This conversation is closed.

Do we need money at all...? Can a moneyless society work?

We are not that motivated by money and reward as one used to think...

When the 'workers' in the businesses are not motivated by money, why should the businesses be? The owners of these are people too. Yes, they 'need' money to continue to exist. But, could we think totally out of the box for once? Could we simply abandon money all together? And start creating a truly sustainable world where all people all over the world are motivated by this common task? I know I would be highly motivated by this. What about you?

We all know the damage money and the 'money mindset' has done to this planet and humanity. Imagine if we took money out of the equation and really started to share the resources and build a world that works for everyone. There would be no more bills, banks, loans, financial crisises, corruption, unemployment, crime, war, passports, terrorists, pollution, prostitution, hunger, poor, homeless....and the list goes on. Money and the 'logic of money' major force behind all of this.

Up to now, money as a motivator has worked well to perform the 'mechanic' jobs that needed to be done. Now, however, most of those jobs can be automated. And with the profit motive out of the way, we can truly develop all good inventions to their fullest potential, and develop technology to the betterment of humanity, rather than to maximize profits.

When people in general are not motivated by money and profits. Why, then is our world still running on it? The answer is that we have been doing this for so long, so people have gotten so used to thinking that money, profit, margins, loans, banks and credit is a 'natural' part of our lives. But, it is not. All of this is artificial. The natural is our true motivations, like Dan Pink shows in his talk. I know there are several millionaires that would also like to see a different world.

Maybe we can make it work?

  • Apr 13 2011: I'm going to ask whomever reads this to drop the fascination of your own environment and experiences. Free yourself from being so driven by today's ideas, and free yourself from trying to understand a linear change. Just simply describe this scenario in your head.

    Put yourself in our world: with all existing damage that we've done. You are alone on the planet after the downfall of man (putting people aside temporarily for technicality, and I'll be putting them back in..after my point, for functionality..)

    How would you go about repairing, or rebuilding the world if you were able to then witness all of the proof of the wreckage that we've left with your own eyes? The question posed in a serious person's head.. hopefully, would be: How could I redesign a world that would not end like this. A sarcastic, less-focused individual on the subject would simply say: humanity had it coming to them, it was well deserved. Let's try it all over again, and see if it doesn't end like this again.

    "How could we create a world, that is dynamic in change.?" For example: A book is static information, while a wiki or a blog is dynamic information. It can be edited and changed. Our government was built with much dynamic, but the money system secured the boundaries by creating an almost complete 50/50 divided opinion in politics. US: Democratic or Republican (or independent, green rainbow) - Equivalent to Pepsi or Coke (RC or Tab). Vote for me.

    The resource based economy is the attempt to then rebuild this empty world you stand in.. and place structures and people where necessary. Computing can solve necessity bits based on real-time feedback from the physical world. Functionality of people's lives then becomes the main goal. After functionality, and the base of a new value system, human behavior.. emerges a completely NEW culture, lifestyle, mindset, and the old monetary environment and experiences are erased.

    It's a great attempt, if not a necessary one.
    • Comment deleted

      • Apr 13 2011: Conditioning such a thought to someone like you is impossible; I now realize. The motives that the money system create are there in full - (all of them). This relates to you how? The following: Your property is one, your self-interest in success/reputation is another, and your interest in old-world methods like the need to protect and secure your belongings from criminal intent. None of these motives or lifestyles however, exist in resource based... There is no ownership.

        I'm assuming it's cause you grew up in "the good ol' days.. i.e. 60's/70s" and seen the thrive of technology in a free market sense.. and this radical change is too much to admit. The money system creates competition and motives that deter the advancement of very useful and practical technology.

        For example: We don't need oil or other fossil fueled forms of energy anymore.. yet we still use it because we are squeezing the market value out of the oil well until we can build something else that sells to EVERYONE to maximize profits.

        Never in history has a civilization torn down its own infrastructure to re-build - only waging war to destroy it, thus declaring that whomever wins in our competition game is superior. But that's not the case.. fore there will always be superior men in the coming generations, therefore there is no need to compete. Btw, I'm 20.
      • Apr 14 2011: I want to help you believe that this is not impossible.

        Just for laughs, pretend you're back in 1960s era. A 20 year-old person walks up to you and shows you the top-of-the-line iPad 2. It includes all the features, a 4G network, millions of accessible apps, and the ability to use software for monitoring or accessing almost anything that is available in the media today, at no cost. He then says: "throw away all your records and projector films - cause its all here in this device"

        In 1960, this device would appear to be science fiction or as you put it: impossible. But wait! This person then tells you that they will give one iPad away to everyone. For free. I think your response would be similar to above.. (maybe with a bit more sarcasm)

        50 years later, in our world 2010 - we release the iPad to the public, thanks to the science advancements between 60's and 00's. Science funding compared to everything else is very insignificant.. yet with what scientists were given, the advancement in 50 years has been quite dramatic.

        My point is this:I AGREE WITH YOU: The monetary system is an idealistic design, just as the resource based economy is. In fact why wouldn't any economy on paper be idealistic in design? Its supposed to accommodate hundreds of years of civilization. The reason it has failed in recent years, is because it was designed for a critical point in population growth. Money can not support the worlds current inhabitants: Fact.

        The pyramid of wealth is only expanding at the base, and narrowing at the crown. Thus the wealth (1% in number is depleting, consuming 40% the government monetary loans) while the rest of the 99% are paralyzed and forced to work for pure survival. There are no laws preventing money flow, wasting it on pointless corporate meetings.. first-class flights of 20+ men discussing how the color of paint is good for marketing, and makes people want to eat.

        Cause you're uneducated on the design (iPad in the 60s)- you think it's impossible
        • thumb
          Apr 15 2011: i would like to add something to revett's point. centrally planned societies not only fail ultimately. they fail from the very beginning. so far, any such societies showed indescribable suffering, famines, massive violations of all kinds of liberties and human rights, genocide, destruction of accumulated capital, destruction of culture, knowledge and civilization.
  • thumb
    Apr 8 2011: Imagine I give you a dollar and tell you that if I flip a coin and get heads I'll give you a second dollar.
    Separately imagine that I give you two dollars and tell you that if I flip a coin and get heads you have to give me back one.

    This experiment and many like it have been done countless times and do a great job of proving a basic fact of the human mind: given the same outcome people feel better about it when they got more than they were expecting and worse when they got less that they hoped. Stated another way, the pain of loss is greater than the perception of gain for the same values. This is why conflict resolution and border disputes are so difficult. One party feels that what they are loosing has more value than the second party feels they are gaining. For that reason currency serves a function in that allows for a third medium that all parties can assign a value to.
  • Apr 19 2011: I know this about human nature and economy:

    I've done my research on the resource based economy; My research has also exposed me to a historical approach of gathered information. Our trade system has changed with technology, and our culture values have always changed with time based on cultural "beliefs". There has been a proceeding culture for every culture that failed, and proved its predecessor wrong or indifferent, thus making beliefs outdated, not extinct for this reason: those culture's that remain uneducated about the beliefs' exposure, they are unable to change the belief on their own. Our law systems, government, and entertainment have changed in form with time.

    However, our needs for survival, and to maintain a healthy status have not changed to a great degree when in our natural state. Despite dependence on drugs, metabolism changes, or any dysfunctional body organ(s) that need treatment, disease or injury, our basic means of survival haven't changed.

    Before agriculture, and before any large amounts of resources could be claimed by hunter's and gatherer's.. we used to live in a culture that fostered the earth, and that allowed for no one to claim possession over anything. People would prevent a person trying claim leadership whatsoever. It was simply a different way of looking at the earth and objects around you. It was only until people could create a surplus of food through agriculture, and mine valuable metals, that there was then: a need to claim possessions.

    Many people, even the person posing this exact question, also see that this trend of change throughout history can be applied to today's world. The technological mask of computers can certainly hide the presents of outdated city infrastructures, and the fact that our government is operating under the founding fathers, when just 10 years ago we barely has laws regulating internet use/abuse. It's time for change, and people globally will SOON realize our current methods are outdated.
  • Apr 8 2011: The Venus project is most definitely NOT communism. Communism still relies on a monetary system and that is why it is not a good solution.

    Money in itself is obsolete, and in my opinion pretty ridiculous if looked at objectively. Think about it this way:

    It is a scientific fact that we have (under current technology) the resources to feed, clothe, provide shelter and all of the things necessary for everyone on the planet. Even better the quality of life for everyone would very quickly be much higher than anyone has today.

    Then if the resources are available, and we have the technology to do this what holds us back?

    In essence we decided to place value on "special rocks", discover, protect and store them, then print "special" pieces of paper based on how many rocks we have saved up. We then spend our time trying to come up with tasks to complete where our time is traded for this "paper" so that we can then trade this paper for the things we actually need for survival.

    there was a time when money, just as religion and politics were useful in our survival as a species - but I believe that they are all outdated.

    The venus project does not require perfect people nor is it a Utopian society, but it is by far the most responsible and intelligent idea that we have.

    I just hope that I am still here to see it one day!
    • thumb
      Apr 8 2011: The documentary Zeitgeist Addendum proves just how ridiculously inane the monetary system is, along with our so-called economy and free market. The sooner people understand what money does to us all, the sooner things get better. Money is not the answer to problems, it's the creator of problems...
      • Apr 8 2011: Sargis: It doesn't "prove" anything. It takes and presents a particular, socialistic view of money and our system. It is interesting watching, but it is very one-sided.

        One thing the movie does do well is show the incestuous relationship between Treasury and the Fed. Money itself isn't the problem; the way money is artificially created to satisfy political expediency is. If you want to see money issues you haven't even dreamed about, wait until Obama's financial rescue, TARP, and stimulus programs work their way through the economy. The hockey stick graph of the increase in money creation in the last couple of years should frighten anybody whether they understand the system or not. You think you know inflation? Not yet you don't.
        • thumb
          Apr 9 2011: Oh believe me, I know. Which is precisely my point. Look back throughout all these years and check over how high our debt is today as it stands. The only way to get out of it is to pay it back but you CAN'T. That's the whole point Revett. What's the solution? Your message doesn't prove me wrong, on the contrary, it shows just how bigger the trap is going to get! If you think money isn't the problem, then what is? And what's the solution to fix the monetary system because right now, it is broken to the point of no return.
        • thumb
          Apr 9 2011: Sargis, no, money is not the problem. The problem is people's (including the govt.) spending behavior. If you are up to your ears in debt, then you hardly can blame the money, but only yourself for it.
          So what we need is not to get rid of our monetary system, but to teach people how to use money properly.
        • thumb
          Apr 10 2011: Feel free to show me how to do that when we already have over a century of debt that even all of us together couldn't pay off. Interest increases the debt mate. That's the problem. Doesn't matter how you use it, your debt is still alway greater then you can pay off! Change this system? That's when money won't be the problem anymore. Let's stop blaming the people for everything.
        • thumb
          Apr 10 2011: so the current monetary system gives us problems, and it is enough to throw the concept of money out of the window? is this what they call "jumping to conclusions"?

          commodity monies were used for thousands of years, and there was no increasing debt.
        • thumb
          Apr 11 2011: You make an interesting point Krisztian. Yes, commodity monies were used...the thing is, before, when you took an orange, you didn't owe back 5 oranges (interest = debt, vice versa).

          And the monetary system doesn't "give us problems", it is screwing our entire world over to the point that even the biggest countries in the world will soon be bankrupt at this rate. Don't under-appreciate what money has done. Doing so is the equivalent of saying "Hey, so some people die and gigantic wars of mass destruction are started over it and our planet is being brutally raped to the point of losing most of its resources and countless species, but is that enough to throw the concept of money out of the window?" You seem to be utterly in love with this concept, no offense, and I find that to be the biggest problem of all. If you appreciate it so much, do us a favor and find a solution for this system to go from global rapist to global helper and balance keeper because right now, the latter terminology is putting it very softly...
        • thumb
          Apr 11 2011: okay, i'll try to explain a little differently.

          the problems you bring up here are complex problems. money is certainly involved in the ongoing shenanigans. because politicians chose inflation as their primary means to lay a hand of a larger portion of the people's wealth. they use money, more precisely monetary policies, for a bad goal.

          it is not different than using steel to make weapons. nobody would recommend abolishing steel to prevent weapon manufacturing.
        • thumb
          Apr 11 2011: Agreed. But steel itself isn't inherently corrupted Krisztian while the monetary system is, along with its interest policy, the only purpose of which is to keep increasing the debt so much that you will NEVER be able to pay it back. You talk as if there is another monetary system or there are different policies and our leaders have simply chosen a bad one, when there is only ONE system and ONE policy. If you have a new, better policy in mind that doesn't keep mankind enslaved and completely unbalanced, I'm all ears. But until then, let's not under-appreciate what money is and has done to our world. I'd also like to point out that the only way to my knowledge for money to uphold its value is to have interest rates otherwise where does the money come from? It loses all its value. Hence my point that there is only one system.
        • thumb
          Apr 11 2011: neither money is inherently corrupted. i'm trying to tell you that for a long time. maybe it is the time to give up?
        • thumb
          Apr 12 2011: Sargis, just because people and govts. use money in an inappropriate way, doesn't mean money is bad.
          Do you call a hammer bad if you hit your finger instead of the nail ? I hope not !
          I asked you, how you would see a society w/o money. I didn't get an answer so far.
          Think it over, but don't tell me to replace money with coffee beans or tequila bottles.....that would only be changing the currency, but not the concept.
        • thumb
          Apr 12 2011: Replacing currencies is another subject. Put it to a side. You tell me why you keep separating money from the system? Without the system, the money won't exist and vice versa. The hammer analogy would work if money itself was a commodity that could be attached efficiently to a different type of system. But the truth is that it is simply PAPER and cannot. The value it has comes from this system and from what I've understood, if a monetary system does not revolve around interest, how is MORE money going to be created? Better yet, how does the value of money stay in tact? The whole value of this paper currency comes from that system. Destroy the system, money becomes paper. Nothing more. But if you take only hammer or steel and put it to a side, it doesn't stop working. It is a material item. Money isn't. It's a complete illusion. There is no value behind it when the monetary system allows banks to create it out of THIN AIR. Back in the gold currency days, it still made more sense because you got money based on how much gold you had, which was a real commodity. But today, read what replaced the gold currency on the dollar bill. Regardless, we can't go back to the gold currency and I don't see what type of currency could replace this one when the need for it is decreasing each year.

          This is why money is inherently corrupted because the only system it can survive on is corrupted, not to mention fake. Banks have the power to do whatever the hell they like and these interest rates are simply destructive when you think about it because no matter how you live your life, you always have to pay back WAY more then you took and can EVER pay back (which is how money survives). Perfect example of modern 21st century slavery. And if there is nothing wrong with this system, why was it revived SECRETLY in the early 1900s and not openly. Because it's wrong. No one would agree with it. And here I see people defending it. I have nothing more to add.
        • thumb
          Apr 12 2011: Harold, there is no good or right way of using money. What you are discussing is the leaves and branches, not the corrupted roots. In the same way, ethics and discipline mean nothing when the system itself is corrupt. It makes you use it the wrong way no matter how you use it.
        • thumb
          Apr 12 2011: Sargis, the problem is that you see money as something evil, while we try to explain you that money is simply a tool to facilitate transfers of goods and services.
          You are defending a moneyless society, but have no suggestion of how this society should look like.
          You are also wrong when you assume that money is just produced at will by governments. This is obviously not the case. In those cases where governments drastically increased money production it always led to hyper inflation.
          Let's continue the conversation, once you got a proposal that replaces our money based society......cheers !
        • thumb
          Apr 13 2011: My friend, whether I say money is evil or the system is evil doesn't change the fact that these two things are completely interrelated and are screwing our world over in ways that are beyond words. If it makes everyone feel better, I'll stop pointing my finger at money but that doesn't solve the problem or really change anything.

          I am not defending a money-less society. I'm saying that if you can change this system and make it more efficient, fair and less destructive, I'm all for it. But that is highly improbable owing to the way this system works. Richard's suggestions above were rather interesting, for example. They remind me of a resource based economy which I personally agree with and believe that we are heading towards for many good reasons. So I actually do have suggestions.

          And when I say that money is produced by governments at will, it naturally isn't that clean cut. But my point is that a lot of money is created out of thin air and we can't do anything about it. Most don't even understand how this bloody system works, let alone fix it or realize where this is all going wrong.
  • Apr 8 2011: ‘From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.’

    Communism is the perfect system. You will find it works wherever you have perfect people; monasteries, kibbutzim, (functioning) communes, etc. You are asking if we have enough perfect people yet. I don’t think so. But it is heartening that there are more and more examples like:

    Mick Ebeling: The invention that unlocked a locked-in artist.

    Keep in mind the hackers had all their needs for food, clothing, shelter, etc. met, and so they were free to work on this device. When my basic needs are met without money, I'll be able to do my work (RN) for 'free' too.

    (Actually Karl said ‘his’ not ‘their’, the sexist pig. ;) )
  • thumb
    Apr 30 2011: without money its not possible. There are some jobs that ppl does ONLY becos of money. How would we share the works? No one would come forward to do the toughest job.
    Also, r u sure abt sharing anything equaly between 7 billion people?
    • thumb
      Apr 30 2011: Watch "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward"

      Then get back to me and we'll discuss it.
  • Apr 19 2011: The proof that our economy and thus entire lifestyle is outdated, can simply be seen in the fact that we now recognize the insanity and the effects it has had on the world itself, and can create a means for alternative lifestyle that is completely separate from our current ways of living. There is physical evidence as well that we are depleting the earth's resources at such an alarming rate, that we are not able to keep the standard for much longer.. let alone the coming generations of humanity...

    Statistics, and raw data are enough for proof: - Titled: Social Pathology, By: Peter Joseph

    The earth is past its max capacity for the demand that people are asking. The numbers in both distribution, pollution, production, and waste are staggering and cannot be sustain simply for survival reasons.

    A new economy can fully be designed by a person living in today's economy. Is that not proof that we need an alternative? A resource based economy (THE VENUS PROJECT) is derived from many idealistic proposals, taking out the unrealistic, and approaching the problems in a scientific method. The resource based economy is a strategic plan, that has taken the unrealistic attributes from previous societal propositions, and designed a completely advanced and globally integrated plan. It has grown incredibly in popularity as you will notice here in this discussion and if you type any tags or related topics on Google or anywhere on the web.

    Here's a sort of science fiction representation of the world that we could construct. With the current population and available work that we have access to (without money) we could complete resurface the earth in 10 years.
    • thumb
      Apr 19 2011: wait a second. i'm having hard time to follow your reasoning. let me summarize:

      "The proof ... can be ... seen in the fact that we now recognize the insanity ..."

      the proof is that we recognize? i thought that recognition follows proof, not the other way around. first you present a proof, and then we recognize the truth. just because some people feel like recognizing something does not prove anything. it is the way of religion. religions are proven through revelation. science is proven by facts and logical reasoning.

      btw the v.p. truly seems to be a religion. it is more like a community, a flock rather than an actual movement.
      • thumb
        Apr 19 2011: You're ignorance is staggering for someone who is so well educated, did you even watch the movie? It isn't a likely turn of events at all. The movement is to think more humanitarian-ly at the world, our home planet, and not just territories. Of course to ask the entire world to come to a consensus is unrealistic it makes too much sense.

        Stop putting something down that actually has genuine value no matter how crazy, "left-winged". liberal, communistic, or socialistic it may appear. That is how wars are justified. You don't have to buy it, but you do not have to put it down because you cannot see past the main page of an ideology.

        When involving economics in any historic governments/systems relying on the ideals of transhumanism and humanitarian ideals are rare. It is rare today in the present. "But that is not the point of economics" Well, that is the point of V.P. Humanitarian and transhumanism are the ideas V.P relies on before ANYTHING else is taken into consideration.

        WARNING PERSONAL BELIEF - F*** unless you are evil and/or like the rewards that money brings to you, you cannot say V.P is anyway a bad, negative, stupid, ignorant, or a poor project. Because these IDEAS are based on positive notions with the entire human race into consideration.

        The reason ideas like these are so hard to defend with logic is because they involve strong beliefs. What is reality, is that man wants to cut and cheat to get ahead if given the education for it and opportunity to do so, Strong beliefs are inedible, they in themselves are a movement. Do not knock the good ones trying to only be good. Knock the bad ones for trying to be good and being either good or bad.

        The progression of today in technology, life, and oneness is where it is today because of the damage humans have done to the world, our home. Now we need to use those 3 concepts/terms/phrases to start thinking in the direction of fixing that damage.

        For American Youth:
        • thumb
          Apr 19 2011: i'm having hard time understanding all this. what is your actual point?

          few notes: no, i didn't follow the link, because i'm fed up with people who drop in links instead of arguments. this is not polite. the v.p. is certainly not liberal. central planning is the least liberal system we can have. is there anyone who does not like the "reward that money brings"? maybe monks. the v.p. involves strong belief, exactly my point. the v.p. is a religion. too bad, we don't need another one. we have sound theories about technology and economics. we refine them on logical and experimental basis.
      • thumb
        Apr 19 2011: @Krisztián

        Stop putting down a system or "religion" in which involve strong ideas of only positive values behind it. The link wasn't for you, you are not from America. For you to assume maybe monks shows little creativity on your part of thinking. Also "V.P is not liberal" really shows you do not get it.


        You are the one usually pointing out logical fallacies of argument, see if you can find yours.

        Now I am not angry at people for not liking V.P I am angry when people say it isn't of value to be considered into the debate of how to manage a world full of people. You may be an example of those who use economics in a charitable way but do not assume that is everyone in this nation, especially those with more wealth. In fact the top 1 percent of America make over a quarter percent of the wealth that this country takes in annually. Now if our nation (Yours and Inot Krisztián) is among the wealthiest nations in the world, how rich is that top percent really? Why aren't they making American jobs? Greed. (Also you are trying to generalize a whole nation that one of the most diverse nations in the world, that is really dangerous).

        I don't look down on anyone who disagrees with an idea, I look down on anyone who doesn't agree in the right perspectives. To compare V.P to anything that exist today or has existed is non-sensible.

        I admitted three times now V.P is unlikely, which is true, but the IDEAS behind this ideology are all positive and beautiful and to put them down is to put down the very same great ideas that will ultimately better the world for all humans.

        "What happened in your life to give you such a low opinion of people?"

        Ha, good question. Mostly because it is entirely opinionated and disturbingly short sighted.

        Side-note: watch the movie if you are going to talk about V.P and not just a "non-money based system". Want to talk about intellectual sloth, talk about reading a few paragraphs and making a conclusion about an ideology.
        • thumb
          Apr 20 2011: sorry, not possible. i don't care what "values" are behind a movement or religion. i only care about what they say. it is either wrong or right. it is either beneficial or harmful. it is either rational or irrational. i don't doubt that people in the v.p. religion are nice guys. what they do and say is wrong, and possibly harmful.
      • thumb
        Apr 20 2011: Did you even watch the movie?

        Most likely no, because you are being ignorant on this topic. If the proposal was everyone to become Buddhist-like and come together in harmony, that ideal would be wrong to you too. The more you claim V.P is what you think it is just shows how much you did not actually care to look into it. I'll help.

        People (everyone)/World > Economics (There now you can save your hour and half)

        For you to continue to put down this "religion", as you so carelessly put it, that holds only pure intentions and values is remarkably stupid, especially when it holds technology and science above all other consideration after people.

        You don't care? Good, stop downing something you don't care about and clearly know nothing about.
      • thumb
        Apr 20 2011: To me hell is where a few own much and many own some to nothing. So, because the good intentions came from economic based systems through out history you may just have a point. Hell and good are opinionated concepts, your claim is invalid here as are much of your claims.

        I never denied your intellectualism Krisztián but even you said it on "What is evil" thread. "Ignorance roots in refusing information", as does it come from not seeking it.
        • thumb
          Apr 20 2011: pretty well said. what is good and what is not is partly debated, partly personal. so stop seeking ways to control. don't control people, don't control the economy. it does not matter if you want to do good. all those people who joined the socialist movement, they just wanted good. they wanted equality, fairness, better life. and then socialism burned down half of the world. a lesson to learn.
        • Apr 22 2011: I personally believe in the Design that's been researched, and initiated through the Zeitgeist Movement. Once educated on the grounds for the Venus project, and even after watching Jacque Fresco speak several times, I start to really have an open mind on the possibilities for design, if money were not an object for obtaining resources. We could resurface most cities within 10 years based on some of the Venus project statistics. The basic theme is to eliminate human labor by designing cities to be easily installed, last a long time, be replaced (if necessary), repaired, and even fully maintained by computers, and robotics. Our lives would be greatly improved and convenient if we could build some of Jacques prototype systems.

          I think it is certainly a design that people need to be fully aware and properly educated about because if installed, it could prove to catch like wildfire, and dominate popularity in its lifestyle capabilities. It is foreign to us today, since we know no other way of life but the monetary system, but I believe that the money system will cause an environmental stir in the near future that will naturally shift the trend of living to an earth-preserving theme. Perhaps Jacques vision is just because he has self taught himself many fields of mechanics, architecture, and engineering, but Einstein was just as enlightened. The fact is that with education they both realized the result of competitive based systems, and the effect it has on a global scale as society grows. As functional as it may be, there is a limit to the earths resources (however there is not a known limit for the population growth and the needs met by energy consumption with the same trend) There will always be a better way to design the future, and adapt to provide for all. I know that to be true.
    • thumb
      Apr 20 2011: @ Krisztián

      What seems to not be passing your senses of logic is V.P ignores economics all together and even frowns upon it, which is where the radical thought comes into play. What you feel is a controlling ideology I feel is an ideology where only a true and open-ended education could allow such to be possible or even taken into consideration. Like I said the values of V.P surpass the reality of it happening. And like I already stated the values in which V.P are based on will eventually better the world. Humanitarian efforts the planet and people. Socialism was where everyone would have equal everything including money, that is non-sense because when involving money who wants to stop at just having enough to survive?
      • thumb
        Apr 20 2011: relax, i noticed that many people, including v.p. believers, ignore economics altogether. it is their most profound mistake. and they are not at a loss understanding the world. they also lose a great perspective, a vision of the world that reinforces the soul, gives faith in humanity, deepens understanding. just like understanding evolution, a wonderful bottom-up concept that creates complexity without supervision, economics is a similar bottom-up concept of society. you need to study the *right* economics though. choose wisely.

        btw i lived under socialism. it did not even resemble what you are describing here.
        • thumb
          Apr 20 2011: I wouldn't imagine socialism in terms of economy and society would be. Sorry was thinking of communism.

          Economics are great I didn't deny it, the results however are more questionable today than ever before due to the power corporations now seem to have by manipulation of such systems. When the ideals of humanitarian needs escape someone thinking about profit there is no goodness.

          Economics is not the enemy the human condition of greed is, and greed becomes reinforced by educations that promote competitive notions on a business level even pairing it with an personal level.

          A true open-ended education would prove economics to be a value to the world, but with no good education for all and with few a great education of economics comes control.

          The reason I defend V.P is because it promotes everything that all societies can be doing better. Education, health, and moral teachings of community.
  • thumb
    Apr 13 2011: The last part of that idea is the hardest - destroying money is much harder and much more controversial than making it for people, apparently. There are due process concerns, obviously.

    But the present system 1.) does not account for externalities in people's actions 2.) does not remedy easily remediable market failures 3.) inefficiently allocates the factors leading to social wellbeing. At the very least, the creation of money starting at the bottom of the pyramid gives those people some economic power to lift themselves out of extreme poverty. I believe most people would find that preferable to having money created for banks and have it "trickle down" to the masses.

    And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 25 claims that people have a right to food, medical care, a minimal level of wellbeing, etc. But it's literally meaningless, because there's no enforcement mechanism. Millions of tons of food go to waste every year, while millions of people go hungry. It's ridiculous.

    I call decentralized money creation/destruction "libertarian socialism," because the masses all have "claim checks" upon capital AKA the means of production, and as society accumulates capital, the level of wellbeing a society can provide for the worst off people increases.

    It makes sense to me that "rights"/"claim checks" should vest in poor people at a particular rate. Plants need water every day in order to be healthy, and poor kids' brains need consistent nourishment in order to be healthy/productive:

    I like Dan Pink's idea that we pay people enough so that money is no longer an issue, and then let them work! The idea that people need a fear of starvation, etc. in order to work is ridiculous.
  • thumb
    Apr 13 2011: Money is an exceptionally useful medium of exchange, so I don't think it's going anywhere. I doubt we'll be going back to the gold standard, given that it's 2011.

    At the same time, I think the power to create and destroy money is too much power for one centralized entity to handle. The Federal Reserve propped up failing banks with 9 TRillion dollars during the financial crisis, with no oversight:

    Money can also be thought of as a vote. A person with more money has more power to allocate social resources (public or private) than a person without money. This is why we live in plutarchies.

    Money is also a "claim check" upon the allocation of scarce social resources. For example, you can say, "Here, educated young person, do this for X amount of time and I will give you X claim checks."

    We don't want random noobs printing money on their own, but the gold standard is out of the question, partly because deflation is bad for the economy, and partly because there isn't enough gold in the world to support the gold standard anymore.

    My solution to this was that, in many countries, to some extent, we already give poor people some digital "claim checks" for food, clothing, etc. (EBT in the US, Bolsa Familia in Brazil). You can think of this as a decentralized power to "create claim checks," at a rate set by some centralized authority. But instead of "claim checks" being created for banks, it's created for everyone at the same rate.

    To counteract inflation, people should also have the ability to destroy money at a particular rate set by the Fed. In essence, I'm assuming that finite natural resources (including educated young people) are, up to a baseline level, equally owned by everyone. The right to destroy a very small amount of money is the right to say, "allocate here, not there."
  • thumb
    Apr 12 2011: Sargis, from all above comments and the points you and others made, I find the essence of this topic is in the following sentence:"money is inherently corrupted because the only system it can survive on is corrupted" What I understand, you are asking for justification of such a corrupt system, that is the owner of (can produce-yes, read it as PRINT) the money, hence can manipulate it. I think the focus needs to remain on this one question, the rest of the entire talk are just symptoms of the above and their justifications. About "interests" levied on borrowed money, thats the nature of the business. Its a product that is offered which has a cost. Its sold as as a need but is treated as a luxury that you need to opt for only if you can really afford it. Again, the corrupt system doesnt mandate warnings as required on such products. Hence again and again, we see the system as incapable and not the money. Money is just a tool which is used incorrectly, abused, its utility misrepresented, no trainings exist on how to use it, no warnings on the downsides of mis-usage, all in all, its intent not realized but distorted way beyond recognition, recognition being utility to a simple common man.
    • thumb
      Apr 12 2011: Renu, I agree with you. When I say money is the problem, my point is that it was born from the corrupt system itself. Money per se is worth nothing without that system and vice versa. That's why the monetary system and money itself is perceived by me as the same thing. If it makes everyone happy, I'll say that the system is the problem, not money itself. Does that change anything? The only thing that can fix this dilemma is a new monetary system but how can any monetary system survive without interest and debt? If you take those two factors out of the equation, money will just be paper that can be manufactured endlessly. The only reason it's value stands is because it is in constant circulation, going back and forth, and the only way it can continue doing that is for people to feel the need to return it back to the banks (debt) with a "little" extra (interest). Problem is, you can NEVER pay your debt off and these banks can create money out of thin air.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Apr 12 2011: side note: increasing the money stock in the rate of economic growth is questionable too. first, measurement is a problem. GDP or CPI are rough figures, error prone and manipulation prone. second, any form of money devaluation hurts long term investments, the investments that are the most difficult to make. third, there is not much reason to do so. money adjusts fine on its own. why tweak it?
        • thumb
          Apr 12 2011: Richard, would you elaborate?

          side note: i find it not too advisable to call the majority view "monetary illiteracy". if you represent a minority view, the burden of proof is on you.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Apr 13 2011: "As soon as you gain monetary literacy your trouble evaporate and you start seeing the whole picture."


          @Richard Your suggestions remind me of a resource based economy or some variant of it. Sounds much more logical and mature as it forces the system to revolve around the state of our world. This current monetary system and economy isn't mature or economic at all. Thanks for sharing mate.

          And regarding monetary illiteracy...the majority really has little idea of how money works or where it comes from. Can't say I disagree with Richard there either.
  • thumb
    Apr 10 2011: I feel like if we got rid of money, we'd have to replace it with something else which in essence would be exactly the same. Any sort of society that promotes exchanges would have some sort of monetary system.
    • Apr 14 2011: A resource based economy declares all of the resources of the globe a common good for all of earth's inhabitants. All things would be available at no cost, or servitude. The distribution or "monetary" exchange you refer to would not involve money. It would require a simple request via computer network, and followed by an automated confirmation.

      Just as my request can be met at a local store in the monetary system: Requesting a drink requires the confirmation in dollars. However, in the resource economy, the request would be met only within the parameters of what is physically available for use. Another more important point to add is that the item or resource you request would be linked to an international data-base that tracks all materials. This is, in theory, a large centralized computer that had the ability to calculate the impact of your request. If something is not available, it would then request the item from alternate means. You see, people would not have any ownership or property. There would be no need to hoard items, or secure product, when you hold no ownership, everything is readily and efficiently available upon request.

      The infrastructure is designed in such a way, that after construction, only 5% of the population would need to maintain it at first. With the development of better efficiency, this number would become less and less. This is all researched, and calculated statistical data in the design: The FIVE MAIN GOALS to implement are as follows:

      1. Survey the planetary resources - translate this information into what is mathematically available via real-time computer database that monitors resource management. For scarce resources:: alternatives or substitutions.
      2. Decide on what needs to be produced - in a material sense
      3. Optimization of methods while maximizing product lifespan
      4. Distribution methods for human access
      5. Optimize recycling for outdated or inoperable product
  • thumb
    Apr 9 2011: there are like 6 conversations ongoing about the venus project and its utter nonsensical teachings.
    • thumb
      Apr 15 2011: I find the result of an ideology is how you should determine it to be wrong or "nonsensical", and yeah in theory/practice communism, socialism, and Marxism don't work, but capitalism MOST CERTAINLY does not work.

      There is no such thing as an original thought, stop assuming such, it is impossible humans have been thinking for too long for those to exist still. Creative thoughts are what should be appreciated not originality.

      Ideas can't be wrong because they are ideas. Ideologies can be wrong they are systems based on ideas.

      Now VP is an ideology, yes maybe it won't work so what? The ideas behind it are pure-hearted and positive to every human being on the planet.

      How can you be against equality, fairness, togetherness, and a truly connected world? that goes for anyone.
      • thumb
        Apr 15 2011: i have zero idea what are you talking about. classification of v.p. won't help, as the problem with it is not its classification, but that it is wrong. mostly nonsense, small part wrong. i've elaborated this many times, and i won't repeat.

        however, what we know about capitalism is it works. it works so well, it established the western civilization as the absolute leader of the world in just a few hundred years. it got us from earning $2000 to $20000 in two centuries. it reduced child mortality and plagues. it raised life expectancy by 100%. it eliminated famines. and it is now working on doing the same everywhere on the globe. shortsighted lunacies like the v.p. work against this progress.
        • thumb
          Apr 15 2011: That was more of a comment you never responded to, now.

          (John Perkins, author of 'HoodWinked' and 'Confessions Of An Economic Hitman' )

          This is capitalism, while it did do many great things it has done ten times more damage. You are wrong, this isn't progress it profit. V.P wants to correct that. Capitalism only works for some, not all, nor can it work for all nor does it want to work for all. V.P does want to do that which is why it sensible but incomplete as any ideology is in the world because everyone doesn't cooperate enough to want to make the best system.
        • thumb
          Apr 16 2011: Nicholas, while capitalism is far from being perfect, it's the best system we currently have on this planet.
          If somebody comes and shows me a new concept that will work better, then I'll be happy to consider it.
          However changes require actions and not just philosophical contemplations and good ideas (which are worthless if not implemented).
          The V.P. talks about ideas which obviously sound good, but they have no concrete ideas as how to ever get there. Yes, there is a plan to build a model community based on the V.P. ideology, and even if they manage to build it and if it actually works, it still cannot be more transferred to the global community than the Amish lifestyle can be implemented on a global level.
        • thumb
          Apr 16 2011: V.P was never meant to replace just capitalism , socialism, communism, or any other political ideology in the first place V.P is a concept to replace the entire system, pretty much everything, in which the whole world has now found comfortable being in because there has never been an idea that would allow such a thing. It isn't very plausible because it requires to much, It would take everyone to drop everything and come to a global agreement. You are right it is unlikely.

          Now let's consider the monster capitalism has allowed in the world. There is now profit in war and cleaning up the war. That one sentence isn't long enough to express how f***ing evil that it, capitalism is based on profit margin. Profit margins, money, and greed. Yeah I said it I am a rationalist. What is rational is to work together and not work against one another. Capitalism has now effected how the masses live their life, Aristotle would turn over in his grave to be so right that the government is a reflection of it's people. Greedy, except it's backwards the ideology made the people greedy. Even to the point where people have begin to idolize people for having wealth and/or having an athletic talent (Not knocking sports, but these guys make more than doctors, lawyers, and architects).

          Now, back to agreeing with you, yes V.P is unlikely. But the ideas in V.P are what our capitalism needs right now. Gain profit, but benefit humanity at the same time, sound good? However the problem with money is, someone always wants more than everyone else and is going to probably keep it ,few exceptions of course, but more popular to keep money than using it on strangers, those are the values in which capitalism has created, because the biggest idea in capitalism is money gain, and enough money means power when enough people believe money is power.

          i don't defend the ideology, concept or theory of V.P I defend the humanitarian and transhumanism morals and ethics that are involved in V.P.
        • thumb
          Apr 16 2011: Exactly Nicholas, V.P. is proposing to totally remake our society, that's what makes it so unrealistic.
          Capitalism: capitalism isn't the problem. The problem is people doing the wrong things. For example, greedy people exist regardless of the system. It's like with technology. Technology is neither good nor bad, but people might use it in one or the other way. The same is the case for capitalism (or any other system).
          The definition of capitalism is pretty simple: "An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit".
          Is that bad ? I don't think so. Making profit stimulates and motivates. Why did the communist regimes fail ? Because there was no ownership. Nobody felt responsible for anything. People just left everything in the hands of the state.
          Making profit and benefit humanity is practiced by many wealthy people. Bill Gates for example, just to name one. Also many artists and sport celebrities are actively involved in humanitarian programs.
          Back to V.P.; as you say and I admit, there are good ideas in thei program, however, they are of so general nature and not supported by any concrete plan of action, that they are rather useless.
          If you look at their philosophy, you'll see that it revolves around a "resource based economy", meaning that all resources (goods and services) are equally available to everybody. Sounds great ! I like this idea of unlimited abundance and equal availability to everybody. However, the devil is in the detail, which in this particular case is a lack of action plans how to get there.
          It's like saying "nobody should starve", "everybody should get a good education", "no pollution of our environment", etc. Those are all great suggestions, but HOW do we get there ? That's the big question.
      • thumb
        Apr 15 2011: linking videos *instead* of making arguments is intellectual sloth. you lack economic understanding, and you refuse to learn new information because it would be "limiting" or what. so i think your position is rather hopeless. but maybe i can draw other readers' attention to the difference between capitalism, and all forms of statism: corporatism, mercantilism and interventionism that indeed cripple the world for a long time. they play in the same league with the v.p. they seek to control and rule.
    • thumb
      Apr 15 2011: lol, so why would I want to take information from someone who cannot see past his own ignorance?

      Lol, to claim V.P is seeking control shows far more ignorance than I have by neglecting your suggested readings.

      The video was so you can understand easily and with entertainment something you are fortunate enough to not experience. Oh and I just didn't post just a video, I also posted an author's name and two books by him.

      You tried pawning off a conversation (about economics) with literature, I can do the same sir except about the results of an economic based ideology, which again I find the results should be where the value of an ideology is weighed. These results of an ideology happen to be pretty awful to a lot of strangers you most likely never met or talked to.

      Name a few "centrally planned societies" that failed; would be good for this thread and to prove your point about VP being 'wrong'.

      Capitalism is strengthened by statism: corporatism, mercantilism and interventionism.

      Edited: lines 3, 4 and 5
      • thumb
        Apr 16 2011: "You tried pawning off a conversation (about economics) with literature"


        you seem to be completely confused. i recommended you a history and philosophy work, not literature. it is your area. you should not get a diploma without reading then anyway. and i visually emphasized the word "instead", but you can't take a hint, apparently. to back up your point with some background material is OK. dropping a link instead of presenting a point is lame.
        • thumb
          Apr 16 2011: History and philosophy through a spoken language is literature.

          You neglected 4 of my other points.

          Also if you were a civil human being instead of an educated one you would have asked questions besides just sticking to your own claims. You constantly compared V.P to existing ideologies and it is none like any other.

          Everyone who would want to participate in V.P would have to be a humanitarian and care about the people around them genuinely and without profit. That is why it is unlikely, not because its a form of communism.

          "Name a few "centrally planned societies" that failed; would be good for this thread and to prove your point about VP being 'wrong'."

          You are indeed an intellectual, but even one of the worlds best intellectual was used for a world of destruction, because science wasn't primary but secondary. (I would hope you know now what I mean by science in the post-modern sense)

          Get a clue, go outside with normal people and see how damaged the world is because we like to defend an ideology that does NOT want to change because there is no profit margin in change but in control, war, entertainment, and materialism. (Yes, another strong belief)
      • thumb
        Apr 16 2011: i often neglect points that

        a, does not make sense
        b, is stupid on a level i'm not going to descend to
        c, was discussed already many times
        d, i'm not interested in
        • thumb
          Apr 16 2011: Well then prepare to be an individual in a class of elitist. Have a nice day.
  • thumb
    Apr 8 2011: Harald, most people don't care about money, but the stuff money can buy them. Got a million US$ sitting on a rock in the middle of the pacific without any means to spend them ? Not very useful, isn't it ?
    Money is a tool, nothing else. It helps us to easier exchange goods and services. Even for companies, it's not about the money per se, but about what they are doing with the money (buy new equipment, make acquisitions, buy raw materials,....).
    Money is also important to put a value on goods and services. Otherwise, how would you be able to define what a certain product/service is worth ?
    Let's say you are a car producer. Explain me how you would sell your cars to the market in a money less society.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Apr 9 2011: i doubt you can answer the second question. the first is a question that is not true. money does deprecate in value continually over time.
      • thumb
        Apr 9 2011: Richard, yes, money does depreciate over time. Just look what 1 US$ bought you 100 years ago and what does it buy you today.
        As to your 2. question, as I pointed out in my other post, it's not about money. but about what you get for your money. If we would use sea shells instead of money and let's say, you have 100 of them which barely is enough to buy you a Fiat, but you actually want a Mercedes, which costs you 1000 shells. What you want to earn "interests" on your shells, meaning, wouldn't you want to find a way to increase your stock of shells, so you can buy your Mercedes ?