If the world's economy was shut down

[Fr1sket]

I've been thinking what we could do as humans if the economic side of the world was shut down - we make the posession of money useless.

If we managed to get society to understand and fully believe the idea that we are an intelligent form, created through a random process. That we are a mere blink of time amongst possibly infinity. That as intelligent beings we can collaborate together and build ourselves a paradise. We are only here for a short period of time, why can't we unite together to make it a heaven on earth? Where anone and everyone can make a change in the world and make it a better place. If such a mindset were created, space travel developments would suddenly explode. Poverty and the worlds diseases would be completely removed. We'd simply collaborate in order to keep building a better life for ourselves. Everything to satisfy our every need and desire.

It's really a rather sad reality :\

[Fan of Science]

We would most likely all die off. You have a shallow conception of economics. For example, the reason why the USSR collapsed was because it is impossible, over the long run, to efficiently utilize resources without some price mechanism in effect. Go ahead and get rid of all our economic structures, and you'll see massive riots and chaos.

[Alias]

Economies don't usually collapse because of inefficiency or incorrect ideology. They collapse for one of three reasons: external attack, climate change or internal corruption.
Since many of the world's nations today are facing all three of those situations, and all economies are interconnected, we'll soon find out what happens in case of a domino-effect collapse.

[Ranvier]

Life is a constant change, nothing in our universe can be static. Change can occur gradually over extended period of time, such as in evolution of species, or more instantaneously such as in an event of war or cataclysm. It all depends on the difference between two states and how fast that difference is achieved. If the difference is significant, then such change inevitably would be destructive in nature. Abolishing the monetary economic system is a significant change that could be accomplished as a gradual well designed conscious process or it could be the result of sudden economic collapse that doesn't necessarily equate with elimination of the monetary system, as given in the example of USSR. A sudden shut down of all financial mechanisms would inevitably result in destructive chaos until such mechanisms were restored or another mechanism would emerge in its place. We all know that the monetary system is "evil" but no one was ever able to propose a better mechanism for management of resources and labor.

[Alias]

. We all know that the monetary system is "evil" but no one was ever able to propose a better mechanism for management of resources and labor.

Several other mechanisms have not only been proposed but had been in in effect for millennia before the invention of money. They worked variously well, depending on the administration and circumstances.
Mechanism isn't the problem. Dishonesty is.
If you eliminate any one junction or interface at which dishonesty can be introduced, you reduce the inefficiency, unfairness and evil by that much. This would be my recommended approach to gradual systemic improvement, but implementing it would require a world government or functional federation of governments, that all wanted to improve the world's economy. That's not likely to come about in our lifetime - and beyond our lifetime, it's somebody else's problem.

[Rainman]

If the world economy was shut down, then we would be left with local economies and without any universal means of exchange. That means barter. If you live in a city and have no way of "paying" for anything, other than your labor, you will quickly starve. In that case, I would suggest moving to the countryside and marrying a farmer's daughter or son. Or join an armed gang and just steal everything you need.

[Ranvier]

Several other mechanisms have not only been proposed but had been in in effect for millennia before the invention of money. They worked variously well, depending on the administration and circumstances.
Mechanism isn't the problem. Dishonesty is.
If you eliminate any one junction or interface at which dishonesty can be introduced, you reduce the inefficiency, unfairness and evil by that much. This would be my recommended approach to gradual systemic improvement, but implementing it would require a world government or functional federation of governments, that all wanted to improve the world's economy. That's not likely to come about in our lifetime - and beyond our lifetime, it's somebody else's problem.

I'm interested in the specific examples of such mechanisms. What could be an alternative system to a monetary system? The only two other mechanisms are barter system or honor system, both as you mentioned are deeply conditioned by honesty. The monetary system in itself is not "evil" per se but it's twisted by the inherently corrupt financial mechanism. It's designed to be a dynamic self adjusting system conditioned upon supply and demand (in theory). In this sense, the barter system is a much better method in eliminating the third party speculation (interest rates), which is what essentially makes the financial system "evil". The honor system is too vague and as you mentioned depends on the social cooperation and honesty, quite utopian in practice.

I've given this topic more thought since my last post and I tried to imagine all the implications of what would happen as in "Mr. Robot" scenario of economic collapse. As long as the basic necessities of water, food, shelter and electricity could be provided to the population, one could imagine that order could be maintained aside from the isolated looting and vandalism. The issue becomes with the question of "property" and "ownership". I believe that there is an "Anarchy" thread in this forum that examines these concepts, which are necessary prerequisites in formulating a sound economic structure. I've actually begun to formulate a theoretical model of arranging the social structure in a different way that could accommodate a more just economic system. Perhaps I'll make a new thread once I have the framework of this system I named as Pluracrocy.

[Alias]

I'm interested in the specific examples of such mechanisms. What could be an alternative system to a monetary system? The only two other mechanisms are barter system or honor system, both as you mentioned are deeply conditioned by honesty.

We now have the capability to form a virtual exchange system, tracked and facilitated by computer - barter on a grand scale, with an honest broker, if you like.
You can have several other models of barter, say built up of smaller to larger units as trading partners. And maybe some different models for honour systems, as well.

I'll return after an appointment I must keep. TBC

-- Updated August 27th, 2017, 9:58 pm to add the following --

The monetary system in itself is not "evil" per se but it's twisted by the inherently corrupt financial mechanism.

There's more to it than just money and how it's managed. There is the whole problem of hierarchical social organization, where large swathes of population are expected to obey orders from a small elite. That means, most of the people don't even consider the possibility of autonomy, or that things could be done a different way. If they are further duped into thinking their livelihood depends on the bosses, instead of the bosses depending on them; if they're convinced that this is the way things are supposed to be, they don't even question the decisions made or the priorities set by their leaders.

It's designed to be a dynamic self adjusting system conditioned upon supply and demand (in theory).

Pssst! It's not designed at all. It just grew and proliferated and self-replicated, like a virus. Economists make up "theories" based on what they observe - that is, they describe how the economy of their time and place seems to work, but they rarely delve beneath the monetary system that they find coming into the world, and learn about in school. That's enough to get a job advising powerful people on how to deploy wealth, and powerless people in how to make a little profit on their little investment --- except when they miscalculate, and everything goes haywire, which happens at irregular intervals. You remember how, in 2009, we kept hearing "Nobody could see it coming, nobody could see it coming"... Of-bloody-course we saw it coming, for three years - longer, those who actually knew how things work - and anyone who predicted trouble was silenced.
The very, very big problem is that economics now is almost entirely about money (imaginary money, at that: projected income, profit, dividends, interest) and divorced from the real things money is meant to represent.

In this sense, the barter system is a much better method in eliminating the third party speculation (interest rates), which is what essentially makes the financial system "evil".

Certainly makes a handy vehicle for theft on a vast scale!

The honor system is too vague and as you mentioned depends on the social cooperation and honesty, quite utopian in practice.

I wouldn't quite count it out, though. How do community relations work? I mean, the moneyless sub-economy of helping a college roommate move, lending tools to a neighbour, babysitting for an acquaintance, tutoring at the local elementary school, collecting blankets for flood victims, donating clothes to the Goodwill, running errands for a shut-in, going out for a search-and-rescue - volunteering, pitching in, helping out? Without all that unpaid, unrecorded work, beyond what we do as a matter of course for family, the whole money economy would collapse anyway. Yet people don't think of that as honor-system, because they don't quantify the reward - which is community: when you need it, somebody will help you.

If we thought about the needs - real need - and desires of real people, figuring out an equitable economy wouldn't be that hard to figure out, or to keep reasonably clean.

The issue becomes with the question of "property" and "ownership".

I suspect that's not too hard to figure out, either. As long as we kept in mind what should fall within and without the category of ownables. Your house, yes. Your clothes, tools and dishes, yes. Your wife and children and, no. Other people, certainly not. The river, absolutely out of the question.
If we're sensible about ownables, we can negotiate how to share the non-ownables.

[Ranvier]

Allas

Outstanding thoughts Allas. I don't want to duplicate posts so let me refer you to another post from different thread:
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 50#p293950

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

[Alias]

Allas

Outstanding thoughts Allas. I don't want to duplicate posts so let me refer you to another post from different thread:
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 50#p293950

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

I will, tomorrow. Got to get some sleep now. Meantime: What if we based human economies on human needs?
https://simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
Hunter-gatherers were not stupid, and their way of life lasted 30-40,000 years without major change.
The mighty British empire came and went in four little centuries.
Maybe they were doing it wrong?

[Phorever]

I've been thinking what we could do as humans if the economic side of the world was shut down - we make the posession of money useless.\

The possession of money is already useless. WE ARE THERE ALREADY. Hardly anyone owns money unless you own gold. Money is not used in today's society--we use CURRENCY instead. Money has inherent value. Currency's only value is that you and others BELIEVE that you can exchange it for goods. The dollar is not worth anything in terms of paper and ink.

[-1-]

Hunter-gatherers were not stupid, and their way of life lasted 30-40,000 years without major change.
The mighty British empire came and went in four little centuries.
Maybe they were doing it wrong?

The hunter-gatherer lifestyle lasted up to 90000 years because there was no alternative. As soon as an alternative reared its beautiful head, namely cultivation of edible plants, the hunter-gatherers quit their old ways just as lickety split fast as they could.

The British Empire... well, technological change is accelerating its tempo, constantly; therefore the next empire will last 200 years, and the one after that, 50 years... in a few hundred years we'll see major empires flourish and crumble both inside five minutes or less.

The US Empire has lasted about two hundred years, and it still looks to be strong. The Russian Communist Soviet Socialist Red Bolshevik empire lasted 70 years. Chinese economy is already imploding, after a few decades of flourishing. The Andorra Empire, the San Marino Empire, the Liechtenstein Empire, and the Monaco Empire are thriving. The Vatican has been brimming with economic success for over two millennia now.

I live in a town of about 400 000 souls. Unemployment is rampant. People have a lot of free time. "To better mankind and the world," they don't play society games, or do sports, or pursue culture, or create beautiful human space. Their way of creating a better future for all mankind is to abuse street drugs. There are more and more and more dangerous-looking emaciated and dirty, unkempt elements who smoke heroin, or shoot up marijuana, or drink Carfentanil-laced crack cocaine. THIS is how mankind thinks is a way to a better future.

[Alias]

The British Empire... well, technological change is accelerating its tempo, constantly; therefore the next empire will last 200 years, and the one after that, 50 years... in a few hundred years we'll see major empires flourish and crumble both inside five minutes or less.

I doubt it. Even if they exist, we won't see them. That wasn't my point. Nor was technology, which is really just the product of human ingenuity and can be employed in different configurations, for different purposes, steered by different agencies - while money can only ever do one thing, and that's only symbolic; it can always be replaced by another icon.
I was trying to show some perspective on money and how monetized economy is not a "given" of human society. It's a recent invention, that has not proved very stable.

I live in a town of about 400 000 souls. Unemployment is rampant. People have a lot of free time. "To better mankind and the world," they don't play society games, or do sports, or pursue culture, or create beautiful human space. Their way of creating a better future for all mankind is to abuse street drugs. There are more and more and more dangerous-looking emaciated and dirty, unkempt elements who smoke heroin, or shoot up marijuana, or drink Carfentanil-laced crack cocaine. THIS is how mankind thinks is a way to a better future.

That's not "mankind". That's the roadkill of an unplanned, uncontrolled and unmanaged industrial society, and a money-centered economy, with no ethical rudder.

[Ranvier]

Allas

I will, tomorrow. Got to get some sleep now. Meantime: What if we based human economies on human needs?
https://simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
Hunter-gatherers were not stupid, and their way of life lasted 30-40,000 years without major change.
The mighty British empire came and went in four little centuries.
Maybe they were doing it wrong?

First let me say that it's a source of optimism to find someone that shares a similar perspective.
I embraced such "natural understanding" even as a child, before I ever learned about the Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It's more than a good, fair, and just but logical to incorporate such principles centered around individuals into the human society, politics, and economy.

In another post I referenced a YouTube video of Noam Chomsky's lecture on the modern "Economic Theory" that is in a direct conflict with the Natural Law and the nature of human beings. Which leads directly to what -1- wrote in his post.

-1-

Guns, drugs, poverty, or suicide rate that is worrisome in US, are the results of the socio-political-economic reality. It's a cliche that "guns don't kill people but people choose guns to kill people". Similarly with drugs or crime. It's illogical to treat the symptoms of the problem (increasing the police force, correction prison system, or even various methods of prevention), we must instead turn to the "root" of the problem. Now, many will contend that it's not their individual problem that people turn to drugs or even that it's a social problem but the great majority of the "pathological" behavior stems from poverty and depression. People manage stress in different ways depending on their individual personality and their circumstances. We must not only acknowledge such individual differences but strive to arrange the functionality of social groups around these differences. It should be logical to everyone that as long as there are people who are disenfranchised and in severe existential crisis, everyone will be affected by crime and the general decrease in the "quality of life". Hence, it's not only a "moral" issue but subject to logic in that all of us are complicit.

We all must become engaged in this in this debate on the "Natural Social Theory" to "Make This World a Better Place". Otherwise we are just complicit in such pathology.

-- Updated August 28th, 2017, 10:20 pm to add the following --

... This modern Economic Theory causes for instance this absurd insanity with White Supremacists rally in Charlottesville (depicted by the media as Neo Nazis) and the events at Barkley University with liberal thugs rampage depicted by the media as "Anarchists". I'm not going into President Trump's remarks on the matter but there is a valid point about the media "spin" that creates the social discord. Complicit, just as much as the city officials that allow such chaos to take place by allowing such opposing views to meet on the street.

[Sy Borg]

If we managed to get society to understand ...

Which one?