This is a genuine question!
Is money a good idea? As we build a new world in the rotting husk of the old, what purpose does money serve? And is that purpose good?
Discussion
Loading...
Lots of people want to replicate cash.
I understand why! Commerce is essential to a lot of modern life, and the existence of cash is part of what gives governments their power.
But it is very difficult to create a medium of exchange without power, and without the threat of violence.
Most attempts to do so are doomed, and even if they weren't, are they a good idea?
This is a genuine question!
Is money a good idea? As we build a new world in the rotting husk of the old, what purpose does money serve? And is that purpose good?
@ajroach42 You are trying to get at this in #JupitersGhost right? A post-scarcity world that still has greedy people trying to make money, for some reason.
Would it make sense to not think about it in all or nothing? Like, what areas can we remove money from the equation?
How many people & types of jobs would be needed to have a fully closed system?
How many for the basics to be bartered?
@ajroach42 A great question. I think of money as an abstraction later for exchange of goods, services, and resources.
There's a second, similar abstraction layer in our civilization: roads.
They both facilitate arbitrary transfer of goods/services/resources.
We could conceivably replace money with a new unit that represents allowed time for traveling on roads, and we'd all be better off[citation needed].
What is money?
One could say money is a mechanism for the allocation of goods and services, but if that's all it is, it is poorly suited for purpose.
In practice, money is an analog for power and a mechanism for enforcing scarcity and justifying violence.
If money is a tool for mediating scarcity, which I think is what most people think money should be for, what other mechanisms could we use to fulfil the same purpose?
Why do we need money?
@ajroach42 I have quite a well developed internal model of what I convince money as being, but I unfortunately completely lack the language to describe it.
I can quite easily hypothesise a system which does not use it, but it presupposes a world which spontaneously came into being with more or less current technology with no cultural baggage, which is of course an absurd presupposition.
@ajroach42 It's hard because money is an abstraction that is both incredibly useful and an amplifier of the worst human impulses.
I've long found it fascinating that wealth can be measured in money that does not actually exist. As of December 31, 2024 there were 55.4 billion US dollars in various denominations in circulation, which is just 1/10th of Elon Musk's supposed net worth. I guess scarcity is necessary to maintain the accepted value.
To me the biggest issue with money (or maybe wealth?) is when it goes out of circulation. That's the reason trickle-down economics is bullshit and why my state's not having an income tax means we're constantly struggling to fund things. By definition wealthy people accumulate wealth.
So then I start thinking about things like expiring money. When wealth is accumulated it gets actual recorded money assigned and that's the only money it can be converted to. But that money has an expiration date and if it's not converted by that date then the wealth becomes non-fungible forever and loses its value.
It's probably insanely impractical and would require a level of centralized control that means it would probably get co-opted and used for evil, just like everything.
@ajroach42 it might be the best worst option, or the worst best option, but ideally it’s just supposed to be the efficient way to exchange. Like if I have extra potatos i grew and you have extra carrots you grew we can work out a trade and both have potato-carrot stew. But in a larger community, or across several small nearby communities, figuring out trade becomes complicated. But then the whole government backed thing, I dunno man. I’m not saying I agree with all this.
@ajroach42 I've heard some explanations of money, one goes if you had an army how did you feed and house them (without straight up taking the stuff). You told people that farmed the land that they now had to pay this thing called taxes with this thing called money that only the state could make. Where did these farmers get this money? Well the state just so happened to give it to their soldiers that you could sell food to. (this of course just displaced the violence)
The rejection of money seems to be a step too far, even for a lot of leftists to envision. And while, it will take generations to achieve because we've been acculturated towards excessive accumulation for the sake of accumulation: I do think reaching a money-less society should be our long term goal.
Otherwise, I just don't see an escape from reducing people to their ends as we see in a market based economy.
@lordbowlich @ajroach42 I don’t know how this would work and I know I’m not the only person to come up with this. Far smarter people will tell me how bad this idea is. But many years ago I thought “what if money deteriorated if you didn’t spend it?” I don’t mean taxes that take it away and put it somewhere else. I mean like if you have a $1 and you hold on to it for too long (length to be determined by, again, smarter people than me) it disappears. But if you spend it, it refreshes.
@ajroach42 im currently reading Debt by David Graeber to try to understand this exact thing better
@djsf graeber has some interesting ideas. We disagree pretty often, but usually only mechanically.