Abolish Money Now!

The pursuit of what we can never have enough of, and that is of man made origin, that has just spelt confusion, slow motion of growth and development and general societal stress.

It is unlike knowledge. Although, it may seem like we can never have enough of knowledge, but then, we are pursing after something far greater than us. Plus it is fun and makes life worth living. Knowledge, unlike money is something that if left unacquired or unknown, has no real impact on us, and if discovered makes life more interesting as it opens up the door to newer questions and other innovations. (In the end we might discover that life is meaningless, but it was fun while the knowledge-search lasted. We could have just died in all that time).

Money on the other hand, feels like this embargo that has been put on all things. It may seem like a way that keeps us responsible such that we have to do an "equal" value or measure of work for an equal value of profit. Now although this looks like a high level of organisation, but I argue that it was the right path not because it effectively solves our problem, but because of our difficult lack of trust, our primitive form of government, organization and society.

How I see this idea that money is one of the causes and propagation of current world issues, is that the resources to solve a lot of issues are just sitting around somewhere. But if the money doesn't move, then nothing is going to be done.

For example, the ideas to build technologies for curbing climate change and its effects are delayed or not popular because the money to build these technologies are not forthcoming.

Building space tech is costly and must therefore be productive. The tools and expertise for this endeavour are sitting somewhere doing nothing or at best, probably doing something, but not so grand. Why? Well, tax payers are criticising, the law makers want results and investors and stakeholders want returns. (What did they keep in space that they expect the space tech guys to find? God only knows.)

And I argue that we should be in the supposed future of space exploration if support was adequate. That is, present space exploration should have moved from being relatively experimental.

In Africa, the government of a country distributed a few thousand metric tons of fertilizer to a few hundred thousand farmers farmers; whereas they are in the millions. Let the rest sort themselves out right?

With this system, people who are supposed to be civilized run after petty things because things are way too limited. And we expect people not to cut corners.

In some other country, the government wants to elevate 10% of their population out of poverty in about a decade.

Now, with this "money-system", poverty alleviation and falling into poverty would just be a cycle and it would render the government's work useless. This is because those that were alleviated out of poverty can through wrong business decision or bad state of the economy or governance, fall back into poverty. I am not saying people should not be allowed to control their own wealth (I know l like that), but you control what you know you have. If things were centrally managed, what's there for individuals to control?

And if it is commendable for governments to take a portion of their population out of poverty, does that not mean that the present money system is faulty? Such that it does not just in itself favour most people. Is it not more commendable that these governments go to the source of the problem (whatever it is)?

Or do they believe that taking a few ten or hundred million guys of their population every few years out of poverty would solve the problem of poverty? Again I say, is it not more reasonable that they go to the source of poverty (however they can get there)?

The money needed to do things for the world are sitting in different places, distributed among different people and bodies. And in our heads, we can't have enough of it. So we just keep accumulating and profiting. Now the world may need resources for a project, but the money would not move because it already has a name on it.

There might be a problem with communism, but this is not what capitalism preaches either.

Ills of money:

Yes, money has use where people do not trust in themselves to share things equally. Thus, the need for it to be a legal tender. But in the grand scheme of things, is that not the only problem it solves? Legal tender?

Every other usefulness of money can be summed up into living and luxury, which are two things it does not even solve effectively. Both of which are determined by some factors. Factors like population, demand, supply, exchange rate. In one place you are financially okay, or mighty wealthy you can buy any goddamn thing. And in another place, you may be struggling with rodents or you just have enough to continue living. It's because of money that there is that insatiable character in us, because we believe if we do more, we can get more.

But as organized and complex as the financial system is, we know from experience that it also complicates and stresses people's lives.

Yes, it solves the problem of buying stuff without argument of ownership. But it falls short in the following ways:

Projects on infrastructure and development in all sectors get delayed or abandoned.

Countries and organisations with dumb leaders or people who are not competent enough to make shrewd business decisions are put in debt.

There is usually less trust where money is involved.

Emotional and psychological break down of some people who lack money and have bills to pay.

Poverty and everything that comes with poverty. It is because there is rich that there can be poor.

Big organisations strong-arming smaller ones. Or the wealthier countries and politicians bullying the smaller guys out of a competition.

It may also lead to decivillization; that is, trying to acquire things using underhanded, savage or dehumanising methods.

Furthermore, the money system causes variations in living conditions. Such that broker people go to live and work under some very unhealthy conditions or in dangerous places because they are cheaper to afford. And the government will just play dumb to that because they don't have the resources to cater for everyone under them. Until there is a pronounced danger to the health of these broker populations or even after some have lost their lives. I am not blaming the government; the money is just never enough for anything. It is both there and not there.

We created money to solve the problem of storing wealth. But is the discord it causes not more than its benefits? Is it not high time for a more profitable solution. Abolishment of the Money System for the "Advanced Resource Sharing System".

The new resource allocation system:

In the new resources distribution system, everything is centrally controlled, and on a global scale.

Is this communism? That's for you to decide.

(In my opinion, communism is not wrong. It was just ill-accepted. And the basis for its criticisms is that people get power-hungry. Is that not a 50-50 thing?)

Anyways, the goal of this no-money system is that there is no poverty in the land, and people do not lack anything (if that makes sense), even luxury so far they can merit it.

Resources in the system would be globally owned.

So, on the government level, the world's resources are centrally controlled. Surely, that would be difficult and in the end defeat the purpose. So the present government system won't change completely, it would be adjusted. We would have a central government in one location. That central government would have offices in other locations. There would no longer be countries since this is a global thing. In summary, it would be like the present system, only that all the current presidents would have an office that they answer to.

"Who would make up that one government", you may ask. There would be a global consensus.

You may ask that "what about those countries founded on little or no natural resources like Japan and Saudi Arabia ?" It even helps those guys. They own what every other earther owns. They don't have to really trade to get the things they want.

On the part of resource sharing, if your job is a personal endeavour, so far as a good number of people (with a given threshold to attain) benefit from whatever you do, you get taken care of. Here, no work is more important than others; government or private, medicine, entertainment, finance, security, environment, fashion, etc... The only problem would be defining the rules that guide different occupations. (That's discussion for another day).

In this system, everybody has a job starting from the world-accepted age of adulthood. And that is to make life easy for everyone by doing only a little. And I believe it may also curb the malice and distrust that money thrives on. Such that if we live freely, do a small amount of job without any unnecessary stress, and get a lot of stuff by virtue of living, then we might live without feeling deserving of anything especially luxury or those limited edition luxury. They might even look then like waste of resources.

The benefits of this system would include periodic feeding and provision of needed resources based on the stress of your job. Traveling would be a very easy thing and it will not affect provisions due you. So will recreational activities. There would be an day-offs for people of the world when they can do whatever it is they want to do. This way, people don't feel like robots that have been programmed or tied to a specific duty.

In summary, you do your job, get your rights, go on vacations. This does not mean we'd work morning to night. Some jobs won't even be stressful.

As for luxuries. One would only get a desired over-the-top reward if they have done something extraordinary. Like a professional exhibiting god-tier skills or wisdom. There might even be a body for that.

This luxury is to foster competition and make life more eventful. If not, people might get complacent.

And whatever the luxury awarded, it must be something that cannot be traded; something useful in the world, but also only to the awarded.

There is also the issue of having private fun things like a PS5. These and all other things would be available, but on the condition that every unit made can get to every household. (Although they would be made available in public recreational facilities). And because it is an advanced sharing system, there would be a near accurate (if not completely accurate) database system that has everybody's data.

The resource sharing system might even curb crime, when everybody has a job, there are public places to have fun at; so your are either busy working or playing or just chilling. Plus nobody actually has more than anybody, so there is actually nothing to steal.

Also concerning crime. Crime thrives on money. But in an advanced resource allocation system, a slight decrease in the usual allocation of resources - as determined by population and stress of duty - would undoubtedly mean something is wrong. That is, while money can get thrown around until it enters criminal hands, provisions can be done that way. Crime would therefore suffer.

As regards competition and variety of products, in a one-global-government system like this, the concept of competitive products would just die away. But that does not mean that people would be stuck with just one model of a product. People differ and it is part of the goals of this system to make life as comfy as possible for people.

So there can be, say a global mobile phone technology organisation that would make products based on the majority of people's wants as would be revealed by research and surveys. The products may not satisfy everybody, but at least most people would be satisfied. Then again, other aspects of the economy would surely satisfy you, except that person has a problem with the system.

One probable argument to this type of production is that a little more work than is done now would go into production processes, and on a global scale for that matter. But then, I can argue that there would be no job scarcity and if the surveys are done digitally, resources won't be too wasted.

Also, products would be made to for a number of people, and to last long and to be upgradable since organisations are not looking to profit from the next year's products. Products, especially tech ones would not have extras that sit in shelves doing nothing. Things would be made to the size of the population and I hope that since we are careful in production, we would take population and amount of resources into consideration before making things to prevent wastage and future lack.

Finally, the fear that exists now within some organisations, that of intellectual property theft, would not even be a thing. But a crime would still be a crime, such that if any product teardown is aimed at disrupting people's lives in any way, the perpetrators would be convicted.

The only probable barriers to achieving this now would be population. It's easy to implement some systems with a smaller and controllable population. But with a population of about 8 billion. I would have said "well the money system thrived somehow", but a lot of people are broke. Population might actually be a barrier, but that would be subjective to if the people want it or not.

Another problem would be language. But language does not seem to be a barrier to trade and information sharing. So let's rule it out.

Culture and traditions might want to say that while they are still standing, no form of a global governance would stand. Because it would surely demean them, and they won't receive preferential treatment (because in truth, that's what they are about). They would use the "legacy of their forefathers" as excuse. But I would say to them "the world has unseated you, you are just too blind to see it".

And by culture, I do not mean food and language. Culture holds historical knowledge. But one may argue that ousting nobility makes this knowledge far from us. I want to believe that that is why we have books written by historians, archeologists and so on.

There may even be settlements that bring people of the same traditions together. And since it is a free world, they can have a figure head. Surely, their power is nothing, but then, their culture is carried on until it dies, out of people being less attached to things

Then, there is the illiteracy of many people especially in the third world. And if we are really building an equality and equity driven world, they have to be taught and brought up to speed. They would surely slow the process and might eventually end up destroying the whole idea except we get shrewd.

In conclusion

Money is the problem of this world. Or let me say that money is one of the most problematic things in this world. It is the watery foundation on which everything thrives. Money's involvement in everything is inhibiting growth and speed of growth; economic, evolution, national etc...

In the money system, wealth of the nation and its citizens is the goal. But in the few thousand years that we started spending some form of money, neither has ever been reached, or at least not entirely.

But in the no-money system, satisfaction is the goal. Thus, we would be highly conscious of the amount of available resources, and population would be highly controlled. Wealth would be stored in their natural form and poverty would be eradicated.