Someday...an Economy Without Money

[joe1776]

Two things must be true if plans are to succeed. The plan itself must be sound, and the execution of the plan must be effective.

Since we humans have yet to invent a government that isn't both corrupt and ineffective, there's no national economic plan that a government can't possibly screw up. The best we can do are the so-called mixed economies which minimize the harm done to the citizenry. Currently, the economies of the Scandinavian countries are the best examples of what we humans can do but they're not models for the future.

The solution for the future is not less governing or weaker governments but better governing, a more intelligent decision-making process. An effective government, one free of corruption, should have whatever power it needs to implement its policies.

A society is basically a cooperative endeavor. In line with that, cooperative economies are the future. An efficient government will manage that economy. Money won't be needed to facilitate trade.

Money is like a drug that cures diabetes but causes cancer. Money facilitates trade and is every bit as good at facilitating all manner of crime and corruption. In a moneyless economy, a government could limit the production of alcohol and others drugs. And, in a future money-less economy, fraud and most crime will be minimized.

In a moneyless economy, the profit motive is eliminated thus opening up the possibility of putting every citizen to work at some useful activity.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Two things must be true if plans are to succeed. The plan itself must be sound, and the execution of the plan must be effective.

Since we humans have yet to invent a government that isn't both corrupt and ineffective, there's no national economic plan that a government can't possibly screw up. The best we can do are the so-called mixed economies which minimize the harm done to the citizenry. Currently, the economies of the Scandinavian countries are the best examples of what we humans can do but they're not models for the future.

The solution for the future is not less governing or weaker governments but better governing, a more intelligent decision-making process. An effective government, one free of corruption, should have whatever power it needs to implement its policies.

A society is basically a cooperative endeavor. In line with that, cooperative economies are the future. An efficient government will manage that economy. Money won't be needed to facilitate trade.

Money is like a drug that cures diabetes but causes cancer. Money facilitates trade and is every bit as good at facilitating all manner of crime and corruption. In a moneyless economy, a government could limit the production of alcohol and others drugs. And, in a future money-less economy, fraud and most crime will be minimized.

In a moneyless economy, the profit motive is eliminated thus opening up the possibility of putting every citizen to work at some useful activity.

A moneyless society would be fantastic. Maybe some lessons from the world of make-believe?

The Economic Lessons of Star Trek’s Money-Free Society

 

[Estro Felino]

Evil derives from money.
The only thing that makes a man worthy is labor and it is by working that people produce what they need do survive.
I know...I am too drastic...but I need to say what I think...

 

[sun rise]

A moneyless society would be fantastic. Maybe some lessons from the world of make-believe?

The Economic Lessons of Star Trek’s Money-Free Society

That's a great article which points out that a moneyless society could be the Borg, for example.

Further, money is energy of a certain kind. It can be used for positive ends. Or it can be accumulated by the greedy and used for ego purposes (my mega-yacht is bigger than yours).

 

[Audie]

A moneyless society would be fantastic. Maybe some lessons from the world of make-believe?

The Economic Lessons of Star Trek’s Money-Free Society

They tried that for a very long time.

 

[Heyo]

Two things must be true if plans are to succeed. The plan itself must be sound, and the execution of the plan must be effective.

Since we humans have yet to invent a government that isn't both corrupt and ineffective, there's no national economic plan that a government can't possibly screw up. The best we can do are the so-called mixed economies which minimize the harm done to the citizenry. Currently, the economies of the Scandinavian countries are the best examples of what we humans can do but they're not models for the future.

The solution for the future is not less governing or weaker governments but better governing, a more intelligent decision-making process. An effective government, one free of corruption, should have whatever power it needs to implement its policies.

A society is basically a cooperative endeavor. In line with that, cooperative economies are the future. An efficient government will manage that economy. Money won't be needed to facilitate trade.

Money is like a drug that cures diabetes but causes cancer. Money facilitates trade and is every bit as good at facilitating all manner of crime and corruption. In a moneyless economy, a government could limit the production of alcohol and others drugs. And, in a future money-less economy, fraud and most crime will be minimized.

In a moneyless economy, the profit motive is eliminated thus opening up the possibility of putting every citizen to work at some useful activity.

As much as I like to have a Star Trek economy, the elimination of money will be the last step on that way. For a moneyless society you first need a post scarcity society,

then you need some time so that people can get used to it, then you can abandon money.

 

[jhwatts]

Money and currency are technically different. Money must maintain a store of value currency does not. The US dollar is currency not money. So technically we already have an economy that does not use money.

Currency is used for transactions, it is not meant to hold it is made move between people and flow. Think about the term cash flow. Think about the root of the word. Current. A current flows in a river. The current will move to the edge of the river that is its bank. Currency is based on an ancient maritime laws.

Crazy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Two things must be true if plans are to succeed. The plan itself must be sound, and the execution of the plan must be effective.

Since we humans have yet to invent a government that isn't both corrupt and ineffective, there's no national economic plan that a government can't possibly screw up. The best we can do are the so-called mixed economies which minimize the harm done to the citizenry. Currently, the economies of the Scandinavian countries are the best examples of what we humans can do but they're not models for the future.

The solution for the future is not less governing or weaker governments but better governing, a more intelligent decision-making process. An effective government, one free of corruption, should have whatever power it needs to implement its policies.

A society is basically a cooperative endeavor. In line with that, cooperative economies are the future. An efficient government will manage that economy. Money won't be needed to facilitate trade.

Money is like a drug that cures diabetes but causes cancer. Money facilitates trade and is every bit as good at facilitating all manner of crime and corruption. In a moneyless economy, a government could limit the production of alcohol and others drugs. And, in a future money-less economy, fraud and most crime will be minimized.

In a moneyless economy, the profit motive is eliminated thus opening up the possibility of putting every citizen to work at some useful activity.

It's impossible.
Money is fundamentally resource allocation, which will never
go away because resources are limited, but demand is not.
Even if it's some day called something other than "money",
it'll still function as money, therefore being money.
BTW, the Scandinavian model depends greatly upon money.

Corruption & greed aren't caused by money...only measured
by it. Eliminating the metric won't eliminate fundamental
human flaws.

 

[Revoltingest]

They tried that for a very long time.

Life without money:
I'd like to trade you a cow for a new axle for Mr Van.
Whaddaya say?

 

[joe1776]

As much as I like to have a Star Trek economy, the elimination of money will be the last step on that way. For a moneyless society you first need a post scarcity society,

then you need some time so that people can get used to it, then you can abandon money.

I don't understand your claim.

Post-scarcity is a theoretical economic situation in which most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely.

I don't Know why we humans would want the kind of economy that would eliminate labor. The idea of the food supply in the hands of big corporations using massive machines and little labor scares me. I'd feel better living in a world where the food was produced by small farms and local gardening projects. I'd feel safer.

 

[joe1776]

Money is fundamentally resource allocation, which will never go away because resources are limited, but demand is not...Even if it's some day called something other than "money",

it'll still function as money, therefore being money.

I couldn't make sense of that paragraph.

BTW, the Scandinavian model depends greatly upon money.

So, what's your point?

Corruption & greed aren't caused by money...only measured by it. Eliminating the metric won't eliminate fundamental human flaws.

As I wrote, corruption and greed are facilitated by money just as easily as trade is facilitated by money.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Life without money:
I'd like to trade you a cow for a new axle for Mr Van.
Whaddaya say?

What's a cow worth, in axles? Or is it what's an axle worth, in cows? That was just about the most important thing that money did for us -- it allowed us to establish a common means of valuation for exchange.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's impossible.
Money is fundamentally resource allocation, which will never
go away because resources are limited, but demand is not.
Even if it's some day called something other than "money",
it'll still function as money, therefore being money.
BTW, the Scandinavian model depends greatly upon money.

Corruption & greed aren't caused by money...only measured
by it. Eliminating the metric won't eliminate fundamental
human flaws.

No, but most of us humans have yet to actually consider greed to be a real taboo -- especially where it concerns the accumulation of property and wealth. At the table, maybe, when somebody takes more than their fair share -- and as a consequence, to avoid social opprobrium, most people don't take more.

If we did, indeed, ever create a world in which most or all commodities could be easily produced (as with a Star Trek replicator), the only way the world could really function well is that all humans would have to develop the sense that taking more than you need, and acquiring things and property for the mere sake of having them for yourself, really was taboo, and would truly result in social censure.

I suppose that is possible, but it does seem unlikely, as I look at the humans around me today.

 

[Heyo]

I don't understand your claim.

Post-scarcity is a theoretical economic situation in which most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely.

I don't Know why we humans would want the kind of economy that would eliminate labor. The idea of the food supply in the hands of big corporations using massive machines and little labor scares me. I'd feel better living in a world where the food was produced by small farms and local gardening projects. I'd feel safer.

The idea of big corporations only works in a scarcity economy (independent if that scarcity is real or artificial*). Corporations need money as incentive, people need to work to get money. When everybody has or has easy access to a replicator, there will be no corporations.
But small farms and local gardening projects also don't help as they will produce scarcity. One bad harvest and abundance good bye.

*There is a hypothesis that we have already reached post scarcity or could have reached it by now and the inequality is entirely man-made.

 

[danieldemol]

In a moneyless economy, a government could limit the production of alcohol and others drugs.

Nope, people could simply trade goods and services for drugs.

 

[joe1776]

Nope, people could simply trade goods and services for drugs.

Bartering limits the problem severely.

 

[Twilight Hue]

A moneyless society would be fantastic. Maybe some lessons from the world of make-believe?

The Economic Lessons of Star Trek’s Money-Free Society

Sorry. The moneyless system is currently down. Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

[exchemist]

Crazy.

Agreed.

 

[Vouthon]

Saint Thomas More, Chancellor of England under Henry VIII, envisaged a 'moneyless' society in his famous book Utopia (1516), in which he also coined the neologism itself. "The basis of their whole system," More told us in the text was, "their communal living and their moneyless economy.”

He constructed the term from Greek prefix "ou-" (οὐ), meaning "not", and topos (τόπος), "place", with the suffix -iā (-ία): the name literally meaning "nowhere", which was to highlight the fictional and fantastical nature of 'utopianism'; imaging an ideal society that exists 'nowhere' in our primary world.

A quotation from that work:

“And yet when these insatiably greedy and evil men [Europeans] have divided among themselves goods which would have sufficed for the entire people, how far they remain from the happiness of the Utopian Republic, which has abolished not only money but with it greed!

What a mass of trouble was cut away by that one step! What a thicket of crimes was uprooted! Everyone knows that if money were abolished, fraud, theft, robbery, quarrels, brawls, seditions, murders, treasons, poisonings and a whole set of crimes which are avenged but not prevented by the hangman would at once die out.

If money disappeared, so would fear, anxiety, worry, toil, and sleepless nights. Even poverty, which seems to need money more than anything else, would vanish if money were entirely done away with.”​

That was over 400 years ago. Still no 'utopic' moneyless, post-scarcity, classless and perfectly egalitarian society anywhere in sight.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Money is a tool that aligns interests and makes trade transparent and quantifiable. It can facilitate greed but it can also facilitate cooperation.

It facilitates human interactions. It’s up to humans whether those interactions are for good or evil. The money itself is merely a tool.

Democracy and voting has a similar problem: it can facilitate politicians who lie and pander to win votes and achieve power. It can facilitate a majority taking power and stomping all over the rights of the minority.

Should we have a world without voting?

The reason democracy works is because it acknowledges the fact that people tend to work in their own interests. It does not celebrate greed but it does try to align the interests of government and the governed.

People would tend to pursue their own interests in any world, with or without voting and with or without money. The key is to align interests, make them transparent instead of hidden, let the best ones win and reign in the worst ones. Both free trade and democracy share these assumptions and that is why the American founders were very interested in Adam Smith’s work.

Perhaps the best example of an economic relationship without money, frankly, is a slave to his master. Instead of coin and greed, you had the lash and violence. I think we can still improve over coin and greed, but let’s not forget how we got to a society with money and how that was an improvement.