A world without money?

[Christophe]

Ah! Everything is explained! I thought you were softening ... you reassure me.
Le R. Bohringer mixes everything up a bit and it is all the same the debt which, far from bringing all peoples * to their knees, irrigates the economy (I place myself here from the point of view of the immanent criticism which is that of the one you quote).

Is that so ? Private debt and legal persons would not easily irrigate the economy? You do not think ?

Say that public private debt allows the monetary creation and the irrigation of the economy it is fallacy ... because it is quite the reverse in fine. See the laffer curve ...

ps: I have to reassure nobody ... I reassure you!

[eclectron]

I have nothing against a world without money, but I still do not understand on what basis we distribute the rights to consumption. If you don't like exotic wood verandas like the man in the video, let's talk about the car: who do you give a car to, on what basis, and of what power / size / etc .....?

Do you read what I answer you?

yes, and I still haven't understood the answer.

what did you not understand?

Who is going to worry about harvesting oranges, bananas, cocoa, and having them transported to distant countries which do not have them, if he does not gain anything by doing so? and who will transport them elsewhere?

We can imagine a lot of alternatives to do without.

we can consider cultivation here, in a greenhouse. it will obviously be rarer here.

One can imagine that these distant countries offer their fruits to the world and the world offers them other goods or services that interest them. These fruits will obviously be rarer here.

We can consider going to cultivate there and provide transport, always with this perspective "to work for good".
Why not a kind of voluntary civic service, to see the country?

and then we must not forget about RCA, culture will soon be possible here

[ABC2019]

Do you read what I answer you?

yes, and I still haven't understood the answer.

what did you not understand?

I did not understand on what basis we made the distribution of property. Each time I took an example, you and Guy replied "we will do without". It is sure that if we do without everything apart from what we can produce in our field or at a pinch barter with our neighbor, we probably do not need money. But do you know how to weave clothes? who will do it for you, and always the same question, who will decide how many clothes you are entitled to?
Distributions by the state, we tested that in the Soviet Union, and we saw the result: generalized shortage and corruption and privileges for the members of the party who lived the good life.

[eclectron]

I did not understand on what basis we made the distribution of property.
Each time I took an example, you and Guy replied "we will do without" ..

It's wrong I got you re answered here society-and-philosophy / a-world-without-money-t16779-20.html # p434461
so this will be the third time now

But do you know how to weave clothes? who will do it for you, and always the same question, who will decide how many clothes you are entitled to? .

Above plus there, "answer to ABC": society-and-philosophy / a-world-without-money-t16779-20.html # p434469
2 times...

Distributions by the state, we tested that in the Soviet Union, and we saw the result: generalized shortage and corruption and privileges for the members of the party who lived the good life.

One thing will have escaped you, it was a regime of terror (so a lot of information hidden under the carpet to save his skin) and generalized computing did not exist. The "real time" that computing offered was impossible. Computing can replace the informative role of price via supply and demand.

The world evolves....

[ABC2019]

I did not understand on what basis we made the distribution of property.
Each time I took an example, you and Guy replied "we will do without" ..

It's wrong I got you re answered here society-and-philosophy / a-world-without-money-t16779-20.html # p434461

yes but I did not understand why the producers would increase their production if it does not make them gain anything.

In fact, I don't even understand why we would tire of producing stuff for people we don't even know. Why would we tire of working on construction sites, cultivating the fields, going down into the mines, when in any case we have so much chance of winning the draw if we take it easy?

[Ahmed]

Eclectron, you write:

[Ahmed wrote:
1) Coins and banknotes are non-nominal IOUs
(2) since they have no intrinsic value). .
I don't understand either 1 or 2 . Can you say the same thing more simply and explaining?

Ahmed wrote:
What fools you is your focus on money creation. If you managed to disregard it, you would realize that it does not change the current functioning since it is not the primary cause of growth ....

In fact it is. A business is created to make a living, to make money.

1) With a 10 € uros note or coin that I give for something, I acknowledge my debt for this amount; as it is not nominal, that is to say that it does not bear my signature and that it is not only addressed to the one to whom I have given it directly, the latter will be able to do the same with another person, etc.
2) the coin or banknote costs a little to produce, but only a small fraction of the face value will be taken into account; in the case of an accounting transaction (which concerns most of the currency) it suffices to enter an amount in one account and deduct it from another, it is even simpler. I deduce that money has no intrinsic value. This was already true for metallic currencies since, of course their value depended on the work of extraction, but if the precious metals were extracted it was only because a particular company arbitrarily attributed a value to it and not because it was. would have had one objectively.

On the third point, your answer has nothing to do with what I am saying and therefore does not oppose it ...
Further:

Ahmed wrote:
For ABC: suppressing money supposes suppressing labor and commodities.

It does not suppress human activity, nor goods and services, because we must continue to live.

Activity is characteristic of all living beings, work is specific to certain civilizations and what we now call work corresponds to a reality specific to our social synthesis. Growing carrots seems independent of the external context and yet the same actions can relate to completely different realities depending on the goals pursued. The suppression of work is therefore not an apology for general laziness ...

[eclectron]

yes but I did not understand why the producers would increase their production if it does not make them gain anything.

To have the satisfaction of being of service and of working for the good of humanity, (if that speaks to you?):
the expertly programmed computer system, or an AI, reports to each producer that it would be good for him to increase his production by so much and provides him with a list of unsatisfied and nearby applicants.
The 2 parts will be reciprocally put in relation.
A human relationship will ensue.
So you don't work for anonymous people and you don't work for money, you serve human beings, a priori grateful (otherwise you only do it once). The "customer" has an interest in being nice if not nobody gives him anything and so does the "seller" because otherwise no one gives him anything when he is a "customer".

Let's say that in a geographical area, “cicadas” decide to take a sun lounger 24 hours a day and take advantage of the system.
When the north wind comes, they'll knock on the ants' door.
Will follow a human exchange between the two. The ants, even very nice, will not agree to help the cicadas ad vitam aeternam. An empowerment of the cicadas should logically follow and then the cicadas are supposed to be adults.
This kind of problem should appear during the transition, but once the system has been honed through practice and education, increased individual accountability will follow. It should roll.

As for mines, hard work, it is the lack of resources that would motivate people to devote themselves.
In addition, there is every interest in robotizing this kind of tasks as much as possible.
The economy being calmer, since there is no longer this race for money, resources will be consumed less, which will minimize the demand for mining products. No doubt recycling, less painful than mining, will be favored.

No doubt we will think twice before making an office building.
Is it really useful?
I mean by that that requests which seem natural to you in the world of money, since we must give ourselves the means to "make money" will no longer have any meaning, or a different meaning, in the world of money. world without money.

[eclectron]

Further:

Ahmed wrote:
For ABC: suppressing money supposes suppressing labor and commodities.

It does not suppress human activity, nor goods and services, because we must continue to live.

Activity is characteristic of all living beings, ... The suppression of work is therefore not the apology of general laziness ...

I wrote this for ABC's simplistic and refractory mind.
Thank you for clarifying

[Ahmed]

Since it is for the education of simplistic minds, we might as well add a layer: not only is the activity specific to all living beings to satisfy the needs linked to their metabolism, but beyond this utilitarian aspect, this activity needs to unfold for itself: it is a need in its own right, the practice of which generates pleasure.

[ABC2019]

yes but I did not understand why the producers would increase their production if it does not make them gain anything.

To have the satisfaction of being of service and of working for the good of humanity, (if that speaks to you?):

So according to you the vast majority of the human population is ready to exhaust themselves at work, and to take risks in dangerous jobs such as miners, farmers, lumberjacks, sailors, workers on construction sites, without deriving any personal benefit and for the good of mankind?

I do not share this opinion. And without these professions, the whole of society collapses.