SteveB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
John, the world as it is today is the context. That would be the starting point for ending the use of money. (How could it be otherwise?) 7 billion people on a planet with vast infrastructure, advanced technology, highly skilled people, worldwide communication network, established supply lines, active food production systems, enormous waste, etc., etc.
People steal copper because they can sell it for money. No one would steal something like that in a world that didn’t use money unless we operated as though balancing value matters. It doesn’t. If you don’t believe that, consider all the wasted time, volunteerism, and other non-compensated activity (as well as theft, fraud, etc.) that goes on in the world today which vastly outweighs the small discrepancies in value equalization over a person’s lifetime.
I think the infrastructure would survive because it has a lifetime (years minimally, centuries maximally) and we have people to maintain it. Why do you think the infrastructure wouldn’t survive the end of money? The end of fossil fuels is an independent factor, so it has nothing to do with the impacts of the possible ending of the use of money.
In less than 20 years we could end the use of money and lessen the severity of the die off that you foresee. After all, what led us to this precipice but the use of money? (If cheap fossil fuels seems like a better answer, think about it for a while.)
By the way, I covered some of this ground in comments on the old TAE site if you care to look. I’m also happy to respond to specific questions.
John,
“I can only imagine myself living without money in a very small, agrarian community, where these things commonly work.”
You said you were an imaginative person, John. You’re not demonstrating it.
Just in case it’s not clear yet, I’m talking about THE WHOLE WORLD not using money.
Do you understand that in a world without money, the community where you currently live would also not use money? Nothing tangible (like infrastructure) would disappear, and many people would continue to make things and provide services just like they do now. Doctors, for example. Can you imagine living where you are now, doing what you do now, receiving the goods and services you receive now, just not using money?
@180: MR166, that’s not what our discussion was about. I’m suggesting that ending the use of money altogether is a valid option.
John, our imaginations don’t depend on the words of others or their ability to “paint a picture”—that’s our imagination’s job.
It seems that it might be necessary to imagine a world without money before trying to imagine the transition to such a world. After all, what are we imagining a transition to?
And maybe for you it would be helpful to think about what you personally would do in a world without money. How would you spend your time? What assumptions do you make about what others would do? Are they realistic? (Keep in mind that a world without money would have had to transition to that way of existence through the agreement of billions of people.) Are they based in fear?
John, you wrote “I cannot envision how it would realistically operate”.
That’s because what’s ‘realistic’ in our current world is greatly influenced by our use of money. Can you maybe envision how it would/could operate in a way that you (and most people) wouldn’t necessarily consider to be realistic? Don’t be rational (which is a money-usage term) either. Can you free your thinking from the limits of money use and its influences?
As you note, time share and gift economy systems are limited, primarily because they currently operate within a larger system that uses money—trust is difficult to build when profit incentives from the edges are constantly eroding it. In a world without money they would operate differently, with greater trust developing over time. Of course, they would also be unnecessary in such a world. No need to limit the transfer of goods and services because of a perceived need to ‘get something in return’.
We can get what we need and more if we understand and act with the understanding that we can all contribute something most days of our lives for most of the years of our lives. Exchange and accounting of value (what we use money for) are unnecessary. If you weren’t getting what you really wanted, you’d go out and find a way to get it (legally), or else you’d do/make it yourself. Without the need to earn money and the wasted time mucking around with it (paying, receipts, balancing accounts, tax preparation, etc.), a large amount of time would be freed up for us all to develop the relationships and skills we want and need.
Ash, there you go again being overly generous, this time associating “the fields of economics and logic”. 😉
John, that’s an interesting interpretation of my question.
Yes, money is arguably necessary at the individual level in a world that uses money. Is it necessary in the broader sense, though?
In a world that no longer used money would ‘no money=no surgeons’? I don’t think so. What it would mean is no oligarchy (financial or otherwise), no debt, no interest, no growth paradigm, no economic fundamentals, no WW3 (to pick just a few things from your original comment.)
John, why leave it to the financial oligarchy to change the paradigm?
The “big transfer of monetary definition” can only be necessary if money is necessary. Is money necessary?
