A Society without Money?
282 views
Skip to first unread message
Bill Moldestad
Jun 29, 2009, 11:52:28 PM6/29/09
to Understanding Money
I recently received a message from a gentleman who was very sincere in
his belief that we could have a society without money.
Bear with me here.
He mentioned an article to me.
The article is at: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/steinsvold.htm
I'm wondering if anybody here has thoughts on this general
possibility?
Here are my thoughts for what it's worth:
The article asks us to consider a society without money, where
everything would be free, and everyone would work together in a
cooperative spirit, instead of the competitive spirit of capitalism.
Why wouldn’t this work?
In a complicated society like ours, you have to have something that’s
fungible, something that’s readily convertible.
For example, if I fix somebody’s car, you have to have some in-between
medium for equating that to somebody painting a house. You have to
figure out how much it’s worth, and if nobody’s around who is willing
to paint my house, then I need to be able to fix their car and have
some place holder for work that will be done later.
It seems to me, that what’s made our civilization possible has been
the division of labor, and specialization, and when you have that:
it’s not readily convertible. One person’s service and expertise
isn’t readily exchangeable with somebody elses.
This is why you need money. To have a society without money, it would
require more than common good will, it would require the eventual
needing of what you can provide, or being able to provide what you
need, and that isn’t always the case. Because people specialize so
much, somebody who wants your service may not necessarily have skills
that you need.
his belief that we could have a society without money.
Bear with me here.
He mentioned an article to me.
The article is at: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/steinsvold.htm
I'm wondering if anybody here has thoughts on this general
possibility?
Here are my thoughts for what it's worth:
The article asks us to consider a society without money, where
everything would be free, and everyone would work together in a
cooperative spirit, instead of the competitive spirit of capitalism.
Why wouldn’t this work?
In a complicated society like ours, you have to have something that’s
fungible, something that’s readily convertible.
For example, if I fix somebody’s car, you have to have some in-between
medium for equating that to somebody painting a house. You have to
figure out how much it’s worth, and if nobody’s around who is willing
to paint my house, then I need to be able to fix their car and have
some place holder for work that will be done later.
It seems to me, that what’s made our civilization possible has been
the division of labor, and specialization, and when you have that:
it’s not readily convertible. One person’s service and expertise
isn’t readily exchangeable with somebody elses.
This is why you need money. To have a society without money, it would
require more than common good will, it would require the eventual
needing of what you can provide, or being able to provide what you
need, and that isn’t always the case. Because people specialize so
much, somebody who wants your service may not necessarily have skills
that you need.
Tim Walsh
Jun 30, 2009, 8:57:30 AM6/30/09
to Understanding Money
This looks like it was written with someone who has no understanding
of what "money" really is, treating it as a commodity independent of
everything else, which is probably not uncommon among people who don't
spend much time thinking about economics. The man is a fool if he
thinks that rolling back to a barter system will eliminate poverty/
unemployment, recession/depression, taxes of some sort, crime, greed,
conflicts of interest, debt, etc... Those are all related to *real*
economic problems (i.e. keeping track of how much everyone has
produced and consumed, and fairly allocating resources in accordance
with that), not make-believe financial problems.
With a barter system you will still have people who are unskilled and
can't produce much of value, and they will be poor because they won't
be able to trade for what they need. You will still have periods of
declining trade (recession). You will still have "taxes" where the
government commands a portion of your labor to provide common goods
and services (in fact, this is exactly what he is calling for, a
system where everything is taxed 100% so it can be redistributed
"according to need"). You will still have people who want to acquire
as much wealth as possible, even if by illegal means. You will still
have people who have consumed more than they have produced, on the
promise of producing more later (debt).
You are right on target that money is simply a "placeholder" to
lubricate trade. And it has allowed for tremendous specialization and
division of labor, which has led to explosive growth in technology and
our standard of living.
His other major theme, that cooperation is economically more efficient
than competition because "Cooperation avoids duplication of effort" is
pure fantasy which assumes that the central planner is omniscient
enough to know precisely who will produce the best result before work
even begins. Even within the same company/organization it is not an
uncommon practice to have multiple teams working on the same project,
competing with each other, because one team may produce a result that
is several magnitudes better than the others. But you don't know who
it will be until you give them all a chance. This is a way to *ensure*
efficiency.
Tim
of what "money" really is, treating it as a commodity independent of
everything else, which is probably not uncommon among people who don't
spend much time thinking about economics. The man is a fool if he
thinks that rolling back to a barter system will eliminate poverty/
unemployment, recession/depression, taxes of some sort, crime, greed,
conflicts of interest, debt, etc... Those are all related to *real*
economic problems (i.e. keeping track of how much everyone has
produced and consumed, and fairly allocating resources in accordance
with that), not make-believe financial problems.
With a barter system you will still have people who are unskilled and
can't produce much of value, and they will be poor because they won't
be able to trade for what they need. You will still have periods of
declining trade (recession). You will still have "taxes" where the
government commands a portion of your labor to provide common goods
and services (in fact, this is exactly what he is calling for, a
system where everything is taxed 100% so it can be redistributed
"according to need"). You will still have people who want to acquire
as much wealth as possible, even if by illegal means. You will still
have people who have consumed more than they have produced, on the
promise of producing more later (debt).
You are right on target that money is simply a "placeholder" to
lubricate trade. And it has allowed for tremendous specialization and
division of labor, which has led to explosive growth in technology and
our standard of living.
His other major theme, that cooperation is economically more efficient
than competition because "Cooperation avoids duplication of effort" is
pure fantasy which assumes that the central planner is omniscient
enough to know precisely who will produce the best result before work
even begins. Even within the same company/organization it is not an
uncommon practice to have multiple teams working on the same project,
competing with each other, because one team may produce a result that
is several magnitudes better than the others. But you don't know who
it will be until you give them all a chance. This is a way to *ensure*
efficiency.
Tim
Mark Bachmann
Jun 30, 2009, 9:11:24 AM6/30/09
to Understan...@googlegroups.com
The early Bolsheviks believed in this idea enough to try it initially in Russia, but it broke down immediately for reasons that are pretty obvious. I can't imagine any way to discuss it seriously.
Mark
Jim Kelley
Jun 30, 2009, 9:26:52 AM6/30/09
to Understan...@googlegroups.com
STAR TREK economy (see Gene Roddenbery).
In general - a utopian society is monotheistic or atheistic- as a requirement.
That appears to be the way philosophical and economic organization can be uniformally structured. As soon as diversity of either is introduced- the community rapidly degenerates and polarizes.
best- Jim
In general - a utopian society is monotheistic or atheistic- as a requirement.
That appears to be the way philosophical and economic organization can be uniformally structured. As soon as diversity of either is introduced- the community rapidly degenerates and polarizes.
best- Jim
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Bill Moldestad <bill....@gmail.com> wrote:
Bill Moldestad
Jun 30, 2009, 10:29:12 AM6/30/09
to Understan...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Tim, Mark, and Jim for sharing your thoughts on the possibility
I posed.
I posed.
I love the phrase "Star Trek Economy", that's great!
From having read the comments, it seems to me, that there's only two
ways a society, without money, could exist:
1) Barter system. And then you can kiss modern society goodbye.
2) A society of Angels. And then you can kiss human beings goodbye.
Neither one seems very attractive to me: as I like having a computer,
and I also like being down to earth.
William Hummel
Jun 30, 2009, 11:15:14 AM6/30/09
to Understan...@googlegroups.com
Bill Moldestad wrote:
--------------------I recently received a message from a gentleman who was very sincere in his belief that we could have a society without money. Why wouldn’t this work?
In a complicated society like ours, you have to have something that’s fungible, something that’s readily convertible. For example, if I fix somebody’s car, you have to have some in-between medium for equating that to somebody painting a house. You have to figure out how much it’s worth, and if nobody’s around who is willing to paint my house, then I need to be able to fix their car and have some place holder for work that will be done later. It seems to me, that what’s made our civilization possible has been the division of labor, and specialization, and when you have that: it’s not readily convertible. One person’s service and expertise isn’t readily exchangeable with somebody elses. This is why you need money. To have a society without money, it would require more than common good will, it would require the eventual needing of what you can provide, or being able to provide what you need, and that isn’t always the case. Because people specialize so much, somebody who wants your service may not necessarily have skills that you need.
Bill, I think you answered the question
definitively.
William
William
chris corry
Jul 1, 2009, 3:02:07 PM7/1/09
to Understan...@googlegroups.com
I believe that we all are a bit too independent to behave like social insects just yet. Even in families we have an inability to cooperate to the degree aspired to by the communists and socialists even though it seems like a way to solve some of these problems on the surface. It will take twenty thousand years more evolution to make those required genetic changes if I were to bet on it.
C Corry
--- On Tue, 6/30/09, Jim Kelley <ja...@titusranch.com> wrote:
> From: Jim Kelley <ja...@titusranch.com>
> Subject: Re: A Society without Money?
> To: Understan...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 6:26 AM
> STAR TREK economy (see Gene
> Roddenbery).
> In general - a utopian society is monotheistic or
> atheistic- as a requirement.
> That appears to be the way philosophical and economic
> organization can be uniformally structured. As soon as
> diversity of either is introduced- the community rapidly
> degenerates and polarizes.
>
>
> best- Jim
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:52 PM,
> Bill Moldestad <bill....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I recently received a message from a gentleman who was very
> sincere in
>
> his belief that we could have a society without money.
>
>
>
> Bear with me here.
>
>
>
> He mentioned an article to me.
>
>
>
> The article is at: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/steinsvold.htm
>
>
>
> I'm wondering if anybody here has thoughts on this
> general
>
> possibility?
>
>
>
> Here are my thoughts for what it's worth:
>
>
>
> The article asks us to consider a society without money,
> where
>
> everything would be free, and everyone would work together
> in a
>
> cooperative spirit, instead of the competitive spirit of
> capitalism.
>
>
>
> Why wouldn’t this work?
>
>
>
Bill Moldestad
Jul 3, 2009, 8:56:04 PM7/3/09
to Understan...@googlegroups.com
Corry, you raise a good point. I would be willing to bet the (Star
Trek) Borg could pull it off, heck, isn't that their economy? Sorry,
when you said "social insects" made me think of those friendly cyborgs.
Trek) Borg could pull it off, heck, isn't that their economy? Sorry,
when you said "social insects" made me think of those friendly cyborgs.
Might make for an interesting book: "Borg and Money, ... what Money?"
Cheers.
SuperBeanCounter
Jul 4, 2009, 2:10:15 PM7/4/09
to Understanding Money
I guess the closest that modern society comes to operating without
money is when it is in a state of total war. I am thinking about
Germany in the later stages of the second world war when it was
fighting for its survival. Under these conditions most of the
resources of the country were channelled to the military and that
which did make their way to the marketplace tended to be allocated
(vouchers..etc).
This said, I wonder how the Krupps/benz and the like got paid for
their services (Swiss banks??)
Duncan
money is when it is in a state of total war. I am thinking about
Germany in the later stages of the second world war when it was
fighting for its survival. Under these conditions most of the
resources of the country were channelled to the military and that
which did make their way to the marketplace tended to be allocated
(vouchers..etc).
This said, I wonder how the Krupps/benz and the like got paid for
their services (Swiss banks??)
Duncan
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages