Someday...an Economy Without Money

[Mr Spinkles]

Let people do what they like without coupling their living to their work. It's not only that people in the Rust Belt miss their work, they miss their supplies even more.

This goal is unassailable. That would be great!

However, this assumes there is a perfect match between “what people like to do” vs “what people like to have”. We ALL like to have working indoor plumbing. Do we ALL like to fix toilets?

We ALL want and need some basic level of food, shelter and healthcare. But what if I want a pool in my backyard too? And I’m willing to fix some extra toilets in exchange for people helping me build my pool? In a Utopia, would the police stop me and my neighbors from engaging in this mutually beneficial, free, cooperative exchange?

What if instead of fixing their toilets they were willing to accept an IOU promising to fix their toilets in the future, in the event they need fixing? What if I’m no good at fixing toilets, personally, but someone else gave me an IOU in exchange for my famous cookies, and I then give that piece of paper to my neighbors to help me with my pool ... sort of like money. See where I’m going with this?

Trade, specialization of labor, and trade offs between what we “want to do” vs what we are willing to do in order to attain things we “want to have” ... this is just a natural consequence of human beings interacting freely, and sociably, and nonviolently. It’s not capitalism, it’s more like proto-capitalism. It does not have to be greedy or take advantage of anyone, or leave anyone out in the cold.

Admittedly, there are many problems with money and capitalism that exist today. I just don’t see how getting rid of money fixes those problems, rather than creating problems by inhibiting what is free and natural. Most initiatives to solve problems that capitalism has created, or is not good at solving, themselves involve money ... funding for health programs. Higher salaries for teachers. Imposing costs on businesses that pollute. Etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, yes, of course. But let's keep it basic. In the USA, we're talking about a decision-making process that was put into place over 200 years ago by men who didn't have the knowledge of the decision process that we now have, nor did they have our tools.

Why are you so skeptical that we can't improve on the system they created?

You propose that all workers will share equally in benefits.
There's an incentive to just do what one wants, which could
be relaxing instead of working. Individual initiative, work,
creativity, & risk taking yield no material reward at all.
Better is a system wherein one must do something that
entices others to voluntarily provide compensation.

 

[Revoltingest]

It never has been done before. Every system that exists was done for the first time at some time in the past. Are we done? Is invention no longer possible?

If it's never been done, how can you be so certain
that we should replace the system we have with
your theoretical model. It should be tested first.

 

[joe1776]

Let people do what they like without coupling their living to their work. It's not only that people in the Rust Belt miss their work, they miss their supplies even more.

I didn't follow that. I'll restate the problem.

Currently, the average citizen is not reaping the benefits of automation. Instead, the corporations can be more profitable by replacing employees with machines. Don't you see that as a problem?

 

[joe1776]

You propose that all workers will share equally in benefits.
There's an incentive to just do what one wants, which could
be relaxing instead of working. Individual initiative, work,
creativity, & risk taking yield no material reward at all.
Better is a system wherein one must do something that
entices others to voluntarily provide compensation.

Your approach has the effect of degrading the cooperative effort by giving some citizens an unfair advantage at birth while encouraging others not so gifted to go on the public dole or to find a scam to get their fair share.

There will be uncooperative citizens to deal with regardless of the system but there will be far less if everyone gets an equal share of the benefits of the cooperative effort.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your approach has the effect of degrading the cooperative effort by giving some citizens an unfair advantage at birth while encouraging others no so gifted to go on the public dole or to find a scam to get their fair share.

"Degrading" is a value judgement I don't share.
Capitalism is all about cooperation...voluntary cooperation,
since workers & customers can vote with their feet.

You can't have a command economy without "command".
Socialism & Communism (the commonly proffered alternatives)
are all about prohibiting voluntary economic associations, ie, the
people...the hive....government say who does what & gets what.

There will be uncooperative citizens to deal with regardless of the system but there will be far less if everyone gets an equal share of the benefits of the cooperative effort.

Let me know when you see a successful example of your moneyless
system run by a decision making process, rather than individuals.

 

[joe1776]

If it's never been done, how can you be so certain
that we should replace the system we have with
your theoretical model. It should be tested first.

You're right.

The Future of International Expert Advisory Panels

 

[Revoltingest]

You're right.

The Future of International Expert Advisory Panels

Sounds like the PRC, which self-selects the
most qualified minds to make decisions for all.
One of those decisions was to increase the
use of capitalism & money.

 

[joe1776]

"Degrading" is a value judgement I don't share. Capitalism is all about cooperation...voluntary cooperation, since workers & customers can vote with their feet.

Nonsense. The free market is a competitive enterprise which makes the cooperative effort of society impossible to attain. It's legacy is an ever-widening gap between rich and poor. With the poor resigned to needing charity or stealing what they want.

You can't have a command economy without "command".
Socialism & Communism (the commonly proffered alternatives)
are all about prohibiting voluntary economic associations, ie, the
people...the hive....government say who does what & gets what.

All governments limit the rights of its citizens because you can't have a cooperative effort if everybody does anything they damn well please.

You will convince me I'm wrong if you make an argument that's persuasive. Comparing my hypothetical to other failed systems isn't persuasive.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nonsense.

I appreciate your brave admission, but
I wasn't going to use so harsh a term.

The free market is a competitive enterprise which makes the cooperative effort of society impossible to attain. It's legacy is an ever-widening gap between rich and poor. With the poor resigned to needing charity of stealing what they want.

Perhaps your business experience is very different from mine.
Cooperation is essential. Without capitalism wouldn't exist.

All governments limit the rights of its citizens because you can't have a cooperative effort if everybody does anything they damn well please.

There is a vast continuum between authoritarianism &
everyone doing as "they damn well please". But capitalism
comes closer to the latter, with what one pleases to do
being that which gets them a wage or profit.

You will convince me I'm wrong if you make an argument that's persuasive. Comparing my hypothetical to other failed systems isn't persuasive.

Neither of us is wrong.
I just think your system is horribly authoritarian,
& I wouldn't want to live under it.

 

[joe1776]

Neither of us is wrong.
I just think your system is horribly authoritarian,
& I wouldn't want to live under it.

You were born with advantages that allowed you to have an edge in competing in our free market economy. I just hope you realize that you were born on third base. You didn't hit a triple.

I was lucky at birth also, but my grandchildren aren't going to have the same economic advantages, I did. From here on out, we'll be bouncing from one recession to another.

I'm invested in the stock market. So, those silly GOP tax breaks for corporations work for me. You probably are too. So, I'll be able to help my children and their families for tougher times ahead.

 

[Revoltingest]

You were born with advantages that allowed you to have an edge in competing in our free market economy. I just hope you realize that you were born on third base. You didn't hit a triple.

I was lucky at birth also, but my grandchildren aren't going to have the same economic advantages, I did. From here on out, we'll be bouncing from one recession to another.

I'm invested in the stock market. So, the silly tax breaks for corporations work for me. You probably are too. So, I'll be able to help my children and their families for tougher times ahead.

The luck of being smart & ambitious in a capitalist economy is no sin.
The misfortune of being born into an authoritarian regime isn't either.
But I prefer the first to the second.
And even in attempts at a command economy, people are still
separated into the elite & the masses, eg, Cuba, N Korea.

 

[Heyo]

This goal is unassailable. That would be great!

It's more a problem of your lack of imagination than of reality.

However, this assumes there is a perfect match between “what people like to do” vs “what people like to have”. We ALL like to have working indoor plumbing. Do we ALL like to fix toilets?

It assumes that most of the work will be done by robots and that people are willing to freely contribute to society for the work that can't be done by robots. As I said, first get post scarcity, then abandon money.

We ALL want and need some basic level of food, shelter and healthcare. But what if I want a pool in my backyard too? And I’m willing to fix some extra toilets in exchange for people helping me build my pool? In a Utopia, would the police stop me and my neighbors from engaging in this mutually beneficial, free, cooperative exchange?

You are still thinking like a capitalist. Get rid of "your" backyard, "your" pool and the necessity to fix toilets.
Think of wanting access to a pool and building a shared public commodity on public ground.

What if instead of fixing their toilets they were willing to accept an IOU promising to fix their toilets in the future, in the event they need fixing? What if I’m no good at fixing toilets, personally, but someone else gave me an IOU in exchange for my famous cookies, and I then give that piece of paper to my neighbors to help me with my pool ... sort of like money. See where I’m going with this?

Trade, specialization of labor, and trade offs between what we “want to do” vs what we are willing to do in order to attain things we “want to have” ... this is just a natural consequence of human beings interacting freely, and sociably, and nonviolently. It’s not capitalism, it’s more like proto-capitalism. It does not have to be greedy or take advantage of anyone, or leave anyone out in the cold.

Admittedly, there are many problems with money and capitalism that exist today. I just don’t see how getting rid of money fixes those problems, rather than creating problems by inhibiting what is free and natural. Most initiatives to solve problems that capitalism has created, or is not good at solving, themselves involve money ... funding for health programs. Higher salaries for teachers. Imposing costs on businesses that pollute. Etc.

"Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western spiral arm of the galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this, at a distance of roughly ninety million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet, whose ape descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea. This planet has, or had, a problem, which was this. Most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small, green pieces of paper, which is odd, because on the whole, it wasn't the small, green pieces of paper which were unhappy. And so the problem remained, and lots of the people were mean, and most of them were miserable, even the ones with digital watches." - Douglas Adams

 

[Heyo]

I didn't follow that. I'll restate the problem.

Currently, the average citizen is not reaping the benefits of automation. Instead, the corporations can be more profitable by replacing employees with machines. Don't you see that as a problem?

Yes, I see the problem and I see the opportunity.
And it might get worse before it gets better. But in the end, the corporations have to somehow sell their stuff to someone and they'll have to realize that they can't do that if people don't have money.
The first impulse may be to give money to the people so they can buy the stuff but ultimately it will be more effective to just get rid of the money.

 

[joe1776]

The luck of being smart & ambitious in a capitalist economy is no sin.

Certainly not but an economic system that favors some babies over other at birth is unfair. Face it. You would have been a likely loser had you been born a black female. So, how proud are you of your accomplishments in a fixed race?

The misfortune of being born into an authoritarian regime isn't either. But I prefer the first to the second.

Your authoritarian label isn't an argument. If you have a reason to think that what I've described would act like the authoritarian regimes in our experience, let's hear it. In what way, would it be authoritarian?

 

[Revoltingest]

Certainly not but an economic system that favors some babies over other at birth is unfair. Face it. You would have been a likely loser had you been born a black female. So, how proud are you of your accomplishments in a fixed race?

Fairness is over-rated. To have government enforce life being
fair portends oppression, ie, some Diana Moon Glampers type
of enforcer handicapping us to all be some lowest common
denominator of "equal".

Your authoritarian label isn't an argument.

Correct. But authoritarianism would be inherent in
your system, which would require much control over us.

If you have a reason to think that what I've described would act like the authoritarian regimes in our experience, let's hear it. In what way, would it be authoritarian?

Your system must prevent free economic association.
It limits earnings & ownings. This requires a powerful
& intrusive government.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It's more a problem of your lack of imagination than of reality.

I readily admit and accept this. My education and understanding of economics and its history, and radical alternative theories of social systems, is sorely lacking.

Your patience in assisting me with my inadequate imagination is appreciated. Thanks for the food for thought.

If we lived in a world where robots do all the work, there was no scarcity and everyone could do what they wanted ... then I suppose that would unlock hitherto underappreciated possibilities, and messy necessities like money could lose their utility.

Ah, Douglas Adams ... a treasure!

 

[joe1776]

Yes, I see the problem and I see the opportunity.
And it might get worse before it gets better. But in the end, the corporations have to somehow sell their stuff to someone and they'll have to realize that they can't do that if people don't have money.
The first impulse may be to give money to the people so they can buy the stuff but ultimately it will be more effective to just get rid of the money.

I agree but there's still another option.

If governments weren't stupidly supporting the profit motive of corporations, they could use legislation to make it unprofitable to replace employees with machines. It's just a math problem.

Machines should replace employees when the job is dangerous or it can be done by machines with a much higher quality. Otherwise, keeping the employee on the job would provide a stable economy.

 

[joe1776]

Fairness is over-rated. To have government enforce life being fair portends oppression, ie, some Diana Moon Glampers type of enforcer handicapping us to all be some lowest common denominator of "equal".

Having a government enforce fairness would require laying down fair rules and enforcing them, like the officials at a basketball game. Nothing more.

Correct. But authoritarianism would be inherent in your system, which would require much control over us. Your system must prevent free economic association. It limits earnings & ownings. This requires a powerful& intrusive government.

Citizens would own nothing but have all their needs supplied. They wouldn't need 'free economic association." They wouldn't need "earnings and ownings." A stable government would manage the economy. much of which would surely be done using the computer and grid analysis to match selections with criteria.

Such an economy will be stable, gradually upgrading, one without recessions and growth spurts.

 

[Revoltingest]

Citizens would own nothing but have all their needs supplied. They wouldn't need 'free economic association." They wouldn't need "earnings and ownings." A stable government would manage the economy. much of which would surely be done using the computer and grid analysis to match selections with criteria. .

Hmmmm....textbook communism.
At this point, I'll agree to disagree.
Your society is far far too orderly for me.