A weird mix of surrealism, bizarre philosophy, politics, personal views and, of course, smoked salmon milkshakes. One reader said: "....you have an excellant writing style! Thanks for the information and a few laughs!" - Dr. Guy
A thought experiment
Published on February 12, 2005 By Toblerone In Politics
Today we will do a thought experiment, a silly one but bear with me. Try this at home kids, no need to be a trained professional. Okay, just imagine that everything as is just as it is now but without money. It is as if this hypothetical world is a movie on DVD and we’ve press pause and erased the concept of money from the heads of all the actors in this movie. After we press the play button things will start to go to hell in a hand basket but we’ll just focus on how it is for now, a pristine frozen slice of time.

Nobody has any fiscal debts. In fact anything to do with money has become obsolete, a waste of resources: banks, bankers, tax, accountants, notes, coins, credit cards, cheque books, ATMs, poker machines, bookies, insurance companies, parking meters, the national treasurer, speeding fines, the words expensive and cheap, that peptic ulcer induced by your debts, price tags, embezzlement charges, profit motive, laws associated with money and so on. I implore you to think of more because you probably never realised just how much out there exists purely and directly due to the concept of money.

Now press play. A lot of people are now feeling very silly and confused.

A man looks down at the round pieces of metal and rectangular pieces of paper in his hand then looks up at the checkout chick he was about to give them to. “What are these?” he wonders he put the strange objects back in his pocket so he can inspect them later. Then he walks out of the store with groceries in hand without paying. What’s paying?

The checkout chick looks at the cash register. She knows how to use it but has no idea what its contents are for or what the number on the display represent. She’s been on her feet all day and she’s tired, she hates her job (which doesn’t seem to have a purpose) and she no longer has any bills to pay. Her landlord is no longer after her rent money. Finding herself without any real reason for being there she goes home. Maybe she’ll take up photography, a pastime she’s alway enjoyed but never had much time for. Her boss, the storeowner, doesn’t miss her; his job is to supply food to people, someone has got to do that and besides he loves his job (a rarity in retail).

A prostitute finds herself in a somewhat compromising position with a man she doesn't know and isn’t attracted to. Why is she doing this? The man is wondering how he got so lucky a split second before he is abruptly pushed off the bed.

This sort of thing is happening all around this hypothetical world. Some people still find a reason to do what they do and some don’t. Some have NO reason to do what they do such as the bankers(I find it amazing how many people are there just to support the system). The supply of goods and services drops accordingly. Some things however may continue as normal out of necessity.

All these things are trivial compared to what would happen to the power balance of the world. No longer is a countries fiscal situation a measure of its power. When people no longer have a financial hold over others they might resort to other means of control such as violence or withholding vital resources. If country is resource rich but money poor they could gain power by withholding their resources. This is where I suspect things start to go down hill, when people start having thoughts like “Why should I share my (or my country’s) resources with you?” or “if you don’t share your resources with me I’m going to take it by force” (recent history has shown that the latter happens anyway).

Next week we take a step back from this experiment, analyse the potential consequences and perhaps try to fill in the gaps that money has left.

Comments
on Feb 13, 2005
Now...was this article to support the abolition or to derail it??

It doesn't seem to me that it would be a good idea.
on Feb 13, 2005
Despite appearances it is still trying to derail it. One thing I don't want to do with this series is ignore the fact the money does serve some purpose. I could easily just trash the notion and focus on all the negative things about it. That would be no help however when I get to seeking alternatives, before you can seek something better than money you have to know what it does well.

If you wanted to replace the monetary system I don't think you would abolish it just like that. Its abolition would have to happen in stages. Some countries might survive the transition well due to their culture (maybe some are more generous than others) but I'm trying to think of this problem on a global scale.
on Feb 14, 2005
I see. Trying to present all the ideas so that we can make our own choice. That's commendable.
on Feb 16, 2005
Humans have a way of messing up the world no matter what. It seems to be in our nature. Bad things will be replaced with even worse things, because that is how we are. Money serves a purpose, and if we wasn't to have it, some things would appear easier, but alot of things would get much worse. Good article, I liked it. Just out of curiousity...when is your penis writing another article?
on Feb 16, 2005
Humans have a way of messing up the world no matter what. It seems to be in our nature. Bad things will be replaced with even worse things, because that is how we are.

This is a very common notion and seems to be back up by a lot of history. I feel this is because we set up our social systems to bring out the worst in us. The main reasons for war are in no particular order: religion, resources and territory.
Humanity has the capacity to both terrible and wonderful things. Just look at the 9/11 attacks, they show both the devastation we can cause and the aftermath has show our ability help others in times of crisis. To say we are all bad deep down is just as misguided as saying wee are all intrinsically good. You do whatever puts you head or whatever seems easiest. I agree any system that replaces money will have its downsides, indeed some thing may get worse. In the end the question is can we have system that allows us a future. I feel money is holding us back in many ways especially enviromentally.

Just out of curiousity...when is your penis writing another article?


That depends on when he thinks of something to write. We haven't been speaking lately, he's still pouting over my protractor comments....the puss--eh well you know I mean.

Good article, I liked it.

Thanks for the complement.


on Feb 16, 2005
I really like the way you posed this installment of your series, it made it fun to read, while thinking about the questions it poses. When I read it, my mind jumped straight to extending out the examples to other conclusions (as my mind tends to do when I read anything). However only some of them led to anything on topic so I chose to put them aside for other articles, days, and situations.

I'll just go with you on the, "some people still find a reason to do what they do and some don’t. Some have NO reason to do what they do," ride with you, since that seemed to be the meat of your article anyway.

You're right, much of what is done in any society is done to perpetuate the economic system, and not much more. However, even if money were not the backbone of the economic system (or lack of) there would still be a need for(and therefore jobs in)regulating the flow of goods and services.

Let's take your happy grocer for example. He loves his job. He loves the fact that people enjoy his produce, meats and other foodstuffs. The fact that everyone in town passes through his store keeps him up on all the latest doings of the community. But what about his suppliers, Those whose job it is to bring the foodstuffs into town. Would there be enough truckers who like what they are doing, to keep up with demand? What about the farms themselves? Was enough produce produced to carry the society through the non-growing times? That would require storage facilities also. Grocers, farmers, and truckers may love what they do, but would those who work silos and grain elevators feel the same? Or would they walk away and check out the check out chick and take up photography also?

A drill sergeant once told us (when Basic was almost over and D/Ss start appearing almost human), "Whether you make a career in the Army or not, whatever you choose, make it something that you would do for free, if your financial status allowed it.

While (like most people), I've done my share of "joe jobs", I've remembered that very wise advise. My career choices have all been things that a lot of people DO as volunteers, I was just lucky enough to get paid doing them. I also know that, not everyone was either lucky enough to hear that advice, many wouldn't have heeded it anyway, or would love to, but their life situation just didn't go that way.

In your scenario here, most of the jobs that are done would dissappear with the cash incentive. Not just those involved in moving money around, but absolutely vital jobs too. We may have researchers who find ways to improve our lives, but with no factories, who would build them? We may have Paramedics to save lives, but who would make the "toys" used in the ambulance?

Great article though, sorry I went so long, but your article is a participatory think piece, so hey, I thought I'd participate!!!! ;~D
on Feb 17, 2005
.
I really like the way you posed this installment of your series, it made it fun to read, while thinking about the questions it poses.

I'm glad you said that, it is a bit of challege to give life to the subject. I can thank Einstein for the thought experiment idea, I hope to reuse it in later episodes.


You're right, much of what is done in any society is done to perpetuate the economic system, and not much more. However, even if money were not the backbone of the economic system (or lack of) there would still be a need for(and therefore jobs in)regulating the flow of goods and services.


Yes this is a good point, and one I have already considered to some degree. Obviously the new system will still require regulators. For instance the check out chick might be more involved with stocktaking and making sure people aren't hoarding stock (in the case that no strick rationing system is involved - more on this later). I still think that the amount of people working is far more than is required to have a fully functioning system. One question I can't pretend to know the answer to is "how many people are absolutely necessary to regulate the system" I believe that would require an empirical test.

Great article though, sorry I went so long, but your article is a participatory think piece, so hey, I thought I'd participate!!!! ;~D


Yes I really would like to encourage audience participation and I really appreciate yours. I'm am intrigued by the notion that people might bring up things that I have not thought of yet. If this does hapen I will give full credit to the writer. As I said in the first article I am pretty much making this up as I go along and this is a journey for me too, I don't necessarily know what is going to be in the next article, though I do have a vague outline in my head.

One problem I am finding is that I have to lay the ground work before I get into stuff people are commenting on. Quite often people are commenting on things that are a fair bit down the track. Don't let this stop you from making comments though its just that I might simply say "I'm coming to that." instead fully answering on the forum so I can save it for my article.

Thanks again for your insightful comments ParaTed2k
on Feb 17, 2005
Toblerone,

I like the 'Star Trek' idea. No one gets paid, as such. Everyone is provided good food, good medical and dental, transport etc. Private possessions are more asthetic than anything else. Music, art and literature are available to anyone interested. Of course, then you have the Ferengi, who I always thought more represented what we humans are now than any other 'alien' has in the past.

I think ParaTed raises a very important question: if we could all choose the job we'd like to do, who would do the things no really likes doing. For instance, sewerage workers etc. are compensated monetarily for doing very (sorry) shitty jobs but if there is no compensation, what of our poop? Logically speaking, we'd all probably have to start looking after our own crap.

I really do like the idea of a cashless society. I spoke to my brother-in-law and sister further about this. They are huge fans of the Barter Card system. They've tiled their house and taken family holidays all on the Barter Card system. I'm still not sure how it works but it obviously does.

Another great piece, mate.

Cheers,

Maso
on Feb 17, 2005
I like the 'Star Trek' idea. No one gets paid, as such. Everyone is provided good food, good medical and dental, transport etc.


I laugh about the whole Star Trek, "enlightened" society of no compensation for the ranks and ratings of the crew. Everyone listens to the captain, without question, because hey, he's the captain!!! Apparently human waste, garbage, dust, and grime have been "enlightened" out of their society too. Where's the ship's laundry, how often does "housekeeping" get called to clean up a "bio" spill on the medical deck? On "away" missions, I see the "away team" get pretty dirty with the grime of all manner of worlds. No decon, no laundry, not even a "mud room" to stop in before going into the main part of the ship. I'm glad they had such "enlightened" people who were so willing to do all that work, for none of the glory of being a Captian, but all of the pay!!

They either had the same cleaning crew and laundry service as The Huxtables, or, dirt and sweat are all taken care of by the trasporter. ;~D
on Feb 17, 2005
like the 'Star Trek' idea. No one gets paid, as such. Everyone is provided good food, good medical and dental, transport etc. Private possessions are more asthetic than anything else.


Yeah. Of course you have to take into account the effect of matter replicators in star trek. Why pay for something if you can replicate it? I shall talk later about something we could do and technological developments that may create a similiar effect as the fictional replicator. As someone commented on a previous article I think technology would play a big part in the running of a moneyless society.

Of course, then you have the Ferengi, who I always thought more represented what we humans are now than any other 'alien' has in the past.


Yes in general I feel that all the aliens in star trek represent different sides of humans nature (oh god here is where I look like a real nerd)notice how they seem to have a monoculture on all the alien worlds. Ferengis = greed, Klingons = belicosity/honor/loyalty, Vulcans = cold reasoning, Bajorans = spirituality, Borg = conformity/technophilia/perfectionism etc. I'm not sure they did this deliberately but by only associating a handful of traits to each species they highlight the pros and cons of each of each side of humans nature.

I glad you brought up Star Trek Maso, I might use it as an example later on, I'll credit you with inspiring me if I do.

ParaTed2k: you bring up some good point too which I shall get to later.
Thanks you two for your comments.
on Feb 28, 2005
"I still think that the amount of people working is far more than is required to have a fully functioning system. "

Although this may well be true, if you don't give people anything to do, many inevitably turn to crime in order to combat their boredom. Everyone needs purpose in their lives and if the system doesn't provide them with a legitimate direction for them to channel their efforts into, then they will find illegitimate ways to channel their energy.

"Apparently human waste, garbage, dust, and grime have been "enlightened" out of their society too. Where's the ship's laundry, how often does "housekeeping" get called to clean up a "bio" spill on the medical deck?"

Hmm, personally I don't PAY Mum to do the housework, she just does it because it needs to be done (alright I help these days, but you get the point). Plenty of societies have done things simply because the chief or the Government said to do it and everyone realised it needed to be done. It is only our society, which has become so obsessed with doing things for financial rewards that finds it hard to come at the idea of doing something because it has intrinsic worth.

I always think of children in schools with this because they show us what we are before society imposes its ideas upon us. The research shows that teachers are far better off trying to get kids to do things for their intrinsic worth than giving out tangible rewards/bribes for working. However, once students get a taste of receiving tangible rewards for work, it becomes more and more difficult to motivate them to work for the intrinsic worth of learning.
on Feb 28, 2005
So Champas, you are all for someone else forcing you to do something, simply because they think it should be YOU doing it, instead of THEM? . I can tell you, when I could work, I did a lot of volunteer work, and a lot of "professional" work. In the end though it was up to me to decide what I did out of the goodness of my heart, and whay I did for pay. Apparently you would rather decide that for me (or some government bureaucrat?) Nice Idea of "freedom" you advocate there.
on Feb 28, 2005
"I still think that the amount of people working is far more than is required to have a fully functioning system. "Although this may well be true, if you don't give people anything to do, many inevitably turn to crime in order to combat their boredom. Everyone needs purpose in their lives and if the system doesn't provide them with a legitimate direction for them to channel their efforts into, then they will find illegitimate ways to channel their energy.


They won't have nothing to do it just they might not be doing something that is absolutely necessary. There is such thing as having a life outside work that doesn't involve crime as I'm sure you are aware Mr I've just spent a few weeks in New Caledonia and have come back with a completely new perspective on life .