-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is there anything that can replace money ?
- Thread starter chinu
- Start date
Perfect automation could replace it. We currently could achieve this with the technology we have. Basically what you need is a powerful development team and lots of investment. You create a system that can make whatever a family or town requires as well as recycle or destroy waste, and you make that system able to duplicate itself automatically. We could do this. Each family or town could produce whatever it needed.
There are resource limitations. Certain resources would have to be traded, but you could manage those without money. You'd still need some kind of trade.
People would still want to travel, so you could piggyback the trade on that, theoretically. Towns could send trade delegations to get the, say, Cobalt, copper, etc that they needed while sending away things that they had in excess.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Gandhi had a scheme like that. He termed it as 'Gram Swaraj' (Independence of the village). The idea has nearly died with him.
Webinar on Mahatma Gandhi: Vision of Gram Swaraj | GANDHI SMRITI AND DARSHAN SAMITI | Government of India
Webinar on Mahatma Gandhi: Vision of Gram Swaraj | GANDHI SMRITI AND DARSHAN SAMITI | Government of India
Barter worked for thousands of years. To a small extent still does.
Heyo
Veteran Member
It is hard to replace money in a capitalist society. Replace capitalism and the need for money vanishes.
Only if you could come up with a government that could provide for everyone's need.
I doubt any form of government is capable of this.
Money allows for a freer exchange of product/needs.
Credit cards.
Electronic records of 'generic value'.
The general idea of money, as an independent trading unit, was a advance on barter, where you could only exchange if both people wanted what the other offered. Having *something* that is independent of actual exchanged goods is a step towards a more useful economy.
Since that is ultimately what 'money' is, I find it a good thing and not a bad thing.
And it isn't only in capitalist economies that this holds. It would be hard to say that the kingdom of Phrygia (where tradition said that money was invented (falsely, but still)) was capitalist in the modern sense, but it found money to be very useful for trade.
Heyo
Veteran Member
That's still money, electronic money. It has all the features of "real" money, only on steroids. It can be created from nothing, it can have fetish character, it is self replicating, it is power.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I actually see a credit system someday that will replace money altogether. A worldwide cashless system.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I think its what we are headed toward.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Not if I can fight it. It is the wet dream of the bankers. Being able to cut you off of your money with a keystroke. Combine that with a "social credit system" like in China and the abilities of western surveillance (like the banks would have when every transaction goes through their computers) and you have an authoritarian system that would be very hard to fight.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
It will still be money in a new guise.
You're just describing money....but a more cumbersome version.
This is why government loves electronic money. It can
be easily tracked, unlike cash. This is why the fed requires
banks to report cash deposits over $10k/year to the IRS.
And if you don't deposit it all at once, they call it the crime
of "structuring", & might swoop in to take all your money.
In the news...
Community banks must engage customers on new IRS reporting mandates
Perhaps we might have a Credit (and Debit) system - as to the good or bad one might do, and regarding other people, the planet, and anything else seen as appropriate, so that overall it is the net contribution or drain one has or does (however perceived) that allows one to buy, do whatever, as one might want. A rather controlling future if such came about no doubt and not to the taste of so many who might vehemently oppose anything like this. 
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Money is hard to displace, however a cashless society would have advantages, as all deposits would be traceable.
Accumulation of "money" is where most of the problems arise, While to a large extent lump sums help investment but hinder circulation.
Circulation is essential to the over all prosperity of a society.
It would be interesting if money like food had a shelf life if not kept in circulation.
If all deposited money balances transferred to a government investment bank after three years..
There would be no point in anyone establishing vast unused wealth, and such a system could most likely do away with taxes altogether.
Cash would always available for all government needs including social needs, infrastructure and pensions and for loans to entrepreneurs
The super wealthy would have to continue to use, spend or reinvest their incomes for the benefit of everyone. Static financial investments and transactions, with no product or service, would revert to the government like all unused money.
Accumulation of "money" is where most of the problems arise, While to a large extent lump sums help investment but hinder circulation.
Circulation is essential to the over all prosperity of a society.
It would be interesting if money like food had a shelf life if not kept in circulation.
If all deposited money balances transferred to a government investment bank after three years..
There would be no point in anyone establishing vast unused wealth, and such a system could most likely do away with taxes altogether.
Cash would always available for all government needs including social needs, infrastructure and pensions and for loans to entrepreneurs
The super wealthy would have to continue to use, spend or reinvest their incomes for the benefit of everyone. Static financial investments and transactions, with no product or service, would revert to the government like all unused money.
Yes, but if your goal is no money this is your way-point, and it could be where we are headed anyway. Its the most pleasant situation I can imagine in which the utility of money decreases.
Money is any system that distributes representations of value.
The only way I see to avoid it is direct bartering. But that's so
inefficient that it would paralyze & destroy the economy.
Attempts have been made to barter using credit for value, but
this too functions as money.
Yes, it would paralyze and destroy the economy, unless the economy were already useless.
@chinu
Money is a tool for good and for benefit, right now, today. Having a little money makes you part owner of everything, and you can always trade that since there is always someone who will want it from you.
Suppose someone is begging by the door as strangers pass, and we do not know what they need. What is more useful to give them as we walk past: 10 dollars or a baseball cap? The 10$ will help them more than the hat, because it can be used to buy different things. Unless they specifically need a hat or know someone that will trade them what they need for the hat, the gift of a hat is not very helpful. The hat is the world before money. Its a world with no options except trade and a lot of luck. The 10$ they can always trade or save or use to get food.
It's a good premise to assume that the economy is useful.
Barter...
What could I possibly offer to an aluminum supplier for my
6061-T6511 needs? I don't really have anything they'd need.
But with money, I just find what I need on ebay, & use PayPal
to clinch the deal. Easy as pie. I like pie.