Someday...an Economy Without Money

[Heyo]

If you are going to assume that a new form of government will have the same defects as the current governments, this is a pointless discussion.

Here, I'll hazard a guess on how a future government might deal with your problem.

Using a grid analysis of your capabilities, you would be offered a choice of three jobs. If the job you choose was eventually phased out, you would be given three more choices along with the necessary training.

Since the profit motive isn't a factor, a future government can have a prioritized list of tasks needing to be done. So, there's never a reason for a job shortage.

That's a dystopia, not a utopia.
In a utopia you won't have to work at all. If you like to work, and you'd be surprised how many people really do like to work, your contribution to society would gain you kudos but no extra benefits.
Such a society would grow economically slower than a capitalist economy, but people would have more fun.

 

[joe1776]

Say, Joe, beg your pardon but did I get this right? I feel like we were making progress here and I had a follow up question.

Sorry, Amigo. I'm not feeling the progress. I'm done.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Your definition of "free" sucks.

Why wouldn't most people want to be free of worrying about keeping a job or paying bills? Why wouldn't most people want a choice of jobs they are well-equipped to do? Why wouldn't most people want to live in a world with much less money-motivated crime and corruption?

I can think of lots of reasons. I can just see your government offering Michelangelo his three choices. "But I want to be a sculptor," says the great man.

"Look around, Mike -- we got statues all over the place. We don't need any more. So, would you prefer quarryman, bricklayer or stonemason?"

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That's your logic? All plans involving people are doomed to failure?

We achieved powered flight but we can't devise a decision-making process that works?

No, we can't. And the reason we can't is because the decisions you are talking about are the decisions that most actual human beings prefer to make for themselves. Very, very few of us are interested in having something like your government stick its nose into our private lives.

 

[joe1776]

That's a dystopia, not a utopia.
In a utopia you won't have to work at all. If you like to work, and you'd be surprised how many people really do like to work, your contribution to society would gain you kudos but no extra benefits.
Such a society would grow economically slower than a capitalist economy, but people would have more fun.

I'm not expecting a Utopia if that means no one has to work. I think most humans will be happier working at a job they're good at and one that makes a fair contribution to the cooperative effort.

 

[Heyo]

I'm not expecting a Utopia if that means no one has to work. I think most humans will be happier working at a job they're good at and one that makes a fair contribution to the cooperative effort.

I'm expecting a utopia when people are working at a job they're good at and one that makes a fair contribution to the cooperative effort.
We're at a point were automation and voluntary work can easily sustain a people.

 

[joe1776]

No, we can't. And the reason we can't is because the decisions you are talking about are the decisions that most actual human beings prefer to make for themselves. Very, very few of us are interested in having something like your government stick its nose into our private lives.

If you want your freedom, you'll need to go to the wilderness and become Mountain Man. There, you'll have the right to do anything you like. But if you want to live in a town, for the benefits it offers, you will have to trade in those rights for greater benefits. And the management of those rights will be done by a government. What I'm predicting is a government that will do a better job of management than those currently doing it.

 

[joe1776]

I'm expecting a utopia when people are working at a job they're good at and one that makes a fair contribution to the cooperative effort.
We're at a point were automation and voluntary work can easily sustain a people.

Automation created the Rust Belt in the USA. How do we handle the economy so that doesn't happen?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why will decisions that involve quantitative analysis require money or a money substitute?

The relative value of things must be quantified, eg, kinds of materials,
kinds of labor, kinds of facilities, & quantities of those things. Even
command economies make investments in the future. And such things
have a "time value", eg, rate of return, interest rate, payback period.
Without looking at such things quantitatively, one cannot determine
what course is optimum.

 

[Heyo]

Automation created the Rust Belt in the USA. How do we handle the economy so that doesn't happen?

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.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Sorry, Amigo. I'm not feeling the progress. I'm done.

I’m sorry too. I meant no disrespect - I was just trying to keep it lighthearted.

I also did not mean to “pile on”. I realize you are debating several people at the same time here.

FWIW, I think one disconnect I see on this thread is that you are assuming a perfectly efficient government, and as a result of that, a money-free society could emerge. I think that makes sense, and is very interesting.

But other posters question that such a perfectly efficient government is possible, or would have the intended consequences. From their POV, it’s a bit of a god-machine to say IF the world was perfect, THEN we wouldn’t need imperfect things like money. It sort of begs the question.

I, for one, accept your argument that if we ASSUME a perfect government perhaps money would be unnecessary. Perhaps all sorts of messy things would become unnecessary, like divorces, and lawsuits, and police. The goal is unimpeachable. It’s the implementation that is tricky ... hence my question.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you are going to assume that a new form of government will have the same defects as the current governments, this is a pointless discussion.

I'm not assuming any new form of government.
Governments have leaders, & they're somehow chosen.
I just picked some of the leaders chosen under our system.
But under other systems, we've seen these chosen...
Castro, Pol Pot, Mao, Putin
We must face the fact that no matter what system we have,
there'll be leaders we dislike. You'd be giving them great
authority over us. I say that's a bad idea.

Here, I'll hazard a guess on how a future government might deal with your problem.

Using a grid analysis of your capabilities, you would be offered a choice of three jobs. If the job you choose was eventually phased out, you would be given three more choices along with the necessary training.

Since the profit motive isn't a factor, a future government can have a prioritized list of tasks needing to be done. So, there's never a reason for a job shortage.

You're entirely leaving out the human elements....
- Desire of leaders for power over others
- Corruption
- Incompetence
- Nepotism
- Sloth
China & USSR tried your way.
They ended up being giant prison camps.

 

[joe1776]

The relative value of things must be quantified, eg, kinds of materials,
kinds of labor, kinds of facilities, & quantities of those things. Even
command economies make investments in the future. And such things
have a "time value", eg, rate of return, interest rate, payback period.
Without looking at such things quantitatively, one cannot determine
what course is optimum.

Most of the terms you used apply to value in money. Without money, those terms will disappear to be replaced by bartering numbers, percentages most likely, that compare the exchange value of one material to another.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's your logic? All plans involving people are doomed to failure?

What I'm saying is that any system involving humans must
take into account human tendencies. for optimum performance,
a system should be tolerant of these tendencies, including failures.

We achieved powered flight but we can't devise a decision-making process that works?

Your process should have incentives for the desired behavior.
One cannot assume that humans involved will be intelligent,
educated, honest, dedicated, & altruistic.

 

[Revoltingest]

Most of the terms you used apply to value in money. Without money, those terms will disappear to be replaced by bartering numbers, percentages most likely, that compare the exchange value of one material to another.

Exactly.
Without the concept & function of "money", people will
make decisions by feel, whim, & seat of the pants.
Without quantification, objectivity is out the window.
Where has your way ever worked for a country?

 

[joe1776]

I’m sorry too. I meant no disrespect - I was just trying to keep it lighthearted.

I also did not mean to “pile on”. I realize you are debating several people at the same time here.

FWIW, I think one disconnect I see on this thread is that you are assuming a perfectly efficient government, and as a result of that, a money-free society could emerge. I think that makes sense, and is very interesting.

But other posters question that such a perfectly efficient government is possible, or would have the intended consequences. From their POV, it’s a bit of a god-machine to say IF the world was perfect, THEN we wouldn’t need imperfect things like money. It sort of begs the question.

I, for one, accept your argument that if we ASSUME a perfect government perhaps money would be unnecessary. Perhaps all sorts of messy things would become unnecessary, like divorces, and lawsuits, and police. The goal is unimpeachable. It’s the implementation that is tricky ... hence my question.

I think a more efficient governing system is in the near future. This thread will give you an idea of how it might begin.

The Future of International Expert Advisory Panels

 

[joe1776]

Exactly.
Without the concept & function of "money", people will
make decisions by feel, whim, & seat of the pants.
Without quantification, objectivity is out the window.
Where has your way ever worked for a country?

I think you're exaggerating the problems that we'd have in trashing money but we're in an area that has too many variables to consider.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you're exaggerating the problems that we'd have in trashing money but we're in an area that has too many variables to consider.

I think you're underestimating the problems of eschewing
quantification in economic analysis. Where has your way
ever worked for a country?

 

[joe1776]

What I'm saying is that any system involving humans must
take into account human tendencies. for optimum performance,
a system should be tolerant of these tendencies, including failures.

Your process should have incentives for the desired behavior.
One cannot assume that humans involved will be intelligent,
educated, honest, dedicated, & altruistic.

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?

 

[joe1776]

I think you're underestimating the problems of eschewing
quantification in economic analysis. Where has your way
ever worked for a country?

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?