the betterment of us all by us dreaming a better dream than this nightmare somewhat of being controlled by money (or moneyed groups/people).

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

People need things. People have things. If you have something I want, how do I get it (not yours, but one of my own)? Is everyone to produce whatever they can for no reason? Whether it's greed, lust, or an honest desire to have stuff, whether it's cool stuff or just the basic essentials needed to survive. how exactly do we get that stuff?

Obviously, there needs to be a council to allocate resources according to our needs as a collective species but even those in the council don't get paid anything.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

A nice idea, but how do you propose to make it happen? What would you change?

Mainly through the above but in such a system, everything is free including us (our work). In the absence of toiling for money, with time, men grow ambitious and can focus on improving himself according to his passion and on improving his environment and society, all without for money.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Possibly. I'm still curious as to how.

The technical details need to be worked on but it's basically producing what WE CAN produce according to our needs without the need to destroy the planet just to accumulate money for influence and power (thus, security)

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Castout

It's your perception that tells you I'm being defensive. I was merely stating an opinion that I was likely to be thought of as a fool and were crazy.

Your opinion is based on your own perceptions. It's still defensive. If I say you're going to tell me I'm greedy and stuck in a rut, I'm being defensive, because you have done neither of those. I do believe you're looking toward an end that you believe will save mankind, but not seeing any way to make it happen that's not worse. I believe the same thing about the men in the videos.

The reason being we are really the products of our age and money is a big part of our second industrial revolution. So, expectedly most people will defend money.

It's easy chide someone negatively while not seeing the same thing in yourself. Dreams are fine, but practicality demands a workable solution, not just saying it's so.

But I will only be derided as a fool and being crazy or a communist ONLY if the idea has begun to gain a traction or a foothold in society. In the absence of traction, the idea will simply be ignored.

I'm not calling you anything but a believer. I don't know what will work and what will not. "Communist?" I happen to think Communism and Democracy are two sides of the same coin, and I believe both could be made to work...on a very small level. Both require absolutely willing participation from everyone involved, and both require that everyone involved be perfect. That's a problem.

If you really observe the world today, most of our problems can be attributed to money, directly and indirectly. Money makes us discriminate people. It takes away power from many groups of people and hands it to a few small groups of other people. Democracies are failing because money takes over genuine concern for people's interests.

The Bible doesn't say "Money is the root of all evil," it says "The love of money is the root of all evil." It's not money that does those things, it's greed, and greed isn't necessarily just for money. Most dictators, starting the first Pharaohs, weren't after money, they were after power. Not the same thing. Controlling the money can be a part of that, but controlling other people is what it's really about.

Today, just 6 persons own half of the world's entire wealth. 62 persons probably own as much as 80-90% of the world's entire wealth (money).
This means our world is pandering to just so few people. The rest of us have been made irrelevant and are forced to scrape a living off the marginal 5-10% of the world's wealth. This is the perfect recipe for enslavement in one form or another, for injustice, persecution, and oppression.

And how do you propose to change that? One of the videos shows people living in mansions and the people living on the streets. If all money disappeared tomorrow Bill Gates would still live in a mansion and I would still live in a one-bedroom apartment and consider myself lucky to do so, considering how a great portion of mankind lives. How would you change that?

Talk is cheap.

"There can be no hunger in such a world because foods will be produced according to the needs of all people instead of affordability or prices. Foods would also be produced in the highest level of quality now that cost is out of the picture.[/quote]
Produced by whom? Farmers would still have to lead the cows to the milking machines and I saw one clip in the video of several threshing machines driving side-by-side across a field. Will some drive those machines for free while others of us live off of their labors, for free?

We would be able to mine deep sea on a massive scale now that cost is out of the picture, according to our need since we wouldn't need to destroy the planet just to hoard money.

And who would do this mining? And how? By magic? Somebody has to do the work, and if they choose not to do it because somebody else tells them to, how do you make them?

Likewise with mining the moon on a massive scale, even other planets. There isn't even enough money in the entire world to mine our moon on a massive scale. Even if we had we would still not do it on a massive scale since the profit and cost consideration would not appeal to entrepreneurs even when there's demand for it.

So without money we would just willing devote our entire lives to building the technology do accomplish this without any motivation other than the purity of our hearts? The work has to come from someone, and you have to convince them that it is to their benefit to give their entire lives over to making this happen. We're not talking about the designers and engineers, who tend to be dreamers anyway, but about the laborers and workers, who have nothing to gain themselves and will likely never see the fruits of their labors.

It sounds like a sales pitch to you because it appeals to you. I'm merely stating an idea which I believe will work and will work for the betterment of us all by us dreaming a better dream than this nightmare somewhat of being controlled by money (or moneyed groups/people)/

No, it sounds like a sales pitch because you didn't look at both sides, positive and negative, but you pitched it at us to convince us of its correctness. That's what a pitch is, trying to convince people to believe what you believe.

Obviously, there needs to be a council to allocate resources according to our needs as a collective species but even those in the council don't get paid anything.

Put another way: There needs to be a group of people to tell us all what to do, and to tell us they're doing it for our own good. Now we have an unpaid dictatorship trying to make us do what they deem best. Still a dictatorship.

Mainly through above but in such a system, everything is free including us (our work). In the absence of toiling for money, with time, men grow ambitious and can focus on improving himself according to his passion and on improving his environment and society, all without for money.

A noble sentiment, but it still depends on men being perfect, or at least mostly so. You may convince the artist or musician to embrace a world like that, but how do you convince the common worker? Someone has to build your big-screen TV an your car, and he needs to believe there is a reason for him to work hard all day to produce things. Someone has to haul away your garbage and build your roads. How do you convince them?

The technical details need to be worked on but it's basically producing what WE CAN produce according to our needs without the need to destroy the planet just to accumulate money for influence and power (thus, security)

Money may aid influence, but it is not equal to power. Rulers control societies by force. They make people obey, not pay them to. Strong men have always ruled weak men. Money is the system we use to allow us to have food, clothing and shelter, and then to have better things. Many of the people in the world are starving, and we won't stop that simply by declaring money to be a non-entity.

The modern world has enabled its citizens to have greater luxury than ever dreamed possible by past generations. We've shortened the hours we work and allowed ourselves to obtain things formerly only dreamed of by kings. You're right, money wasn't absolutely necessary to accomplish that, but it has been a means to an end. That said, the West has attempted to feed some our less advanced neighbors, and often those attempts have been blocked; not by people who see money in it, but by rulers who see that withholding that food subjugates their people and increases their power.

Some people seek wealth, others seek power. Removing money from the equation may or may not change that, but looking at the way the world operates indicates that the answer is "not." The first objection you need to answer, though, is "how?"

[Castout]

I'm not calling you anything but a believer. I don't know what will work and what will not. "Communist?" I happen to think Communism and Democracy are two sides of the same coin, and I believe both could be made to work...on a very small level. Both require absolutely willing participation from everyone involved, and both require that everyone involved be perfect. That's a problem.

True.

And how do you propose to change that? One of the videos shows people living in mansions and the people living on the streets. If all money disappeared tomorrow Bill Gates would still live in a mansion and I would still live in a one-bedroom apartment and consider myself lucky to do so, considering how a great portion of mankind lives. How would you change that?

Talk is cheap.

"There can be no hunger in such a world because foods will be produced according to the needs of all people instead of affordability or prices. Foods would also be produced in the highest level of quality now that cost is out of the picture.
Produced by whom? Farmers would still have to lead the cows to the milking machines and I saw one clip in the video of several threshing machines driving side-by-side across a field. Will some drive those machines for free while others of us live off of their labors, for free?

And who would do this mining? And how? By magic? Somebody has to do the work, and if they choose not to do it because somebody else tells them to, how do you make them?

By getting rid of money altogether.
Do you expect me to figure out all this on my own and sell the idea to the world? That is is my sole responsibility? I'm throwing this idea to make people rethink the world we live in. It's our world, we can change whatever rules we have, including money.

A resource-based world isn't a work-free world. People still work. They don't do it for money, that's the difference.

So without money we would just willing devote our entire lives to building the technology do accomplish this without any motivation other than the purity of our hearts? The work has to come from someone, and you have to convince them that it is to their benefit to give their entire lives over to making this happen. We're not talking about the designers and engineers, who tend to be dreamers anyway, but about the laborers and workers, who have nothing to gain themselves and will likely never see the fruits of their labors.

Like I said, we are the products of our age.
Laborers and workers in today's world has no place in society. Their jobs being taken over by robots. The majority of them are laborers and workers simply because they couldn't afford higher education. So, basically they are not living up to their full potential.

Money may aid influence, but it is not equal to power. Rulers control societies by force. They make people obey, not pay them to. Strong men have always ruled weak men. Money is the system we use to allow us to have food, clothing and shelter, and then to have better things. Many of the people in the world are starving, and we won't stop that simply by declaring money to be a non-entity.

The modern world has enabled its citizens to have greater luxury than ever dreamed possible by past generations. We've shortened the hours we work and allowed ourselves to obtain things formerly only dreamed of by kings. You're right, money wasn't absolutely necessary to accomplish that, but it has been a means to an end. That said, the West has attempted to feed some our less advanced neighbors, and often those attempts have been blocked; not by people who see money in it, but by rulers who see that withholding that food subjugates their people and increases their power.

Some people seek wealth, others seek power. Removing money from the equation may or may not change that, but looking at the way the world operates indicates that the answer is "not." The first objection you need to answer, though, is "how?"

And how in the world authoritarian government rule by force? Through money. If the police don't obey they lose their paychecks. If a judge wouldn't comply, he or she would lose his livelihood. Dissidents are known to be impoverished by the state. They can't find employment. No one will accept them.

Money had worked but in the long run it has become a mere transfer of wealth from all the people to just dozens of people. Money is setting us up for a tyranny-based world. Money disempowers most people and empowers so few of us.

[Castout]

I think in a resource-based economy the question we should ask ourselves is 'if we had everything we needed or if we had all the money in the world, what would we do?'

Perhaps our minds picture traveling the world, others may picture playing games all day, other perhaps sailing the world's oceans in a big yacht
but then what will we do...

Keep asking then what will we do and you will find that in each man there's a natural drive to improve himself, to make a better world.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Castout

Keep asking then what will we do and you will find that in each man there's a natural drive to improve himself, to make a better world.

None of the examples you mentioned involve improving the world, or ourselves. They all involve self-gratification. When you can convince the world that none of those things are necessary, or important, then maybe you can convince them that money isn't either.

[August]

I'd venture to say that the technology for mass production, indeed the whole industrial revolution itself would have never existed without money. There is just no way to gather the many resources, equipment and trained personnel required by any factory by barter alone. Therefore human society without money is limited to small agrarian and hunter gatherer groups where life is both difficult and short.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Castout

By getting rid of money altogether.

How?

Do you expect me to figure out all this on my own and sell the idea to the world? That is is my sole responsibility? I'm throwing this idea to make people rethink the world we live in. It's our world, we can change whatever rules we have, including money.

No, I don't expect you to have answers that I don't have myself. The problem I see is that none of these preachers seem to have an answer for that either. The dream is fine. The reality seems to be much different.

A resource-based world isn't a work-free world. People still work. They don't do it for money, that's the difference.

Why would anyone work when there's nothing in it for them? People used to farm so they could eat. They also made their own clothes. That was about the limit of the technology. The man who could make a plow or a wagon could barter it for a pig or a cow, but how many pigs and cows can one man deal with, especially if he'd rather be making plows. Or clothes. A medium of exchange is needed, hence money.

Laborers and workers in today's world has no place in society. Their jobs being taken over by robots.

Who builds the robots? Other robots? That technology can only take us so far. Mining and farming can be greatly aided by machines, but machines can't do it all.

The majority of them are laborers and workers simply because they couldn't afford higher education. So, basically they are not living up to their full potential.

And what will they do when they don't have to do anything? Some will thrive, but others will not. Can we build a society structured to support us all? Again, a nice dream, but nobody is telling us how it can be done. So far it's all talk.

And how in the world authoritarian government rule by force? Through money.

Not really. A strong man who can convince other strong men to follow him doesn't need money. Ancient armies were supplied by force - they took what they wanted. They would follow the man who could guarantee them what they wanted. They didn't pillage, rape and kill because they wanted money (though that was a part of it), they did it because it was fun. Exercising power is an end in itself. Taking away the means of exchange won't change that. Gold didn't become a precious commodity because of the money it represented, but because of its rarity. The man strong enough to take it will try to do so, whether you say it's worth anything or not.

If the police don't obey they lose their paychecks. If a judge wouldn't comply, he or she would lose his livelihood. Dissidents are known to be impoverished by the state. They can't find employment. No one will accept them.

And if there are no paychecks? Why will people become policemen at all? Why judges? Because they have decent hearts? Or because they like to have power over others? Probably a bit of both, but money doesn't make men bad. The bad ones are already that way.

Money had worked but in the long run it has become a mere transfer of wealth from all the people to just dozens of people. Money is setting us up for a tyranny-based world. Money disempowers most people and empowers so few of us.

Most of the world is already tyranny-based. Some of the tyrants want money. Others want power for its own sake. Still others believe they are doing what is best, even as they slaughter whole populations.

Money isn't the problem. People are.