What alternative(s) are there to money, to help improve the lot of the majority?

Question

Star Trek creator Mr. Gene Roddenberry R.I.P. had a future Earth based on a global community with no money or method of 'fair' exchange, because there was no need.

Such a preposterous situation is, I think, wholly unrealistic, unreasonable and unrealisable without radical advances in technology and political will-power.

My question (above) is intended to illicit the groundwork for achieving Mr Roddenberry's prophetic vision.

Star Trek creator Mr. Gene Roddenberry R.I.P. had a future Earth based on a global community with no money or method of 'fair' exchange, because there was no need.

Such a preposterous situation is, I think, wholly unrealistic, unreasonable and unrealisable without radical advances in technology and political will-power.

My question (above) is intended to elicit the groundwork for achieving Mr Roddenberry's prophetic vision.

(Sorry folks, "illicit" and "elicit" sounds tha same in my daft Scottish accent:)))

Answer 1

I don't see why finding a replacement to money would improve the lot of the majority. I think that notes and coins will eventually disappear.

Answer 2

I think society could come along way if we'd do away with the symbolism of money. Everyone knows that crude oil is really what society is based on these days, and gold deposits provide a measure of control. Therefore, we should stop using copper, silver and amalgam coins that have no such inherent purpose. We should use coins made of oil, or maybe a distillate such as plastic, and golden notes for the high-rollers. It would make shopping interesting again, even for men. When we're all out of oil though (a decade or three from now) I imagine the gold will be devalued quickly too.

We'll then change to water, wind and wood perhaps. So you'll be squirting and spitting across the teller, farting to tip a waiter and using a bat or stick on anyone asking for more. On the plus side, there'll be no need for wallets anymore.

Answer 3

If you don't want to do it by making money and using the money, you'll need to do it with your bare hands. Read "Pay It Forward" (can't remember the author)


Alternatives to money (incidentally, Star Trek (to my dismay) introduced a form of currency called "Gold Pressed Latinum" or some such rubbish. Humph! So much for a non-money based system!) is essentially Barter/Trade

Money is an extension of Barter/Trade so that we can keep track of who has provided what good(s) or service(s). Any specific good or service has some form of value (or no value) and many are undervalued (and some excessively overvalued).

If you want to get away from the Barter/Trade system completely, then you are looking at some interesting ideas

The underlying ideas of communism espouse that the community has enough productivity to provide for itself and to produce an excess. (The troubles here tend to be that humans are lazy sods and muck up communism something terrible - see how much they muck up capitalism!) - so perhaps a communal lifestyle not related to money. You'll see this sort of thing in selfsufficient communities, but it comes back to what I said before - you'll have to do it with your hands.

Answer 4

Have a look at happiness studies (Layard). He argues that the increase in wealth does not lead to increases in happiness, it is the comparative wellbeing that counts. Take the case of Sweden, their people rank the happiest in the world happiness index.
So, that casts some hope for building theory that the humans are not just rational economic agents as Adam Smith said and money is not the resulting method of exchange, since it does not necesarily make people happier. All people need is to feel superior, apparently. I agree its unrealistic, but hopefully it will illicit the groundwork for that proposition?

Answer 5

One possibility is to revert to a gold-backed monetary system where money has a "real" worth, not just faith in the government. I believe this is a rather unrealistic solution, simply because the USA doesn't have any gold anymore (some, but very little.) I believe money is the best solution, though, better than a system of bartering. In bartering, everything still has a standard worth - three ducks to one goat, for instance. Deriving this standard worth is very difficult, but it can be done. Trade becomes immensely complex without a monetary system in place, and forget performing transactions over long distances (how could you order something online? promise to e-mail a dozen chickens?)

The best way to help the majority is to stop trying to help the majority. Anytime a government steps into the complex world of negotiations and mutual exchange, it creates inefficiencies and barriers to trade, which in the long run decrease everyone's quality of life; that is, quality of life is lower than where it could be, not necessarily lower than its starting point. By allowing people to go about voluntary exchanges, you create the best possible environment for people to make their own decisions as to how best to help themselves.

Answer 6

Money was never a way to improve the lot of the majority. Productivity was. If a society as a whole can produce more, it can consume more. There is, of course, that pesky distribution issue; if the society as a whole consumes more, it may not mean that everyone gets to consume more. So if you want to improve the lot of the majority, you need to worry about productivity and income distribution.

In one of his short stories, Robert Sheckley describes a society where people don't need or have to work, because most of the work is done by machines and everyone can get more or less everything they need for free. Businesses operate only because elected officials and office candidates pay them for promoting them to customers who vote.

Answer 7

There is nothing inherently wrong with the use of money; money isn't what oppresses the majority.

Money is just a medium, rather than exchanging my services for a loaf of bread plus a slide of cheese, I can exchange them for money and then may be use the money for a piece of cake, instead of looking for someone willing to exchange cake for bread and cheese.

The key to your solution is found in your question "political will-power".

The reason why African farmers are unable to get close to what you pay for a cob of corn at the supermarket for their corn is trade barriers due to politics. It has nothing to do with money, the developed countries simply put barriers to trade, in fact maintaining these differences, oppressing the majority.

Political will power would also be required to allow companies to move effortlessly across borders to bring wealth to areas with less wealth today. Today developed country workers are paid much more to do the same job that someone in another country could do as well but for less. In fact too many resources are being given to the developed country worker; that keeps the majority of other workers down. (I speak from experience, having parts of my role outsourced).

Extra-ordinary political will-power would be required to flatten barriers to immigration. Once people can move across national borders, then the wages paid for the same job should be almost the same across the world. With free movement of goods and services and capital highlighted above, then the prices of goods would be similar.

We'd end up in a world where everyone doing the same type of job would get the same wages.

Furthermore, the disparity in wages should drop. The CEOs in the US for example get much more than CEOs in Europe and even more than CEOs in Asia. Today we see outsourcing for low to middle paying jobs, when will we see that for top-paying jobs too? Never, no CEO will decide himself out of a job. But as people can move easier and information flows better, the most excessively paid CEOs will see their excesses curbed.

Overall, if you are in a developed country, wages will fall with top wages falling by much more, narrowing the gap between the majority and minority. Furthermore, as prices fall too, then the standards of living of the majority should not be affected too much: earn less, but pay less for what you use, so you can afford the same things. If you are in a poorer country then, wages will increase.

There will always be barriers so this integration will not be perfect. Barriers such a culture, preferences... But eradication of the artificial barriers to movements of goods, services, capital, and people require will-power but would improve the lot of the majority.

Then we will really have a global community.

Answer 8

Support

Answer 9

There is no alternative to money.Communisam based on value theory of labour failed to eleminate money.Even if the entirewealth of world is distributed among all equally on a date,since abilities vary,skill vary ,after sometime you will have somebody more rich than others.Fair exchange theory also fails because there is no common parameters to determine what isFAIR.The majority is not aware of their rights and as such they remain poor.Only solution to improve majority seems to be educating them regarding rights,imparting skills and guiding them.

Answer 10

You could go on the ideology that if you need something, trade something else you've got for it.

I want a portable media player with usb and avi connection. I'll trade you a dirty pair of knickers and a playstation one console if you can get me one.

Is that a fair swap?