[Snagprophet]

People are not willing to give value away without something in return. It's basic trading.

[dandarsford]

OK, so in societies without money, people don't kill, rape, steal or actions generally considered immoral? lol....

People who do bad things act as such (IMO) for the following reasons:

- Coercion
- Personality
- Acting in accordance with social norms
- For kicks/fun

The OP mentions native Americans, but even in Pre-Columbian societies, they used to enslave other tribes or engage in warfare. I think with more advanced knowledge of psychology, we know what causes evil acts.

[Superlogon]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Because we're increasingly using digital credit, rather than cash.

But thats cash you've put into a bank account... i think the point OP was making was could we live without money, in its paper or digital form. i.e trading produce etc.

[minthumbugs]

because soviet Russia did it so well the last time..

[Ewan]

I think maybe eventually yes. When we get to the stage where most goods are essentially free (which won't be long, 1-200 years at the max) people won't need to buy anything. Robots will perform most menial tasks, and people will only work on projects that they actually enjoy. Believe it or not there are a lot of people who work because they want to work. If you didn't work, what would you do all day? Even retired people at times work voluntarily because they enjoy it.

Although saying that, there will still be some kind of currency, only it won't be the same kind as we have now. You won't need to go to the store & buy food for instance, and you won't need to pay rent. There will always be certain products that are in limited supply though, and will require some kind of currency to acquire.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Superlogon)
But thats cash you've put into a bank account.

Mostly it's bank-created credit that other banks are willing to accept as if it was cash. But it has no physical backing to it in paper.

i think the point OP was making was could we live without money, in its paper or digital form. i.e trading produce etc.

Well that's a lot vaguer than you think. You're assuming the 'barter theory of money', which most economists since Adam Smith have propounded, despite it being debunked. There have been plenty of societies discovered that hadn't invented money, but zero of them were found bartering. They generally had some form of 'gift economy', and this seems to be how pretty much all societies started. Later, they quantatively defined the gifts and kept records of them, and that's how credit arose. Physical money like coins came along later when kings started taxing to fund armies.

[Belowski]

(Original post by minthumbugs)
because soviet Russia did it so well the last time..

As I mentioned earlier, Communism is just one of the monetary systems that have failed and the question was would it be possible for a money-less society to work.

[dandarsford]

(Original post by Ewan)
I think maybe eventually yes. When we get to the stage where most goods are essentially free (which won't be long, 1-200 years at the max) people won't need to buy anything. Robots will perform most menial tasks, and people will only work on projects that they actually enjoy. Believe it or not there are a lot of people who work because they want to work. If you didn't work, what would you do all day? Even retired people at times work voluntarily because they enjoy it.

Although saying that, there will still be some kind of currency, only it won't be the same kind as we have now. You won't need to go to the store & buy food for instance, and you won't need to pay rent. There will always be certain products that are in limited supply though, and will require some kind of currency to acquire.

How can goods be free if a cost is associated in producing them? Raw materials need to extracted, robots maintained, etc.

Wouldn't we need an entirely new economic system for a non-currency based model to work?

[Ewan]

(Original post by dandarsford)
How can goods be free if a cost is associated in producing them? Raw materials need to extracted, robots maintained, etc.

Wouldn't we need an entirely new economic system for a non-currency based model to work?

I mean essentially free, just like aluminium cans today are essentially free. Although there may still be a cost associated with large quantities, the cost to the consumer will be practically nothing. Conversely Aluminium was once more expensive than gold before the discovery of electrolysis. I think we'll still have currency but most things today that cost money won't do in the near future, that's for sure.

[Beneb]

(Original post by london-buddy)
I think the most annoying thing about money is that it looses value, and also the fact that people are allowed to buy unlimited properties with it ?

There is nothing inherent about 'money' that makes it lose value. In fact, historically exchange mediums have emerged due to their ability to retain value over long periods of time (see gold and silver). Fiat money loses value because governments create money out of thin air which they use to fund their operations. This devalues the worth of any single unit of money.

[Beneb]

(Original post by Ewan)
x

These comments are pretty much spot on. In a post-scarcity society money really is useless, because its function - acting as an exchange medium in order to allow prices and costs to be calculated - becomes useless. I don't know if anyone's read Iain Banks' Culture novels, but they provide a pretty good example of what a post-scarcity, moneyless society might look like.

However, while we still have to economize resources, money is indispensible.

[Superlogon]

(Original post by anarchism101)
Mostly it's bank-created credit that other banks are willing to accept as if it was cash. But it has no physical backing to it in paper.



Well that's a lot vaguer than you think. You're assuming the 'barter theory of money', which most economists since Adam Smith have propounded, despite it being debunked. There have been plenty of societies discovered that hadn't invented money, but zero of them were found bartering. They generally had some form of 'gift economy', and this seems to be how pretty much all societies started. Later, they quantatively defined the gifts and kept records of them, and that's how credit arose. Physical money like coins came along later when kings started taxing to fund armies.

very interesting!

[minthumbugs]

(Original post by Belowski)
As I mentioned earlier, Communism is just one of the monetary systems that have failed and the question was would it be possible for a money-less society to work.

fair enough. I don't see a perfect solution though? Wouldn't people just find something else that acted the same as money

[Rhadamanthus]

Economic caluclation problem.

/argument.

[Zoarial]

This is not by any means a simple question that can be answered on TSR.

The short answer is yes, however to explain how it would work you would have to re-explain society from the ground up, because our current society is built on the principle of money and as a result, artificial scarcity.

I've written a lot of information on a thread under something called a resource based economy on here, which has a tonne of links in it, however, you have to keep a very open mind, its taken me a year to get my head around all aspects of it because its like learning the world around you all over again, some things that sound absurd at first actually make a lot of sense.

Anyone who tries to give you a definitive answer on here is very short sighted and ignorant of the complexity of such a question and you should look into it yourself before taking anything anyone says seriously, even me

[Nick100]

Money is just a proxy for resources; unless you can somehow run a resource free society (and you can't) then running a money free society is pointless.

[Ex Death]

Lol @ people equating a money-free system to socialism/communism.

A money free society has already been thought up by a guy called Jacque Fresco in his work on The Venus Project (look it up). He proposes that in the somewhat distant future automation could replace all human labour so that jobs are now non existent. He proposes a resource based economy which means that everyone on the planet would be equal and have full access to food, water and energy. There is more than sufficient renewable energy harvesting potential on the planet to satisfy all 7 billion people and more - the only reason we are not seeing it is because renewable energy is inefficient relative to profit incentives and also because of the existing oil based energy monopoly - a product of corrupt capitalist forces. Get rid of money and you can harvest all the renewable energy in the world. The technology is there. All goods and services would be freely distributable and abundant. People would 'borrow' items they need/want because there is absolutely no real need to 'own' anything.

There is more than enough food production capability in the world. Why do 35000 children die of starvation a day? Because they can't afford it. Why? Because of our current corrupt capitalist monetary system. Get rid of money and you can feed everyone on the planet and more.

People would be free to do whatever they want rather than succumbing to working like slaves in jobs they hate for the majority of their lives as is the case now.

[anarchism101]

(Original post by Superlogon)
very interesting!

I'd recommend David Graeber's 'Debt: The First 5,000 Years' if you're interested in finding out more. There's quite a few interviews and talks he's given about on youtube that give a pretty good overview if you're not sure about buying the book.

[M4LLY]

No

[subspace5000]

No. Enough said.