Someday...an Economy Without Money

[joe1776]

At the very simplest, you are arguing for something that is essentially rational. Human nature is guided much, much more by passions and emotions than it is by reason. You can see this by noting that you are right now arguing in what is mostly a religious forum, and religion is not rational -- in spite of what many would like to contend.

A government is essentially a decision-making process intended to manage human beings in a society, a cooperative venture. That decision-making process involves both questions of conscience (moral intuition) and questions of reason. My premise of a future better government deals with the very same human beings as the current flawed systems.

You are human, and therefore you are a social animal -- one that depends upon others of its kind for its very existence. Yet, you are also an animal that can default on the normal rules of social coexistence -- you can covet, as the Bible says, and you can cheat. The objects of our desires are very often those things we need, but they are also very often things we don't need, but want anyway, and we find it all too easy to bend and break the social conventions that bind us together to get those things -- and that often has nothing to do with money. Think, for example, rape, or revenge, or simple malice.

There are murders committed because of sheer malice and murders committed for profit. Ridding the world of money won't eliminate the former.

If not for money, there's be no profit in the manufacture of guns, alcohol or harmful drugs. Some would still be made for limited, private use, but the wholesale amount of harm would be eliminated.

For most people, the "higher needs" consist of not only "keeping up with the Jones's" but besting them.
An intelligent management of a society would make this kind of competition as popular as body odor.
Before this "better world" you seek can work, you have to change.the very nature of the denizens of that world -- us.

Since all the world's governments are managing people, why are some doing better at it than others? And why is it hard to believe that future governments will do better than those that now exist?

What makes you believe that the system we now use to manage this nation is the ultimate achievement in human governing? You must think so if a future government, efficient and free of corruption is beyond your comprehension.

 

[Revoltingest]

If the resource allocation is done by a decision made by an efficient resource management process, money wouldn't be necessary. Would it?

When you find a better way that isn't just money with a different name, we'll talk.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A government is essentially a decision-making process intended to manage human beings in a society, a cooperative venture. That decision-making process involves both questions of conscience (moral intuition) and questions of reason. My premise of a future better government deals with the very same human beings as the current flawed systems.

And because those very same human beings who create and who are "government" are flawed, then we must expect what those governments do to be susceptible to flaws. Governments have denied the rights of people who love one another to marry -- in my own province of Ontario, they've even locked women up for being engaged to and living with somebody of a different race. (Look up Velma Demerson or the Female Refuges Act). That act was not repealed until 1964 -- I was 16 at the time, so this is not ancient history (be careful how you respond -- I'm old, but not ancient )

If not for money, there's be no profit in the manufacture of guns, alcohol or harmful drugs. Some would still be made for limited, private use, but the wholesale amount of harm would be eliminated.

I think you make a serious error in assuming that "profit" is by definition money. Not so. A nice bargain is fequently made in many nations in which monetary value is traded for something that ought not to be monetized -- daughters, for instance. Power, prestige, access to aid not available to others -- even for money -- are other examples.

Since all the world's governments are managing people, why are some doing better at it than others? And why is it hard to believe that future governments can't do any better than those that now exist?

Another error in your thinking. Governments aren't in the business of managing people -- at least not the decent ones. The ones that are are labelled tyrannies by most of us. The governments that do best are those that manage the playing field -- levelling it so that all of those "governed" have a fair chance of getting access to resources.

What makes you believe that the system we now use to manage this nation is the ultimate achievement in human governing? You must think so if a future government, efficient and free of corruption is beyond your comprehension.

First of all, I don't think that your government is "the ultimate achievment in human governing." Far from it, actually -- especially these days. Do you think that the US has a playing field so level that everybody has a fair chance of success? Then why does an extremely tiny majority own the vast majority of everything the nation has?

But yes, a government free of corruption is beyond my comprehension -- so long as it is a government made up of humans. Because humans are always succeptible to corruption. And as I've tried to point out, money is not the only thing that will corrupt us.

 

[joe1776]

Amen. Let me know when that happens!

Kidding aside, how does one manage economic benefits fairly without money? What does that look like? Money at its most fundamental level is simply accounting. It’s a list of who has what, how much, and who owes what to whom. How can government manage anything at all without keeping lists and records? And how is a list or record of “economic benefits” different from money?

These are not rhetorical questions. I sincerely lack the imagination to picture a society with a large population where money does not exist. When I try to picture it, the society in my imagination ends up inventing something similar to money, out of necessity.

I admit, this may be a failure of imagination on my part - hence I ask for your help.

I have never had that problem. I can easily imagine a future economy that can do without money. However, a government capable of making wise decisions is needed to manage resources.

I agree voting is insufficient to guarantee a good outcome. What would you suggest as an alternative - a hereditary monarchy? A divine voice from a burning bush?

I have authored a thread on a possible approach.

You may have noticed the same system of voting that have us a buffoon in 2016, also gave him the boot in 2020.

And gave us Joe Biden who is better but hardly capable of leading a country.

What democracy, and science, and free markets have in common is not that they are perfect. It’s that when they err, as humans inevitably do under any system, there are mechanisms for self-correction.

Replacement of old barely-functioning system isn't in your thinking?

I acknowledge you have a point. But one could also make the exact opposite argument. The combination of laws and money makes it possible for the weak, including widows and orphans, to protect their share of the benefits of society. In ancient times the physically strong took what they wanted from the weak. Today the most frail elderly woman can put her money in a bank account. And there is an almost 0% chance that a group of screaming warriors from another tribe will take it from her, or that the merchant holding her savings for her will jump on a sailing ship with her money and never be heard from again.

Are you familiar with the current healthcare system which is bankrupting so many elderly?

To clarify: I am open to the possibility. I just am also open to the opposite possibility. I am trying to learn more about your view to try to assess which possibility is more likely.

I happen to have a concept that could possibly be the key to better governing. But that would take this discussion down another path. For our purpose here, all I'm claiming is that a corruption-free efficient government is possible and that, when it happens, we won't need money.

 

[joe1776]

When you find a better way that isn't just money with a different name, we'll talk.

If you want to call governing decisions made about resources "money," there's no one to stop you. But don't count on being understood.

 

[joe1776]

And because those very same human beings who create and who are "government" are flawed, then we must expect what those governments do to be susceptible to flaws. Governments have denied the rights of people who love one another to marry -- in my own province of Ontario, they've even locked women up for being engaged to and living with somebody of a different race. (Look up Velma Demerson or the Female Refuges Act). That act was not repealed until 1964 -- I was 16 at the time, so this is not ancient history (be careful how you respond -- I'm old, but not ancient

If a panel of 33 experts on climate, selected randomly by computer from a list of 200 experts, were to advise on decisions relevant to the climate, we could expect the decision of the majority to be the best decision given the current state of the evidence.

That panel of experts concept might someday be the basis for governing societies. That's my concept, there might be better ones in the future.

I think you make a serious error in assuming that "profit" is by definition money.

I didn't assume that. My comment was simply a reference to the profit associated with money.

Another error in your thinking. Governments aren't in the business of managing people -- at least not the decent ones. The ones that are are labelled tyrannies by most of us. The governments that do best are those that manage the playing field -- levelling it so that all of those "governed" have a fair chance of getting access to resources.

The fact that you're straining to find fault. "Governments don't manage people. they manage the playing filed" is a sign of weakness in your argument.

First of all, I don't think that your government is "the ultimate achievment in human governing." Far from it, actually -- especially these days. Do you think that the US has a playing field so level that everybody has a fair chance of success? Then why does an extremely tiny majority own the vast majority of everything the nation has?

I think all governments are corrupt and ineffective. Some are just worse than others.

But yes, a government free of corruption is beyond my comprehension -- so long as it is a government made up of humans. Because humans are always succeptible to corruption. And as I've tried to point out, money is not the only thing that will corrupt us.

You haven't allowed the possibility that a method might be devised to make it nearly impossible for human biases to rule decision-making. I think it's just a matter of time

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I happen to have a concept that could possibly be the key to better governing. But that would take this discussion down another path. For our purpose here, all I'm claiming is that a corruption-free efficient government is possible and that, when it happens, we won't need money.

Thanks. If I may: what does that look like? Suppose we have our corruption-free efficient government and there is no need for money. Now suppose I would like to buy my wife some ear rings or something for our anniversary. How does that work? Do I go to the government supply depot downtown and pick out whatever I want; or do I have to fill out a form to get onto some kind of waiting list, or lottery? Do I have to return the bracelet I got her last year? Can I forego my food rations for a day in order to “save up” and then get her something really rare and special? Or are all ear rings identical, and have identical value, in this corruption-free, efficient world? Or is this a world where people no longer do selfish, greedy romantic things, like try to get something extra special and unique for a loved one - would such a desire be deemed too inefficient, even corrupt, in such a world?

 

[joe1776]

Greed per se isn't bad.
But when it inspires unethical behavior, that's bad.

When greedy citizens strive for more than their fair share of the cooperative society's resources that IS unethical behavior as I see it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

When greedy citizens strive for more than their fair share of the cooperative society's resources that IS unethical behavior as I see it.

I realize you were taking to Revolt, but if I may: let’s suppose we have a pie. I want all of it, leaving you with none. I agree that is unethical behavior.

But what if neither of us has a pie. And what if you spend one hour of your Saturday baking a pie. And I spend two hours of my Saturday baking two pies (I really love pie).

In that second scenario, did I “strive for more than my fair share” and was I therefore unethical, in your view? (Aside perhaps from a mild case of gluttony, that is!)

 

[joe1776]

Thanks. If I may: what does that look like? Suppose we have our corruption-free efficient government and there is no need for money. Now suppose I would like to buy my wife some ear rings or something for our anniversary. How does that work? Do I go to the government supply depot downtown and pick out whatever I want; or do I have to fill out a form to get onto some kind of waiting list, or lottery? Do I have to return the bracelet I got her last year? Can I forego my food rations for a day in order to “save up” and then get her something really rare and special? Or are all ear rings identical, and have identical value, in this corruption-free, efficient world? Or is this a world where people no longer do selfish, greedy romantic things, like try to get something extra special and unique for a loved one - would such a desire be deemed too inefficient, even corrupt, in such a world?

I would imagine that the first order of business for this moneyless economy would be to see that all citizens had their food, shelter, clothing and healthcare needs covered in a safe environment.

Just a guess, but you might need to trade your week's alcohol for dinner allotment to an artisan who could make your wife's earrings.

Now that you bring it up, though. I foresee many cultural shifts that will change lives regardless of any shift in how we are governed.

 

[joe1776]

I realize you were taking to Revolt, but if I may: let’s suppose we have a pie. I want all of it, leaving you with none. I agree that is unethical behavior.

But what if neither of us has a pie. And what if you spend one hour of your Saturday baking a pie. And I spend two hours of my Saturday baking two pies (I really love pie).

In that second scenario, did I “strive for more than my fair share” and was I therefore unethical, in your view? (Aside perhaps from a mild case of gluttony, that is!)

No, that's not greed or unethical, IMO.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I would imagine that the first order of business for this moneyless economy would be to see that all citizens had their food, shelter, clothing and healthcare needs covered in a safe environment.

As it should be, naturally.

Just a guess, but you might need to trade your week's alcohol for dinner allotment to an artisan who could make your wife's earrings.

*spits bourbon* My WHAT?!

But I still get to keep my alcohol for breakfast allotment, right?

Okay, kidding aside ... does this exchange involve me physically handing over a week’s worth of my alcohol at dinner to an artisan? So, I would be giving this person three or four boxes of wine (assuming four bottles per box).

 

[Heyo]

Greed per se isn't bad.
But when it inspires unethical behavior, that's bad.

Even in the Star Trek universe, there's money, greed,
lust for power, & limited resources. Not every captain
gets a Galaxy Class starship.

Good utopias make bad tv series. You need drama. And without greed, lust for power and violence there is no drama.
Every utopia is boring.

 

[Heyo]

Thanks. If I may: what does that look like? Suppose we have our corruption-free efficient government and there is no need for money. Now suppose I would like to buy my wife some ear rings or something for our anniversary. How does that work? Do I go to the government supply depot downtown and pick out whatever I want; or do I have to fill out a form to get onto some kind of waiting list, or lottery? Do I have to return the bracelet I got her last year? Can I forego my food rations for a day in order to “save up” and then get her something really rare and special? Or are all ear rings identical, and have identical value, in this corruption-free, efficient world? Or is this a world where people no longer do selfish, greedy romantic things, like try to get something extra special and unique for a loved one - would such a desire be deemed too inefficient, even corrupt, in such a world?

How is something special that you can buy/get from the repository/get made by a replicator? That the one you're giving it to could get the same way?
Go to the community shop and make something that is unique!

 

[Twilight Hue]

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

I wonder what that could be? *grin*

 

[Twilight Hue]

How would the poor fit in with a cashless society?

Would begging still be around?

How about money for things done "under the table" that people engage in from time to time? Like a neighbor kid helping out with mowing for a or snowblowing the drive? The classic lemonade stand?

A cashless society would be incredibly controlling and dystopian.

 

[Heyo]

The moneyless society we all know:

It's a tribal society and somewhat authoritarian, depending on the leader. It isn't even post scarcity but close enough that most of us didn't mind. There was food, shelter, clothing we didn't have to pay for. We call it family.
Now imagine a big family. Do you still need money?

 

[joe1776]

How would the poor fit in with a cashless society?

In the moneyless, cooperative economy managed by a corruption-free, efficient government, there will be no rich or poor.

I would expect that you would have your choice of useful jobs that suit your capabilities. In return for your cooperation, your basic needs for shelter, food, etc. would be provided as your right.

 

[joe1776]

Good utopias make bad tv series. You need drama. And without greed, lust for power and violence there is no drama.
Every utopia is boring.

That's true. A future that actually works well isn't filled with drama. We'll always have the dramatic past though.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In the moneyless, cooperative economy managed by a corruption-free, efficient government, there will be no rich or poor.

I would expect that you would have your choice of useful jobs that suit your capabilities. In return for your cooperation, your basic needs for shelter, food, etc. would be provided as your right.

That sounds excessively controlling. People would lose the power of their personal economy.