Is money an unintelligent idea that could be replaced with a better idea? I think it is...

Is money an unintelligent idea that could be replaced with a better idea? I think it is. Is it possible to create a society that is driven to do things for free and have things provided to them for free?

There are things in especially finite supply that we would have to put some sort of limitation on distributing and i'm not saying anybody could just ask for those.

I don't know Veeky Forums. I just really feel like it's possible. Without needing money to pay for anything we could have a house freely provided to anyone who wants to live an independent life. We could go absolutely ham on the resources we put into scientific research and make more breakthroughs in technology that could create a self sustaining utopia world.
And it is just really a stupid idea that we need to put in time and effort to afford something as basic and necessary to life as shelter. Why do I need to worry about the possibility of getting fired and not being able to afford my own home? Its so backwards and stupid. Those things should be freely provided in a civilized advanced world.

And not to mention our combined force of financial academics worldwide cannot stop this debt problem we have. It seems like the problem has gotten too complicated to solve and we should just give up on it. Just throw our hands up and say "Ok, money was a really stupid idea. We're not using it anymore."


I know how stupid this sounds to everyone but even an idea as stupid as this can grow into something incredible with enough people fueling it and developing it. What if we set up a website community dedicated to figuring out how to make a world work without money? Something like that? I think it could be done.

I'm done rambling I guess. I'm just so absolutely sick of money.

Other urls found in this thread:

thevenusproject.com/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>t. white middle class kid who never had to work and gets everything paid by his parents

I don't think currency is going anywhere. First world countries are moving toward basic income and heavily subsidised or free necessary food items.

Why would I spend resources, my time and energy, to build you a home for free? It's as simple as that. Money is simply the vehicle through which resources of all kinds are exchanged. Without exchange there is no incentive to do anything.

Currency is just a physical (or electronic these days) form of pure value. Its like being able to carry an idea and hand it to someone else. This is a very useful and sophisticated concept

Who's gonna drive the trucks? Who's gonna clean the floors? Who's gonna wait the tables? Who's gonna work the nightshifts? Who's gonna do for free the jobs no one wants to do?

OP will do it all for free. Thanks OP.

Thanks OP.

Some sort of central planning or feudalism can replace it.
I prefer money and capitalism

The only way I'd think of replacing money would be with a similar exchange system, but completely electronic, only pay and receive currency in bank accounts, kinda like how people use credit cards, but applied to everyone.
The human society cannot simply live without money, the use of some type of currency has always been fundamental since the beginning of barter

The first step to something like abandoning money would be a basic income for all. This would give shelter and food. Everyone wanting more or thinking he has to be paid for something would work.

The slaves of course.

t. Aristophanes

Robots

t. nigger who thinks he's hot shot for having a part time job at KFC

I'd say a good way to make money less of an issue, is to develop a job like system that everyone is happy with. One that I thought of that might sound stupid but I'd be down...

there is an electronic task board that everyone in the world has access too. You put in an income that you want to make and based on a very extensive testing system that's based off your interest, get access to different jobs from different companies that can be done.

Oh and it would be a requirement for everyone that wants income, to learn some form of basic programming/technology/engineering. So if there isn't any jobs available for your current interest at the time. You can do some coding and troubleshooting work for machines that is easy and stress free, but takes care a lot of the machine maintainance for a highly automated working environment we are soon approaching.

You can also study a subject for free and on your own time. So if you want to get access to even better tasks listed in your electronic job board, you take a test that bumps the frequency of that type of job.

This idea has tons of flaws and not really feasible in the next, 5-10 years but a better job system for humanity is bound to happen with the coming of everything being automated

Money is just an abstract unit of value, in this case given value because people BELIEVE it has value (fiat currency).

Question to Veeky Forums; is fiat currency good, or would a commodity currency based purely on energy rather than materials be better?

Would 4.5 kilocalories of food be equivalent in value to a nine volt battery?

>I know how stupid this sounds
>even an idea as stupid as this
Lrn2money fgt pls

Money was actually an extremely intelligent idea, maybe even inevitable for human development

Money is just an IOU system for a value system.

Let's lay out the base: Money does not exist. Certainly paper money is real and holdable, but that thing you use to buy an apple is nothing but paper and definitely isn't as valuable as said Apple.

The first IOU system was the value system, which was basically just gold standard. "The effort it takes to make this is equivalent to that of making this, so this and this are just as valuable and can be swapped out at any time." A small rectangular chip of silver took just as much effort to make as that basket or oranges. So, this piece of silver can represent those oranges.
However, in the end that piece of silver is not an orange at all, so it's just an IOU system that relies on the concept of prepay ability. Basically when I trade that gold for that wood, that guy is trading that wood for that gold. It's just ordinary trade, like trading an apple for an orange or a mill stone for a shovel, however all value is appropriated and given a certain level of value.

Next up comes money, which is an IOU for gold standard. Basically when I hand you a dollar or euro, I am saying, I would give you this much gold or silver for that shirt, but instead I will give you this coupon so you can ask me for the gold later.
However, we all know that no one validates those coupons for gold or has gold to validate those coupons. So we just give the coupons the value of the gold, which levels the value of the goods.

So, is money bad? When abused, yes. And that's the issue: Banking. Banking takes the value of the dollar and separates it from the value of the good or silver it represents. Im not talking banking as in just storing cash, I'm referring to things like loans and interest and digital money. A bank can loan such an amount of money out, that is not restrained to how much money it actually has in hand (or more so it is, but basically it's just generating money from nothing in the end). This ruins money.

>the idea of money has some flaws THEREFORE we should do everything for free Q.E.D.
>conflating the ideas of money, currency, exchange of goods, exchange of services
REEEEEEEEE

it crashed the Islamic world when it was implemented

>flaws
>so?
kek

Yes, that's definitely the audience you would expect on a science board.

A system where you are given tokens of appreciation for your time and effort that can be traded for things you want and need.

Sounds pretty damn good if you ask me. Get out of here you damn commie, if every job pays the same or not at all, for what reason will anyone do the hard ones?

Allow me to translate: I meant that, while I somewhat agree with OP's premise, I found his argument lacking, and his conclusion stupid. I've just thought that meme arrows and "REEEE" would convey the idea more succinctly.

The monetary system isn't an ideological concept.

It is an extension of our evolutionarily programmed behaviour, merely seasoned by the environment.

We are not programed to be altruistic in a domain general manner.

Human altruism is domain specific; hence you’re likely to pay for your children’s college educations but not your neighbours’ kids’, even if you had the money.

That’s not to say that things like this don’t happen, because they do; however, they happen rarely.

We are programmed to engage in reciprocal altruism; that is, you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.

We are also social primates who inevitably live in social hierarchies; in fact, social dominance is typically determined within seconds of two individuals meeting.

Society being based around the will of the socially dominant is therefore no surprise either.

The monetary system is just a developmental extension of the barter system, which is based on reciprocal altruism and complimentary mechanisms corresponding to fairness, value and cheater detection to name a few.

The disparity of wealth and power in society is merely a reflection of our nature as social primates.

So, could a better, more equal, less wasteful and more productive societal model exist?

In theory, yes.

In practice, it's doubtful.

Everything makes sense and the Jews didn’t do it.

>muh gold standard
>loans and interest and credit/debt are bad

You sum kinda red communist or somethin'?

You are not the first one to think this. The problem with a place without economics or money is that it soon transforms into communism where everybody gets the same thing. There will always be a group of people who want to disturb the peace of the place. Therefore, it is very unlikely that a place like this would ever exist in a selfish world like ours.

I think the problem are banks. After having made so many loans, there is more debt to be paid than resorces available so they somehow own us all . A better system would have to be one in which the few cant own most of the money, but i havent been thinking about this problem enough to have a solution. Money is a must as people will not contribute if there isnt the probability of a loss.

>muh strawman
loans in general =/= fractional reserves

I wasn't paying homage to gold standard. I was explaining its impact. Your rebuttal is implying that it did not exist. It did. You are either blatantly refusing to acknowledge history and economics, or didn't read what I said clearly.

The only argument I provided is that the banks are ruining the monetary system by giving out loans of money that doesn't exist.
If you want the economic system I harp on, it's the current monetary system; only without loans, credit, interest, monetary welfare, and pulling cash out of practically nothing. The monetary system is genius, it just needs a bit of a do-over.

> this ruins money
Sounds pretty pro-gold standard to me.

> what is modern economics
> who was Keynes

then a lot of things would need to be standardized, so everyone house would be the same so a robot can fix it, clean it, etc

it would be some kind of robotic communism though.....

>What if we set up a website community dedicated to figuring out how to make a world work without money?

thevenusproject.com/
Go there and join the armchair utopia futurists OP.

how can you help

> donate


........

How old are you? I'm guessing 15-ish?

You just described communism, and yes it's possible granted that nobody gets greedy, which they will. So it really only works in small communities and would never be viable as a state run operating without loss of freedoms.

didn't marx get mad at stirner?

I'm sorry, I don't know who that is.

look him up, he influenced Nietzsche and pissed off Marx, he was an anarchist.

I'm fine with money as long as intellectual property is not allowed to exist. One can take credit for an idea, one can use it, but it crosses the line when one charges another for the use of an idea. It's a pretty parasitic practice.

Could you point me to where he pissed off Marx?

not sure where exactly. but I heard marx wrote more words in response to max than he wrote in his entire career.

>Could you point me to where he pissed off Marx?

He pissed off Marx in general in the book The Ego and it's Own, because he criticized dialectics and the ideological underpinnings of the communists.

Marx wrote an essay in response called Sankt Max.

IP laws exist to encourage people to innovate. Current incarnations are twisted, but without any at all things would be a lot more stagnant.

people who will innovate need no encouragement, it is a scam.

And why should that be the case?

the problem is not the representation of value (money) but the way we evaluate.

Inflation should be a mechanism of the past

>people who will innovate need no encouragement
In that case just run a technology company that has a cost-free R&D department. That will give you a significant edge over the competition, just do it man.

Religion, philosophy and mathematics

Do you know nothing?

>Religion, philosophy
Oh yeah, really useful innovations. Essential in manufacturing process.

*tips fedora*

THE BIBLE is all you need.

>Still not reading what I'm saying.
I'm almost certain that you're a computer that just insults anyone who uses the term "Gold Standard." The only thing that makes me think otherwise is the captcha. I will still make this comment though in hopes that I am wrong, and you are just a human. If you are, you are a very stupid human. I have trust that you can read knowing that you can write. Read the damn post before making inferences about what another human thinks.