Money - a blessing or a curse?

[Elder]

All this waste is due to our inability to do simple arithmetic.

I would say it was because the world is not reducible to simple arithmetic.

In real life,....

Real life sucks -- we are stuck with an insane species.

Doesn't mean we can't fantasize about sanity?

[Jklint]

I would say it was because the world is not reducible to simple arithmetic.

I would say you're right. We've majestically worked our way up to the Calculus of corruption.

[Elder]

I would say it was because the world is not reducible to simple arithmetic.

I would say you're right. We've majestically worked our way up to the Calculus of corruption.

Jklint, this was the third time you made me laugh out loud during the last ten minutes.

I have to thank you for that!

[Londoner]

Me: I would say it was because the world is not reducible to simple arithmetic.

In real life,....

Real life sucks -- we are stuck with an insane species.

Doesn't mean we can't fantasize about sanity?

We can, but if we really want to change things then we have to look at reality.

The most famous challenger to capitalism was Marx. Marx was a philosopher, but not for philosophy's sake. 'The point is not merely to understand the world, but to change it'.

So Marx did not write vaguely about money; he produced a theory of how capital works, where it came from and where it is going - based on research. (A theory that contained plenty of arithmetic).

But Marx also needed to understand how people worked. He was well aware that people were not like programmable robots; he was aware that most attempts to change a system failed, or did not work out as the revolutionaries intended. Thus his works include analysis of historic events and commentaries on contemporary ones.

We don't have to be Marxists, but if we are serious about challenging the system we need to bring a Marxist rigour to our arguments. Otherwise we will just be projecting our personal frustrations on the world, like any group of winging teenagers.

[Elder]

if we are serious about challenging the system .....

Good luck!

(Marx did not have much -- look at the world today!)

Seriously: we are not going to change anything on this forum. This is just harmless entertainment.

Maybe some sacred cows, like money, will be questioned in some minds, and that is the most I can hope for, what anyone can hope for.

I have always said: You need to know the best solution, however improbable, in order to know the best possible solution. You need a compass in order to set yourself a direction.

To quote Sherlock Holmes: "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

And that is what some of my threads are about.

from the article:

It’s a strange New World Order in which multibillionaires and elitist banks can own aquifers and lakes, but ordinary citizens cannot even collect rainwater and snow runoff in their own backyards and private lands.

That's how effective Marx has been in changing the world.

The change has to come from inside people's minds. These minds will not be changed by scientific and rigorous philosophy, but by those who make you realize the absurdity of the world you live in. That's how my mind was changed 40 years ago, when I read the most brilliant philosophical book ever written, and by a non-professional philosopher I quoted in the "Why are philosophers so boring?" thread.

He held up a mirror to look into and see how absurd our world and our 'convictions' were.

Once you see this, it may set you on a path to discover the merciless truth.

You won't change the world, but you will find your intellectual peace.

If, and when, it happens to enough people in the world: we will have change. Not before that.

[Londoner]

Seriously: we are not going to change anything on this forum. This is just harmless entertainment.

Perhaps not, but like most intellectual activities I think it is more entertaining if we put more effort into it. I think many of the contributors make that effort and even when we fail to agree it helps us to refine our own ideas.

That's how my mind was changed 40 years ago, when I read the most brilliant philosophical book ever written, and by a non-professional philosopher I quoted in the "Why are philosophers so boring?" thread.

He held up a mirror to look into and see how absurd our world and our 'convictions' were.

Once you see this, it may set you on a path to discover the merciless truth.

You won't change the world, but you will find your intellectual peace.

A philosopher might observe that this mixes several incompatible notions, for example if we say that the world is 'absurd' in a philosophical sense, then we are saying there is no truth to be discovered.

As a metaphor, the mirror does not make sense. Mirrors merely reflect the world, they do not interpret it. So, if this philosopher is showing that our interpretation of the world is absurd he cannot pretend to be doing so passively, as a mirror passively reflects. He must be putting up some interpretation of his own, in which case he has to defend it with arguments that stand up to scrutiny.

And the truth is simply what it is; if we anthropomorphise it with descriptions like 'merciless' it is unlikely to be the truth, it is more likely to be an interpretation we are emotionally comfortable with.

So anyone can find an intellectual peace if they stop using their intellect! Philosophers are people who can't quite bring themselves to do that. So philosophy does not bring intellectual peace, but that is why it isn't boring.

[Elder]

OK, Londoner, have it your way.

If you think there is no effort involved in trying to think outside the box-- you should try it some day.

You may be surprised.

Now that you have had your fun, and managed to be a pedantic and boring 'philosopher', let's wait to see if others have anything interesting to say on the subject.

[Elder]

My thoughts are that we'd need it, or something like it, for the foreseeable future even if something like your proposal for a "new social contract" and a "two tiered economy" could be adopted.

Lagayscienza, by now you know that money doesn't exist in the public sector of the two-tiered economy. However, not to traumatize those of our citizens who are addicted to money, the second tier, the private sector, lets them use money to their heart's content.

That proposal was meant as a transitionary compromise solution, leading, eventually, to Picard's 24th century where money has no meaning at all.

[Logic_ill]

Yes, people might work in a moneyless society, but they may not want to overachieve or work too hard, if they are not rewarded somehow. The level of competency might lower. Some people may have a natural inclination to work hard, but if it's too hard and everyone else doesn't have to and are in the same position, then the hard worker might resent it.

What is your motivation?

Since you are not working for money, you are doing as good a job as you know how. Your motivation is pride and the respect of your fellow workers.

If you don’t like your chosen profession, you experiment with different skills and decide what you would like to do next. You can have further education at any time during your lifetime, you can retrain to do other things. The system supports you during retraining because it is society’s interest that you do what you are best at and enjoy doing.

Nobody wants you to do shoddy work, just because you are bored or frustrated. If you did, everybody would be harmed by the result.

Some people may try 3-4-5 different things before they find the one they enjoy most and are best at. Many people will stay with what they trained for at the first time. It all works out statistically.

In a money-based economy, most people’s aim is to acquire the largest amount of money, in the shortest possible time, with the minimum of effort, by whatever means, not necessarily honest and productive ones. This includes many non-productive, shoddy or downright destructive methods.

If money doesn’t exist, then the aim is to produce the best quality, most durable, useful products with minimum resources wasted, best methods and technologies used.

In a sizable society (like a country) the distribution of individual talents, interests and skills over the population should cover society's needs. Not much external motivation is required other than letting people be themselves and allowing talent to thrive. Everybody is good at something. It will all work out.

At the other end of the spectrum:

For intelligent, middle class, highly educated citizens it is hard to imagine that there are people with very limited skill-potential, at the low end of the Bell curve. It is not a put-down of people with lesser abilities, just a description of reality.

These people, who find it hard to learn more complex skills, still want to have their place in society, they still want to be appreciated and not looked down on as parasites. They still enjoy the company of their own social strata and will seek out opportunities to contribute.

By statistical distribution, chance and accident, all the lower skill-level jobs will find people wanting to do them. They can do them well or badly and they will know which of the two they are. They still can feel pride in a task well performed and recognized by their peers.

As technology improves and resources get liberated, most of the unpleasant jobs will be either automated to some degree or, at the least, made as unpleasant as possible by providing helpful tools.

Yes, Elder. But the work of a medical doctor is very difficult because it sometimes requires working odd hours and all the stresses that go with their schooling and later work, may not seem like it's worth it.

I know people who are naturally driven and love to keep themselves busy but after a while they would like to take long breaks and relax, especially doctors. The problem is that they are very much in demand and they might not be able to be comfortable. Somehow that might impact the younger generations born into this moneyless system, so that they may not worry about trying to get into medical school, or engineering or any "difficult" fields because the system has them "covered". Parents may not push their children to excel because either way, they will be in a good position.

Many people I've known, who have achieved much as professionals, was precisely because they were born into this system that requires you to work for a living. The more difficult or complex the field (sciences, engineering, entertainment, sports, etc.), the better pay or more comfortable life. That is their reward. Yes, they may be proud of their achievements, working well, and gaining the admiration of others; but I'm not sure they would work as hard (I mean dedication to schooling and in their careers), if they had other options. In other words, the system might foment some "mediocrity".

Don't get me wrong. I do not include entrepreneurs or the business minded folk into the above list because I think that way too often it takes capital and opportunities, in order to make more capital or be very successful at it. It may not be that bad today as it was in the past, when there were even laws that favoured the already privileged, but it takes a lot of catching up to be very successful at business these days. I mean, I don't think many people have the opportunity because of social background, education, economic background, contacts, etc. to make it to the top 1%. Therefore, I don't admire these people too much. Not because of their brilliance anyway.

What I'm worried about is recompensing the people who would have to work day in and day out because there's a demand for it, while others might be sitting back comfortably.

[Elder]

I know people who are naturally driven and love to keep themselves busy but after a while they would like to take long breaks and relax, especially doctors. The problem is that they are very much in demand and they might not be able to be comfortable. Somehow that might impact the younger generations born into this moneyless system, so that they may not worry about trying to get into medical school, or engineering or any "difficult" fields because the system has them "covered". Parents may not push their children to excel because either way, they will be in a good position.

Logic_Ill, you are right in assuming that, if somehow we would be transformed today into a moneyless society, then existing human psychology would kick in and produce a lot of unpredictable results.

However, I had my eyes on the future, after a loooong transitionary period, during which people had a chance to adjust mentally and emotionally to a new reality, in which status is not measured by money and possessions, but by accomplishments and the respect of their society.

As a first step in this long transition, I suggested a compromise system in the essay that Alias quoted in the OP of the "Proposal for a new social contract" thread. Have you seen it yet? The thread had a lot of intelligent posts that answered many questions. It is worth reading through all the posts to see clearly what I meant.

onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... amp;t=7667

[LuckyR]

Money is not inherantly good or bad since money at it's core, is just a tool for keeping score. It was intially an artificial construct of economics to make trade smoother, but in today's complex world you could say it has risen to the position of making modern life possible, which is to say that life as we know it would be impossible in a "moneyless" society.

True money, by it's nature is a placeholder or substitute for things like freedom (financial freedom), security, power etc and no doubt folks are motivated to do various things by their thirst for them, many unsavory. But money itself is not the reason, thus eliminating it would not change that reality.

[Elder]

money at it's core, is just a tool for keeping score.

My underline.

That's where the problems come in: world wars and such.

In Post #22 I said the following:

Lagayscienza, the problem with imagining a moneyless society is the result of being hung up on the question of barter or trade.

That question always revolves around: who owes whom how much?

Once the question of ‘owing’ comes in, then we have already accepted a basic paradigm of social organization: we are individual jungle animals that have to fight or negotiate for our survival.

If this is the way you see humanity then yes, you do need money.

However: is this the only way to imagine human societies?

Many of the most prominent science fiction writers said: no.

That vision is expressed in Captain Picard’s speech to a group of earthmen from the 20th century, who had been in suspended animation. He told them that money had no meaning in the 24th century, and the only challenge was realizing one’s creative potential (Star Trek The Next Generation, Season 1 episode 26 “The Neutral Zone”).

You see: when humanity reaches a scientific and technological level where no scarcity is realistic to expect for all the goods and services necessary for healthy survival (and we have reached that point by now) , then regulating consumption by the monetary system is totally unnecessary and it would mean an up to 90% waste of humanity’s resources, as I explained in my blog I linked to in the OP. Have you read it?

At that point only intelligent planning is necessary and human beings are very good at that (world wars, moon shots, etc.)

[LuckyR]

money at it's core, is just a tool for keeping score.

My underline.

That's where the problems come in: world wars and such.

No the problems predated money.

If I have a powerful country based on my exploitation of resources and robust trade groups, I am going to have a large, perhaps aggressive army/navy that will look for other's resources to steal. Perhaps a war will break out. Whether the trade is through gold (money) or goods is immaterial to the motivation for the conflict. Like I said, it's just a tallying method, not it's own thing, it represents pre-existing things.

[Elder]

No the problems predated money.

I know that, LuckyR. However, you did not take into consideration that we have already evolved, potentially, beyond that.

As I said, just above:

You see: when humanity reaches a scientific and technological level where no scarcity is realistic to expect for all the goods and services necessary for healthy survival (and we have reached that point by now) , then regulating consumption by the monetary system is totally unnecessary, and it would mean an up to 90% waste of humanity’s resources, as I explained in my blog I linked to in the OP

[Alias]

If I could address just this part - having a little experience with the medical community.

But the work of a medical doctor is very difficult because it sometimes requires working odd hours and all the stresses that go with their schooling and later work, may not seem like it's worth it.

Everybody sometimes feels that it's not worth the effort. Salt-miners, hazmat cleanup crews, topless barmaids - even the paramedics who pick up broken bodies and bring them to the doctors. A lot of work is sometimes hard, stressful, unpredictable, exhausting. Yet economic recompense is in no way scaled to reflect any of these factors - it's only ever cited in the case of doctors - and only in defense of their high fees. You'd almost think the doctors themselves authored the mystique.

Certainly, they are the ones keeping the supply of doctors below the demand. Of the qualified students who apply to medical school, less than half get in (a segment heavily weighted toward the offspring of doctors). Many more who are qualified academically don't apply because they can't afford the tuition (and can't get, or don't want to carry, an enormous student loan) and/or six or more years of no earning. Many more could qualify, if they hadn't had to quit school for economic or social reasons. Who knows how many would qualify if they'd had a healthy infancy, a safe neighbourhood and good teachers? So, much of this artificial scarcity is caused by the financial status quo. On the flip-side, a lot of the students who qualify are the product of pushy parents, private schools and expensive tutoring. With intense competition also comes strong motivation to cheat. Many enter the field for the money, and choose - or invent - lucrative specialities that don't add to the general weal.

I would rather be treated by someone who loves the work more than the Beemer. I would rather the candidates for healer be drawn from the entire lake of human competence and inclination, than from a pond of privilege. I would rather there be so many doctors that they can all take four-day weekends for rest, love, cooking class and re-humanization. I would rather have doctors who can take all the time they want for research, training in the latest techniques, conferences and work exchanges, rather than jealous infighting for career advancement.

It's all in the perspective.