The uselessness of money

[iota]

Hi everybody,

Small attempt to question the appropriateness and usefulness of money and money in general.

Assuming that money is a outdated and harmful system in our time (and maybe even before).

Why does work give right to a salary?
Work could give entitlement to vital resources: food, medicine, care, basic housing.

Why does work lead to inequality and a feeling of servitude?
A job, whether engineer or garbage collector should give access to the same vital resources.
Difficult work is often the result of a lack of manpower, means or simply consideration.

Why do without money; at least with a sum of money we do what we want!
certainly but you still have to have enough.
After paying bills, rent, food, school and care, there is often nothing left.

So where is the problem ?
the problem stems from the inequality of wages and the "paying" aspect of things which are nevertheless vital to life.

These vital things could be free, like the air we breathe.
People working in the field of water, livestock, agriculture etc ... would be paid like everyone else.

Basically work is a necessity! wages become useless from the moment we have access to everything that is vital.

Because what is vital is provided by the work of these same people.

But what about what is not vital? (making a TV, making music?)
What is not vital, by definition one can do without it.
The goal is not to do without it completely.
there are competent people who are "in love" with their profession, those there can make houses, cars, teles ...
What about the musicians?
Obviously a musician does not bring anything concrete to "society", he brings dreams like a football player who feels as much as a minister.

What to do with these people?
I dunno !

What to do with the disabled?

And retirement?
In this system anyone can work until they are thirsty since there is no need to pay anyone.
A retirement system can be set up provided that this person has already worked before.

But it looks like rationing!
yes but not rationing as we understand it (during a war for example).
We can calculate the needs of a person and their family.

What if I want to invite friends?
Guest friends do not eat at home, or transfer friends' needs to your home.

What if I want to make them a great meal in front of a good movie on my super TV?
Concerning the things which are not vital, it would be possible to create a system of limitation of good according to time.
Indeed the production of these goods would be slowed down due to the lack of profits and competition between manufacturers.
A person could have access to these goods depending on the availability of these and according to the period worked.
(a person who works 1 month can have a pen, a person who works 30 years can have a helicopter )

these are just ideas, suggestions ...
Criticizing the world is one thing, providing solutions is quite another.

[Christophe]

In the same genre (or almost):

a) the monetary scam:
https://www.econologie.com/articles-2706.html
b) inflation:
https://www.econologie.com/articles-2735.html

It's a bit long to read but it's worth it ...

[iota]

Another idea:

A compulsory social service during studies and even after that would allow young people to work in specific fields, maintenance, public works etc ... which would also give them experience.
Which would allow others (those who have finished their studies for example) to start a corresponding job.
It would give everyone a job and then a job that corresponds to everyone's abilities (and not according to demand)

[melt_core]

iota,

You are wrong on so many points that it would be faster to count the points on which you are right; ie none.

By hating and despising the market, the economy of loss and profit, private property, as well as material abundance (which are all corollaries of each other), you wrongly identify freedom with community life, with tribal sharing, and other aspects of the party and toxic youth lunch culture.

When the Spanish anarchists (Bakunin-Kropotkin-type anarcho-communists) took control of several regions of Spain during the civil war of the 30s, they confiscated and destroyed all the currencies of these regions and declared liable to death. use of money. All this can make us doubt the good intentions of the people who are against the currency.

In the name of a phony humanism, an irrational and deeply misanthropic egalitarianism you wish to steal from each individual his precious and unique humanity.

Economically, what you are talking about is nonsense. Abolish money, prices, work in general, and proposes to drive modern economies from a register of "needs" in a centralized database ... Anyone with economic knowledge, as rudimentary as they are, cannot consider this theory as conceivable for a single second.

50 years ago, Ludwig Von Mises demonstrated the impossibility of running a planned economy to function beyond a regime comparable to the stone age. He demonstrated that the prices expressed in money are essential for a sound and rational allocation of scarce resources (labor, land, and capital goods) to the sectors that most satisfy consumers' preferences and where they can operate. most effectively. Even The Socialists recognized the correctness of Mises' analysis and tried, in vain, to find a way to reconcile a rational market price system with a planned socialist economy.

The Russians, after trying to approach a communist monetary economy soon after the Bolshevik Revolution, had a vision of horror when they realized that the Russian economy was on the brink of disaster. Even Stalin never dared to retry the experiment, and after the Second World War several communist countries in eastern Europe abandoned this communist ideal to adopt a system of "market", with a system of prices, losses and profits, and some appreciation of consumer satisfaction.

It is no coincidence that the economists of the communist countries were precisely those who led the escape from communism, socialism, and centralized planning. It is not a crime to be economically illiterate. However, it is completely irresponsible to propagate one's opinion on the economy while remaining in this situation of ignorance.

This same remark could also be applied to the widely held belief, supported by several leftists, that there is no longer any need to worry about the economy and production because we are supposedly living in a “post-scarcity” world, where such problems no longer arise. But while our condition of scarcity is obviously superior to that of the Cro-Magnon man, we still live in a world of omnipresent economic scarcity.

How will we know that the world has crossed this “post-scarcity” threshold? Simple, when all the goods and services we can want are so plentiful that their prices drop to zero; in summary when we can acquire all the goods and services as we would have done in the garden of Eden, without effort, without work and without using scarce resources.

The fact that abandoning rationality and all economic consideration in favor of egalitarian fantasies would condemn modern productions and our civilization and bring us back to barbarism does not seem to disconcert you. What you don't seem to understand is that the result of a return to the primitive era would result in famine and death for most of humanity and unworthy survival for those who remain.

If one day you see the advent of your utopia, you will see the difficulty of being freed from capitalist oppression when you starve.

[iota]

Dear melt_core,

"You are so wrong on so many points that it would be faster to count the points on which you are right; that is, none."

We can speak to each other, it eats no bread.

"By loathing and despising the market, the economy of profit and loss, private property, as well as material abundance (which are all corollaries of each other), you mistakenly identify freedom with community life, with tribal sharing, and other aspects of party and drug addiction culture. "

I do not see the link.
Losses and profits are often transient and cause as much harm as good.
What I am proposing seems balanced to me.
As for culture, lunch, etc., I don't see the relationship at all either, I make music, I smoked weed and fucked up like many people, I don't see what will prevent this system.

"When the Spanish anarchists (anarcho-communists of the Bakunin-Kropotkin type) took control of several regions of Spain during the civil war of the 30s, they confiscated and destroyed all the currencies of these regions and declared them liable to death the use of money. All of this can make us doubt the good intentions of people who are against money. "

All this is very interesting, I was unaware of this passage of the Spanish history (and I will be inspired by it).
Your doubts about the bad Spanish anarchists are certainly well founded if they have massacred the world or boiled I don't know what.
Perhaps their idea has been misinterpreted, historians write history a bit according to their convictions too ...
I don't have the feeling being salary. the currency of having bad intentions, quite the contrary.
By cons I have a doubt on those who think only of that ...


"In the name of a bogus humanism, an irrational and deeply misanthropic egalitarianism, you wish to rob any individual of their precious and unique humanity."

what humanity?
is it human to be exploited ?!
The misanthropic can informs you that it is doing what it can to come up with ideas.
I have no training in economics and even less in sociology, so I wonder.

"Economically, what you are saying is an absurdity. Abolish money, prices, labor in general, and propose to drive modern economies from a register of" needs "into a centralized database ... Anyone who having economic knowledge, however rudimentary, cannot consider this theory to be conceivable for a single second. "

I do not abolish the work, nor the prices.
everything has a price, it differs from current economic criteria.
Everything is centralized, even what I use as paper based on my credit card number, I don't see how it would be impossible to centralize people's needs.


"50 years ago, Ludwig Von Mises demonstrated the impossibility of running a planned economy to function beyond a regime comparable to the Stone Age. He demonstrated that prices expressed in money are essential for a sound and rational allocation of scarce resources (labor, land, and capital goods) to those sectors which best satisfy consumer preferences and where they can operate most efficiently. Even Socialists have recognized the correctness of this. 'Mises analysis and attempted, in vain, to find a way to reconcile a rational market price system with a planned socialist economy. "

My brother psychologist swore by his books too.
now he's grown up and rejects his youthful idols.
to the wise.

"The Russians, after attempting an approach towards a communist monetary economy shortly after the Bolshevik revolution, saw a horror when they realized that the Russian economy was heading for disaster. Even Stalin never dared to repeat the experiment. , and after the Second World War several communist countries of Eastern Europe abandoned this communist ideal to adopt a system of "market", with a system of prices, profits and losses, and a certain valuation of the satisfaction of the consumers. "

Who spoke of communism?
this has nothing to do.
It is not a question of enslaving a population my dear friend.


"It is no accident that the economists of the communist countries were the very ones who led the flight out of communism, socialism, and central planning. It is not a crime to be economically illiterate. But it is on the other hand totally irresponsible to propagate his opinion on the economy while remaining in this situation of ignorance. "

Thanks, that's nice.

"This same remark could also be applied to the widely held belief, and supported by many leftists, that there is no longer any need to worry about the economy and production because we are alive. supposedly in a "post-scarcity" world, where such problems no longer arise. But while our condition of scarcity is obviously superior to that of Cro-Magnon man, we still live in a world of pervasive economic scarcity. . "

Please explain for the Cro-magnon of the economy that I am.

"How will we know that the world has crossed that 'post-scarcity' threshold? Simple, when all the goods and services we can want are so plentiful that their prices have dropped to zero; in short, when we can acquire all the goods and services as we would have done in the Garden of Eden, without effort, without work and without using scarce resources. "

It is not false...

"The fact that to abandon rationality and all economic considerations in favor of egalitarian fantasies would condemn modern productions and our civilization and bring us back to barbarism does not seem to bother you. What you do not seem to understand is that the result of a return to the primitive era would mean starvation and death for most of humanity and unworthy survival for those who remain. "

Why will we return to barbarism?
What is the relationship between a war of the 20th century and a war of the 13th?
the number of dead? the weapons used?
What is the relationship between a 20th century hospital and ... nothing in the 13th century (an improvised doctor may be)?
the number of dead? the lives that could have been saved?
living conditions?
If people would die in quantity at that time, it was in a certain sense a balance right ?!
If the population had increased thanks to a more sophisticated medicine at the time, how many would we be today?
These people saved from illness would they have been saved from starvation?
I try to see beyond the tip of my nose and use the facts of our past.

"If you ever see the advent of your utopia, you will see the difficulty of being freed from capitalist oppression when one is starving."

Still haven't seen the report.
Why would we starve especially with this system?
No one is starving right now?
(800 million according to the media)
These people cheer and beg capitalism to come and save them, no doubt.

I say and repeat these are PROPOSED ideas which can be modified and which are certainly incomplete.
I don't feel like I'm writing horrible things and being insulted so nicely.
There is no racism, no fascism, no homophobia or phobias of anything.

If you find that the world is good like that, you have nothing to do with it forum.

cordially

[Other]

Hello

Between capitalism and the comunist.
Between these extremes there is surely a way to make a more human society. this is a bit like what countries like sweden or european countries with different shades experience, just do not let our politicians slip towards trends that are extreme in the face of public safety.
Normally a (civilized) country should have social measures
Access to health care, education, promote employment, with the right to unionize, have a decent salary, do not make wage differentials that are multiplied by 4 and 5 as is often seen in some country, tax income fairly, be entitled to an old age pension automatically (even if the person does not have to work!) In Canada is 65 years old every citizen receives a small pension whether millionaire or tramp, but c is a minimum not enough to live on ... for the poorest a supplement
By experience lived in a big company, the union negotiated a uniformity of wages, that is to say just 3 salary ranges whatever the function of the employees. it seemed easy to manage at the beginning. after a while we realized that some post no employees wanted, the employees in the different mutations (due to delays in retirement that moves the whole group) all wanted to covet easier jobs with less responsibility. The sweeper's salary was equal to that of the operator with the stress of speed. operating, or working with air conditioning instead of working on the railway ect ..
We came back with wages more suited to the work constraint.
Which summarizes that if in a country we systematically equalize everything, it will look like a prison, they are fed and housed, but they have little motivation, and little ambition, just that of getting away.
the salary scale here is not very wide, a mechanical or electrical maintenance worker in a factory that does a little extra time earns as much as an engineer, a factory manager, his salary is not not the double of a certain worker.
In a society all professions have their importance
a musician, a cook, a sweeper is as important as a director, or a foreman.
Sometimes a surgeon would like to be a gardener or a musician, when he sees himself taken in his work despite his salary, he has no more free time for his leisure.

Andre

[iota]

Thank you André for these few examples, experienced in addition.

It is certain that a hard-working person cannot have compensation in relation to another who remains with his ass on a chair.
It remains to be seen to what extent this could be done and in the fairest way possible.

I have the impression that some people think that it looks like communism.
to that some answers:
The goods are not placed in community.
everyone can have as much good as he wants in relation to his work. (or working hours)
it seems to me that with a salary it's the same thing (the more cash you have, the more goods you have)
Companies are private, everyone can create a business on their property (by sacrificing some unnecessary stuff, but which they can give back to recover other goods ... to see)
it seems that the communist states censor information and the press in general.
I do not have the feeling that the information, the culture, the press or I do not know what can interfere with this system, these these are independent.

Coming back to the artists, I don't really have a solution.
Imposing a quota of music or concerts will certainly imply a mediocre artistic quality like today.
Now you can be an artist during your leisure time (how I do it!).
and work normally the rest of the time.

[Christine]

A book that could help you with your thinking, iota:
"Metamorphoses of work. Critique of economic reason" by André Gorz.
It dates from 1988 but it is not noticeable (unfortunately).

[nonoLeRobot]

Hi Iota,

I find it hard to see how it would be different since apparently we would be entitled to goods depending on how we work. So we would note our work on pieces of paper and according to that more possibly according to our vital needs we could get these goods.

These scraps of paper, it already exists, we call it tickets and the minimum according to vital needs, it's called grants, RMI, or SMIG etc ...

Certainly they are not necessarily well balanced but I rather have the impression that wanting to change the whole system is above all to avoid the current problems which are very complicated.

The money problem seems to me especially at the level of the shareholder system where you only finance a company if it MAXIMIZES the profits and not simply it has good profits. (I know we learn it at school to be a good financial engineer )

At the same time, I find it cool to ask substantive questions but there are 2 tips that I note:
- You complain about the bills but I am sure that you are well above the subsistence minimum (computer + internet access) ;-)
- The idea that people it doesn't matter if they have nothing as long as they are used to it, I find it horrible when it is below the subsistence level (I do not think we can be happy to be hungry, to be sick and to die suffering unless you are a martyr).

I know that you try to put your ideas without taboo, without politically correct to advance more to the bottom of the things and that can be very good, but I heard too much this kind of remarks:

If people would die in quantity at that time, it was in a certain sense a balance right ?!
If the population had increased thanks to a more sophisticated medicine at the time, how many would we be today?
These people saved from illness would they have been saved from starvation?

By people with full mouths and healthy to let pass.

[iota]

hi nono,

I fully understand your doubts.
I already had these questions.
By removing money I also want to remove greed, theft, embezzlement, all of these things that have a direct bearing on cash.
The rmi, the smig etc ... would become useless because there would always be work and for everyone.
When you look around, there is always something to do or whatever.
there is always a company that lacks arms.
The possible contributions would be for people who cannot or no longer work.

Regarding invoices, of course I am above the subsistence level, but that has not always been the case. (and some friends too unfortunately)
In any case it is very formative.

Regarding the image of a not so rotten middle age that I try to give, I may have expressed myself badly.
But it also swells me to hear all the time that if we change the system then we go back, to barbarism or to the middle ages.
As if the current system were the pinnacle of human evolution.

At that time, society was just as organized as it is now, obviously technology as we know it didn't exist and things were going much more slowly.

I tell myself that in 150 or 200 years we will speak of today as a horrible, dark and medically "brutal" time ...