Jump to content

money vs. resources


Recommended Posts

Imagine a world where you were free. A world where you could spend quality time with your family and friends, where you could have anything you wanted. A world where your job is voluntary, but you love it so much that you jump out of bed in the morning filled with excitement. A world where your children never want for anything, where they grow up filled with purpose, with love, and with passion. A world where there is no war, no poverty, no hunger, no hatred, and no crime.

This is what the world would be like without money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


To Serve the People of Earth!

by Walter Burien




From: "Brian"

Subject: Re: Fwd: interesting state of affairs [Oregon]

Date: Thu, June 25, 2009 5:36 am

To: WalterBurien@CAFR1.com



Is this ignorance, arrogance, or corruption? Why is it so hard for these government bureaucrats to understand?

Answer these questions and we might be closer to a solution.




From: "Walter Burien"

Subject: [Answer given] Re: Fwd: interesting state of affairs [Oregon]

Date: Thu, June 25, 2009 9:42 am

To: "Brian"



There is only one answer to that question: "Due to the money involved, with the power, corruption, and control it breeds. Nothing more, and nothing less."

Ask a drug dealer from the outside why do you deal drugs? They will say: "Drugs, I don't deal drugs!"

Ask a rapist why do you rape? They will say: "Rape, I don't rape, why did someone get raped?"

An outsider who asks a bank robber why do you rob banks? The bank robber will say: "I don't know what you are talking about, my job is...."

Ask an impostor (mostly attorneys) in government looting the public treasury why he or she works for the government? They will say: "To serve the American public of course!"

*** That last reply reminds me of an old Twilight Zone TV show episode (to serve man) where an alien with great technologies and unlimited resources came to Earth saying: "We have come to serve the people of Earth and wished to bring them back to our planet just to serve them in every way they can be served, who wants to come with us?" The alien had their honored book with chapter after chapter written on just how to serve the peoples of Earth. The title of the book was transcribed to English which said "To Serve Man" with the rest of the book in the alien language. The aliens took the book with them to show all everywhere they went.

Well all the people of the globe started lining up to go to the new world to be served in so many ways as implied by the aliens." Just right before the space ship that held hundreds of thousands was about to take off, a linguist who had just deciphered the alien language and read the rest of their book ran up to the ship who's doors were just closing with the last people young and old entering, shouting frantically: "Don't Go! Don't Go!! Their book, it is a cook book! Don't go!!

To late, the doors closed and the ship took off to the alien world to serve the peoples of Earth.

Hundreds of millions of people have been getting on this ship we call government and they better quickly determine the meaning of "serve" so that they can qualify what appears to be the end result of where this trip of "Government Service" is taking them.. to a better future, or a totalitarian control state where they are and have become only food to be served to and for the government controllers....

There are many people and organized associations operating from within the halls of government and I will tell you clearly and with certainty that many have a very different and distinct meaning of the word "serve" or "serving" the American people that is behind the true intent of their involvement..

QUESTION: Shall the Peoples of the Earth serve their government or should the government serve the Peoples of the Earth, or should we all just serve each other?

The creator's intent was to live long, live well, and to prosper.... The TRF Serves all and serves them well, if it can manage to come into being..

So from your part of the country, are you on your way to the "New World" to be served?

Truly yours,

Walter Burien - CAFR1.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you were talking about the 'audit the fed' piece.

How does it matter who makes the robots and how is that a hole at this conceptual stage?

I don't see that as a hole in the concept of a resource based economy and fail to see why that should really be something to use to argue against.

A resource based eceonomy isn't going to even be attempted until the concept of working for a greater good/higher purpose is expressed and discussed en masse in a society. Until then, all sorts of demands and requirements for a more technology based society will present themselves.

The details like 'who' does this will be worked out in the coming decades as people begin to accept the merits and logic behind a complete restructuring of our understanding of 'reward'.

This isn't something that could really be rushed through.

We're gonna be stuck with money and a selfish desire for luxury for quite some time, and although I'm not entirely complaining I do think that a lot of what we've come to expect or demand to be available to us is frivolous and petty while the needs of humanity are ignored around the world.

While I await a nice new set of noise cancelling headphones, debate about buying new cabinets for my bass rig, and wish i had another pair of shorts, people around the world are starving, their water is unfit to drink, and our air is polluted.

People are unwell because the things I want need to be delivered/shipped around the world need dirty fuel to get there. I'm not really losing a lot of sleep because of these things, but many of the 'things' I enjoy and use are incredibly wasteful. It's as simple as the food we/many people eat.

So, looking at that concept, and considering that many of the things we use, need, and merely desire could be created in a more sustainable way, I don't see certain details as 'holes' to be all that crucial at this stage.

It's going to take a long time to streamline our existence, and as long as the demand and delivery system are based on greed and desire we're going to be stuck with everything that it breeds.

I'm not trying to say that everyone is being naughty for working within the system, nor am i suggesting that we all buy things that we don't care for, but with a more collective talk of 'change' or 'improvement' or 'Security and Prosperity' (groan), there's no demand to do it all exceptionally better everywhere.

Now, many of the 'things' I want facilitate a simpler lifestyle or are easier to pack into smaller spaces (noise cancelling headpphones for mass transit, and blocking out a growingly overpopulated urban environment (If I choose to leave the country), tiny speakers for my bass that I can also use as stereo monitors for home recording and music in an apartment that are bus-friendly), but as much as I strive to shrink my stuff's physical footprint there's no way I can make sure the materials used are sustainably produced.

It will take advances in technology for a robot to make anything better than a person, and it will take our constant movement forward to make better materials and improve our designs for both highly crafted items, and sustainably producing industry.

As these advances happen and are refined again and again, the who, what, when, and where will become clearer.

I won't let myself be bullied or persuaded to give up on this concept, as it's a huge part of the manner in which I expect humanity's ascenscion will have to present itself.

It does seem very utopian to me, but over time, the concept of utopia bas been both watered down and bastardized with the notion that just because it's not realistic in the present, it should never be aspired to for our future, or for our future's future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno. When these kinds of abstract questions or proposals come up, I find the idea of "complexity barrier" to be a nice splash of cold water on the face. People live their lives with different purposes for different reasons, across all socioeconomic strata. Trying to tease out patterns in any of all that is just an attempt to reduce that complexity, but at this stage in the game, I'm not convinced it's of very much use. Maybe in small communities it's worth kicking around, but not when you get to talking about The World.

The axiom "try to be nicer to one another" seems to be challenging enough to the most sincere of people, and is right off the radar for lots of others.

World without money? Seems money is so fundamental to civilisation itself, it would be like suggesting a world without math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like a world without Math??

Almost, Dave. But money isn't fundamental to civilization - it's just the system we're in and taught/led to believe is the only way.

A big part of me appreciates the concept, but more often than not the only response that ever rears its head is that people seem threatened by the concept and coil back in fear/offense.

How is money fundamental to civilization?

If in that you mean trade, I get your point, but MONEY is not, say, a bunch of corn in return for some textiles. Money is giving a perceived value to be used for something of 'equivalent value'. Perceptions are always subjective and fail to retain scale.

Trade is and has been necessary for advancement and achievement in most cases up to this point, but we're at the point that we/"they" (yeah yeah) could manage resources to help the entire world prosper, and the economic system as it stands doesn't really harbour that sentiment.

In the past/historically, people/s would trade what they have left over from harvest and what they made for goods tht would enrich their lives and their neighbours. That is not how the world works today.

Like I said, it is going to take people acknowledging and approaching the concept before it will even begin to be figured out and implemented.

You're totally right about 'try to be nicer to one another' challenge, dr. Mouse.

As great as the idea is, in this context that kind of thinking could serve to deflect someone from really pondering the idea, which is in all fairness necessary for any real 'debate'.

I also see how 'complexity barrier' is a very convenient reason to move along, but if everyone keeps doing that, then convenience will be the main reason we never move forward.

It took me awhile to get back to actually read the article - Can't really say that I'd be entirely useful on a real position in a thinktank on the issue this week either.

the 'I/we can't do anything about it so why care' syndrome generally disappoints me even though I suffer from it from time to time.

It's all the tiny details and 'holes' as Ms. Hux so put that people so often gravitate towards to dismiss a concept such as this and gets me to shelve it here and there.

(I entirely appreciate the comment BTW, Sharon)

Considering that, I find it funny that abstract concepts get glazed over and dismissed for the tangible, more 'concrete' - but the system we collectively latch onto is far less real than a system that is based on real things (resources). Money is created on a whim out and the system is far more controlled than merely accounted.

...Perceived value...

Of course people live their lives for different reasons. Just the fact that there exist socioeconomic strata, poverty, and disease (most medical, social, and societal) should suggest the dire consequence of this.

A system based upon money creates a sort of servitude that doesn't foster the kind of growth that humanity has the potential to achieve.

Of course there are the people that 'get the system to work for them', but in actuality, they'd still be under someone's thumb if it came down to disaster/heavy consequence.

I suppose the only way I see this is under the 'there's more to existence as what we've been led to believe' that would have beget Christianity out of an ultra-religious, dogmatic society. (Gnosticism, not Catholicism)

That's a much tamer comparison than a world without math.

Anyway, of course the concept of a resource-based economy would most likely best work in a smaller society/community and if it's going to be attempted that's of course a natural progression. It would be much easier to facilitate sustainability on a smaller scale.

Since I see this as an ideal situation that, to some, if practiced could fix a lot of problems, it would stand to reason that if it were imposed upon us, would also create many others.

I'm not trying to say 'now let's all do this' - more like 'someday we're all going to understand the need for, and want this...till then let's try to be nicer to one another'.

I don't see this working anytime soon, but in order for it to really work, it would take a lot of cooperation.

Though improbable in our lifetime, entirely possible.

How could the world be worse off with this concept turned into a construct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see this working anytime soon, but in order for it to really work, it would take a lot of cooperation.

Though improbable in our lifetime, entirely possible.

I don't think its possible at all ... unless kim jong il deaks a couple of icbm's past a US blanket of abm's and hits waikiki, prompting pakistan to balls up and take a few shots at israel who defends itself by setting most of the mid-east ablaze, which of course, just makes the haughty french jealously bomb the eengleesh baztartts in london, who ...

in other words, unless the world is turned upside down (for whatever reason) money is here to stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Improbable. Unlikely. Difficult.

The events you describe aren't the obstacle in the way, it's our dismissal of the concept and lack of desire to change. Even if all the pieces were put into place to allow it to be put into motion, it takes us putting it into motion to even begin to form into reality.

Realistically, War breeds profit and intolerance, division and pride, so your events, while you perhaps see them as dissolving power structures, would only create more to hold a change in base economy back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when you say it's "our dismissal of the concept" or "lack of desire" that prevents this from happening, it depends entirely on who the "we" is you are referring to. those who have the money now certainly don't want things to change and have obvious vested interests in maintaining the status quo. perhaps if you had all the money, you wouldn't be so eager either, YT.

even if the desire was sufficient to implement change (via nothing short of world revolution) i do not think there is a single, socioeconomic, theoretical construct of governance that could possibly survive today without some form of currency. even anarchism presumes some form of currency exchange, one cannot carry goats around all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

phishtaper, if I had all the money I'd be getting rid of it in a damn hurry or get shot trying to empower people. Don't presume that I'm entirely weak. I'm pretty easy to please even though I bitch a lot.

You're right about the current state of the world working with monetary constraints.

Currency and Money are not enturely synonomous.

Anyway, the 'we' are the masses. Perhaps that's an unfair point to make...I sincerely doubt most people have really listened to and read the lyrics to John Lennon's 'Imagine', let alone thought about a change in economic structure like this.

However, how many of us that have pondered the concept, or read this far done anything but dismissed or found some way to refute the idea?

If you have, thanks for taking the time on something I put out there. I entirely appreciate that the effort even exists most of the time.

There are small scale economies (city/community currencies, bartering systems etc.) being worked out and with.

As far as making this enormous change happen, it would take some kind of demand/revolution, be it through consumer choicxe, political action, or physical revolt (to name a few) but what's really so wrong with that? This is really just a future state of being. Society is going to evolve somehow and it's really up to us to keep it moving along.

My problem isn't with trade, it's the manner in which it's more of a collective hindrance than an asset. We're going to tweak it here and there in the coming years and decades. It's our children and our childrens' children that are going to need to think about creating their world in a kinder more sustainable way in order for any real positive change to happen.

I have never heard any just argument to explain away the woes in this world, only economic and political 'realities' (that word, while used sarcastically ilustrates my opinion perfectly) that arise and are upheld - Every explanation is centered around something rooted in greed and pride. Instead of really helping, peoples are offered credit to build/rebuild. That's not help, that's servitude under the guise of charity to make it look advantageous.

It blows my mind how it takes charity to get much of the basic advances in the 3rd world (isn't it all the same world?(no I'm not wearing earth tones)).

As much as this country's growth depends on immigration, there should really be no need for people to have to leave their country because it sucks to live there.

Do you see this all as criticizing my 'affluent' life (regular access to exotic fruit, clean water, technology, information, safety) or criticizing the fact that this should not have to really be a state of affluence?

People will ahve to be open to this concept and will have to try to work this construct into their ideals before it could ever conceivably work on any significant scale.

I think a good first step is through Sustainability. The concept of a resource based economy is a generational extension of a sustainable economy.

I still only see a criticism of the plausibility of the concept turning into reality.

Is this really so upsetting and threatening that it really need an argument or heated respoonse?

If that's the case then I need you to realize that You're going to be alright. Go hug somebody.

I look at this as more like an 'architecture and society' thing. Sure it's not realistic at this given time, but it's within our grasp to have A future by design.

What kinds of technological advances do you see as being more commonplace by 2030?

More free energy?

Hydroponic hothouses for communities and cities to grow more better fresher food closer to home?

longer lasting, ergonomic homes?

Simpler lifestyles?

People living and working in the same area?

Underwater oceanographic pods for rebuilding the ocean?

Newly built cities?

desalinization plants to bring the world fresh water?

Nuclear Fuel reprocessing? (no need to mine uranium ever again)

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think there is this problem of what to do with the "we". In any given family there is going to be a range of differences of attitude, let alone within a community, a town, a city, country, etc. etc. That's kind of where I was going with the idea of a "complexity barrier" - like Gregory Bateson used to say, trying to control larger systems from smaller ones is like trying to back up, in a straight line, a series of tractor trailers linked together - the slightest variations are going to produce the most unpredictable results at the end of the line.

You were right earlier saying that math and civilisation weren't entirely coequivalent; I should have said "taxation". There is no civilisation without taxation (for which you need money, and math). How else are the non-labouring classes (priests, politicians, teachers :P , etc.) going to earn their crust?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That last line is pretty much the kicker thee, Dr. Mouse.

'earn their crust'

Accounting for extra effort is one thing, but basing actions and rewards on money, and basing careers and life works on money all deal with that sentiment...

...'earning crust'

Just because there is no civilization without taxation doesn't mean there couldn't be.

The main concept in all of this is a future by design.

How does your complexibility barrier matter much beyond appealing to people? there's always going to be a range of attitude but that doesn't mean that those attitudes have to dictate that a difficult change can't be worked out and communicated effectively.

If everyone is provided for - for merely being alive (housing, food, clothing, communication, healthy community living, essential services) - and those that genuinely give back to their community/world are then rewarded with luxuries or career perks (nicer things) then there's no worry about 'earning their crust'. There's only more drive to achieve (rather than merely make the most money they can).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 'Living Wage' is probably the closest thing to this concept.

Many of the facets of the original article are echoed separately...

Mechanized production, living wages, sustainable economy and culture...

Interesting how putting them together and suggesting that we get rid of money (the biggest roadblock to them all working perfectly) gets people away from talking about those solutions and arguing that the idea isn't a realistic option at this point in time.

Maybe it's only interesting to me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the ability to produce "mechanization" as intimately linked with the fetishization of material things, which is in my understanding the basis for money, the idea that things have value seperate from thier production, and that this value can be temporarily confered onto a worthless item (insomuch as it has little or no "use value") which is then socially valued as "useful". Likewise a chunk of iron is useless without the imagination of what it can become in time and with energy.

Money is a placeholder, imo. It allows us to remove the production value, the real labour costs, from a commodified item. Trade, barter, whatever, but it's much more a matter of valuing labour and production and maintaining thier attachment to the people wo work and produce.

I think it would be far more helpful to look for economic systems that do not depend on growth rather than eliminating economics, as such. To suggest that money is really the root of all evil is a simplification imo, and hides that people are responsible for the actions that they may take both individually and socially, and that money is only paper with a social value.

Reznor was right. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name=ThorgnortheMarxist ;) ]To suggest that money is really the root of all evil is a simplification imo, and hides that people are responsible for the actions that they may take both individually and socially, and that money is only paper with a social value

Since the phrase popped up, I'll just jump in with the old chestnut - the original line (1 Tim. 6:10) is that the love of money is the root of all evil.

(I'm not much of a fan of Paul, but I do like where that redirection goes.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Create New...