Gated access to money would merely switch to gated access to robots. And seeing as the rich would be the only ones able to fund and use the first robots, the rich even without money would be rich in robots and they'd make sure that the kids in Yemen aren't getting fed or the people fleeing Burma don't have a place to sleep. Human nature predicates money, robots, etc. Until you fix human nature (good luck with that), there's not going to be a magic bullet.

Madman — Madman

Money is just a medium of exchange.

Unless every transaction is made through bartering--something not possible in the complex globalized economy we have on a heavily-populated planet--something has to serve as a medium of exchange. If you eliminate money then something else like precious metals (instead of exchanging dollars, euros, pesos, etc. for an iPhone, exchanging gold for an iPhone) will have to serve as a medium for exchange.

But even if we do all bartering or replace dollars, euros, pesos, etc. with gold coins, we won't be eliminating capitalism. We still will not have eliminated a system where every individual acts according to what he/she rationally calculates maximizes his/her utility and the invisible hand magically makes all of that self-interest result in maximum collective good. We will not have eliminated the greed, exploitation, etc. that such a system encourages. We will not have eliminated the need for inexpensive labor. Inequality will still be required for the system to work.

As I understand it, the real problem with money is that the amount of it in circulation is greater than the amount of resources available for production and consumption. To give people something in exchange for their money we have to keep commodifying more and more things and cutting costs wherever we can (labor, environmental protection, etc.)--we have to mortgage the future.

Furthermore, rationing everything through price is a problem because prices do not include all of the costs of making a product--they do not include externalities like pollution, unsafe working conditions, loss of biodiversity, absence of the right to unionize and collectively bargain, etc.

Until we start living within our means, and until we have transactions that honestly account for all costs, the problems you think can be eliminated by eradicating money and replacing workers with AI will likely continue.

the real problem with money is that the amount of it in circulation is greater than the amount of resources available for production and consumption. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

If that were the case, the money supply could be reduced, solving the problem. Too much money in circulation chasing too few goods causes inflation.

Metal coins (gold, silver) are not impervious to inflation, either. In ancient times currency was inflated (or debased) by adding base metals to the precious metals, allowing for more, less valuable, coins to be struck.

Robotic production isn't the norm yet, but a lot of production work in factories and offices is now done by computers and computer-operated machines (robots). In the years ahead, more work will be performed by robots.

Replacing workers with robots will not, in itself, usher in the kind of revolution you are proposing. The whole relationship of property and persons would have to be abolished.

The hours necessary to produce what is necessary could be reduced right now for many people. Some people (brain surgeons) will have to continue working long hours. There is no reason to have many classes of workers spending 8 hours+ at work. It isn't just that machines can take their place, a lot of work would be superfluous in a more rational economic system.

Whether work should be eliminated is open to question. Many people find the work they do reasonably satisfying, and many people define who the are by the work they do. On the other hand, a lot of jobs are so devoid of meaning they should absolutely be done by machines. A lot of clerical work fits into that category (for me at least).

This topic is close to another one here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2389/is-the-workplace-primarily-a-place-for-self-fulfillment-or-a-harmful-evil-maybe-necessary#Item_2

Many people find the work they do reasonably satisfying, and many people define who the are by the work they do. — Bitter Crank

Is this just a lack of imagination? Is it just anchoring in something so as not feel the nihilistic void? :D

Is this just a lack of imagination? Is it just anchoring in something so as not feel the nihilistic void? :D — schopenhauer1

No. Granted, many jobs positively create nihilistic voids, but many people find some jobs enjoyable. They like the tasks involved in the job. (It doesn't have to be a high level job.)

Finding anything in life satisfying might be impossible for people whose lives seem to be enclosed in nihilistic voids. And if one does find life satisfying, one probably is not enclosed in a nihilistic void.

Never mind trigger warnings in classes, media broadcasts, and the like. Never mind alerting people to foul language or violence. We should have an alert system which advises people that they are approaching a nihilistic void, or they are about to enter an area which has a number of nihilistic voids. For instance, one might be about to sign up for a class in some weird Disadvantaged Studies Department. There should be an audible warning that proceeding with registration for that class may locate one within a nihilistic void.

Similarly, if one is about to take a job in data entry (out of sheer desperation for a job) a klaxon should alert one to the depths of existential despair and nihilism which await the person doing data entry.

We still will not have eliminated a system where every individual acts according to what he/she rationally calculates maximizes his/her utility and the invisible hand magically makes all of that self-interest result in maximum collective good. We will not have eliminated the greed, exploitation, etc. that such a system encourages. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Money is just a medium of exchange. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Replacing workers with robots will not, in itself, usher in the kind of revolution you are proposing. The whole relationship of property and persons would have to be abolished. — Bitter Crank

So private property would have to be abolished. Furthermore, money as a medium of exchange would have to be abolished.

First about the money. It is true that money is a medium of exchange. I'm arguing that in today's world, a medium of exchange has become obsolete. With the technology of today, we are 100% able to support a world in which no one would need money. Money is used to exchange goods and services and 1000 years ago this was a logical way because goods and services were scarce. In my view, money is used to express ones ability to buy these commodities and to express the ammount of commodities another person owes one (society owes more to a brain surgeon than to a factory worker). In today's world, goods and services are not scarce. They are simply kept scarce through planned obsolescence (look at all the electronics in African countries that are simply dumped there) (this may also be a bit over simplified). We are able to make a world of abundance in which scarecity is out of the question.

Then, if we would have enough for everyone, private property is not needed since private property is money expressed through the ownership of commodities. It is true I need a house and I need enough food and a car and a bed and so on. However, I do not need a video camera all the time and I do not ned a bunch of other stuff all the time. These things could be common property, held by some sort of government (but describing the structure of this government is a step too far) and since there is abundance, there is no problem with that. Everyone could use these things when they need to.

Now about the machines. I understand that complicated jobs like surgery and such are difficult to hand out to machines. However, this is already being done in experimental settings. This is, nonetheless, not the point I want to make. Saving all the manpower from letting machines do the simple stuff (building cars, buildings, electronics etc.) will hugely increase the available manpower for education and we could educate more people to manage the more difficult jobs. We would be able to take humanity as a whole to another level.

Eradicating money as a mode of expression of wealth would require new incentives for people to act and to work. And I believe that these incentives lie in helping the common good. Right now, brain surgeons operate because they want to help people and because they have to make money. When money is gone from the equation, everyone would do things because they truly want to, making for a more pure civilization! Not even to mention that more educated people would lead to less work hours per person on average.

I am playing the devils advocate here. I would love to here your counter arguments and problems that arise from this proposition.

Money is just a medium of exchange. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Why would we need a medium of exchange if everyone had access to everything they need? If everyone contributed to society in some way by providing a good or service, then they should be able to have whatever it is that they want. Nothing will be in short supply because there would be no costs to making goods (medicine) or performing those services (doctor care). The only "cost" would be your contribution to society in providing a good or service. The only thing that would limit supply would be the amount of resources to make those goods and people to perform those services, but that should be less of a problem than it is now.

Not only will we eliminate money, but the incentive to make money rather than do a good job. I don't want a doctor working on me who is thinking that I owe him for his 8 years in college, his malpractice insurance, or to pay for his new yacht. I want a doctor who is a doctor because that is what he wants to be and he likes being a doctor and helping others. I want teachers who are there because that is their life's passion, not because they get certain benefits, like paid retirement. Removing money from our society will remove a lot of the bad reasons someone chooses to do what they do. Think about how it will change the politicians, too.

First about the money. It is true that money is a medium of exchange. I'm arguing that in today's world, a medium of exchange has become obsolete. — Madman

A medium of exchange might be obsolete, IF there was enough of everything for everyone, OR IF all goods were extremely scarce. In the first instance, one would just consume what one needed. In the second instance, barter would prevail. In between the two extremes, where there is much, but not enough for everyone, the sorting out of goods and needs is greatly improved with some sort of exchange medium.

Then, if we would have enough for everyone, private property is not needed since private property is money expressed through the ownership of commodities. — Madman

I don't think this is set up right. The value of private property (factories, railroads, airlines, warehouses, stores, cropland, etc.) lies in its capacity to produce commodities. Commodities (clothes, chairs, beds, food, cars, books, TVs, etc) are personal property. Money, as an exchange mechanism, doesn't drive the system. It can't, really. The average person works to produce enough value (to the society) to obtain the commodities he needs.

Some people accumulate surplus wealth (from the labor of many people) and pile up wealth for themselves, which enables them to own "real" property--factories, apartment houses, farms, railroads, stores, etc.

We don't actually have enough of everything to go around. It is not possible for all 7.3 billion people to live like first world people do. The first world--industrialized, advanced economies--consumes much more than its proportional share of stuff. There actually isn't enough oil, aluminum, iron, clean water, productive lands, etc. to produce our quality of life for everyone, and we are far short of there being so much of everything that one can just go get it, for free.

There are perhaps 1 billion people (Europe, North America, Japan) consuming a very big share of the world's resources. There are another 2.5 billion-3 billion in China, India, and in some major urban centers in the rest of the world that might attempt to fully industrialize and live like the first world does. As they do, shortfalls in raw material occur. There just isn't enough "raw material" to support a doubling of first world consumption. (Take concrete. The world is experiencing the limits of supply in that there isn't enough sand to go around. Not enough sand? Only certain kinds of sand make good concrete. It can't be too fine, too course, be contaminated with salt, and so on.

So, to make an exceedingly long story (many volumes) short, money--or something like it--is needed to facilitate trade in goods that are in short supply.

The value of private property (factories, railroads, airlines, warehouses, stores, cropland, etc.) lies in its capacity to produce commodities. Commodities (clothes, chairs, beds, food, cars, books, TVs, etc) are personal property. Money, as an exchange mechanism, doesn't drive the system. It can't, really. The average person works to produce enough value (to the society) to obtain the commodities he needs. — Bitter Crank

You are right in saying the first part. There is a difference between private and personal property. I am proposing that personal and private property will not exist in the sense it does today. Today, the factory is called private property, while the machines in it are called personal property. What is the personal use of machines? What more use has it than factories do? As far as I'm concerned in this new system we are delveloping in our minds here, everything like this (factories, land, machines, TV's, books and even food) will be called "state/common property" or "worldly property". Now, personal property will be products truly created by oneself. Say for instance art, be it music or scientific ideas. These things can be attributed to one person or a group of persons it came from. Therefore, this person deserves the praise of the product and we call it his private property. He can do with it whatever he wishes possible within the laws. He can make it common property and give it to science or to a museum or he can keep it in his own home. Common property, however, needs to be distributed equally, since it is nobody's own property.

In saying the second thing you are, as far as my opinion goes, not right. Money does drive today's system. You are saying it in the sentence that follows your statement. The average person works to produce the value to obtain the commodities he needs. However, does the average person understand what he needs and what he wants. My proposition is as follows (in the perfect state of affairs). A human can have anything he wants, as long as everyone else on the world has acces to it. In a world of abundance this wouldn't be much less then we all want today, since computers and that kind of stuff are fairly easy to make in mass amounts.

We don't actually have enough of everything to go around. It is not possible for all 7.3 billion people to live like first world people do. — Bitter Crank

Your argument concerning the concrete is very nice. I cannot find a direct counterargument to prove it wrong. However, it is not out of the realms of possibility to make something different than concrete. It is invented by the romans and yes they used special sand. But 50 years ago we weren't able to make electric cars and yet today people say that within 30 years petrol cars will be a thing of the past in the Western world. The only thing holding back the Western world is money and the system that uses it. I will give you an example (you will have to believe me on this one): pattents for solar panels are currently in part being held by the companies that produce energy using fossil fuels. These companies are doing everything they can to delay the implementation of solar panels since it would put them out of business. And so things are the same for electric cars and I would not be surprised if it were true for a very big lot of all the technology threatening to put big businesses out of work. The amount of renewable energy we will be able to produce using wind, solar, tidal and geothermal power is immense and beyond imagination.

In short, money (and possibly even property) is counterproductive. It used to be very efficient and very handy in handling everyday business. But in todays world, it is not usefull anymore. It holds us back.

These companies are doing everything they can to delay the implementation of solar panels since it would put them out of business. — Madman

I don't think that is actually the case--at least much less so than in the past. The major oil companies understand that there is an end to oil that can be pumped out of the ground with less energy than it contains. (At the end of the age of oil, there will still be oil in the ground, but it will cost more in energy to get it out than the oil itself contains.) The "dead" line isn't that far off, so the oil companies are getting involved in alternate energy. It's a tricky business, because they (of course) don't want to shoot themselves in the foot.

Whatever they say in public, the oil companies understand global warming. They know they are part of the problem (not that means they are going to do anything about it -- ditto for coal companies).

Wind, in particular, is moving forward in this part of the country. Granted, not every area of North America is ideally suited for wind. But then, solar is available too.

It is true that my reaction may be extreme and that companies are helping us develop a better world. The thing is that it could go much, much faster. say for instance we make use of the heat Yellow Stone produces. This alone could be enough to provide big parts of USA if not all of it with renewable energy.

Secondly, this system encourages personal profit, not common profit and that is why it is not going as fast as is possible. It is not someones fault in particular, but it is just the way big cooperations work due to the system they are in.

It is true that my reaction may be extreme and that companies are helping us develop a better world. — Madman

I lean pretty far left (as a socialist). I don't expect capitalists to play a leading role in developing a better world. What you have described is a utopian communism -- enough for everyone, no buying and selling, from each according to his abilities, to each according to their needs

You might like The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin. In the book there is an anarchist utopian society. Goods are not abundant, and people need to contribute to the common good for there to be enough. But it is free of money, hierarchies, factories, and so on.

Le Guin is a science fiction writer. The story begins on the moon where the anarchists have accepted exile, and the main character is a physicist. It's a very good story. Came out quite a few years back -- some time in the 70s? Anyway, she describes a utopian society without money, without hierarchy, without rich or poor people, and so on.

If that were the case, the money supply could be reduced, solving the problem. Too much money in circulation chasing too few goods causes inflation.

Metal coins (gold, silver) are not impervious to inflation, either. In ancient times currency was inflated (or debased) by adding base metals to the precious metals, allowing for more, less valuable, coins to be struck. — Bitter Crank

The point that I am trying to make is that the problem is the supply of money exceeding the value of existing goods and services. To pay dividends to investors, pay debts to creditors, etc. there has to be more economic growth. For there to be more economic growth more things have to be commodified. For more things to be commodified, the supply of resources for production has to increase. To increase the supply of resources for production, people have to be dispossessed, ecosystems have to be destroyed, etc.

We are not living within our ecological means. A supply of money in excess of the total value of existing goods has a lot to do with that.

To pay dividends to investors, pay debts to creditors, etc. there has to be more economic growth. For there to be more economic growth more things have to be commodified. For more things to be commodified, the supply of resources for production has to increase. To increase the supply of resources for production, people have to be dispossessed, ecosystems have to be destroyed, etc.

We are not living within our ecological means. A supply of money in excess of the total value of existing goods has a lot to do with that. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

With this I agree whole heartedly.

I don't know how we can step off this merry-go-round of extraction, production, consumption, waste, and more extraction. It isn't that I can't imagine a rational, ecologically compatible way of life, I just don't know how we can make the transition from where we are now to a more sensible way of life.

We may not have much time left to carry out a transition before nature forces it with calamitous consequences (for us, at least; it's already calamitous for other species and people who are not riding the merry-go-round).

I don't know how we can step off this merry-go-round of extraction, production, consumption, waste, and more extraction. It isn't that I can't imagine a rational, ecologically compatible way of life, I just don't know how we can make the transition from where we are now to a more sensible way of life. — Bitter Crank

I do not think that a transition will come without any violent revolution. Nor do I support such a violent event. I think we will hang on to this capitalist system untill it runs completely out of support and that may well take a very long time. I do not think that the average common man can be persuaded to this utopian thinking.

Pretty much agree.

One "alternative" to violent revolution is devolution and/or collapse. I don't have any idea about what the timeline might be for either one. Of the two, collapse is the more likely and the least pleasant of the two. Devolution might not be a picnic for us commoners either.

Either way, the present situation can not go on forever. So much of the world's economy is predicated on inexpensive hydrocarbons. We have probably passed "peak oil"--the point after which easily, abundantly, petroleum is available. Fracking is evidence of this. At the end of this petroleum era there will still be oil in the ground, but it will take more energy to extract it than the oil itself contains. That's what will bring oil to an end.

It isn't just oil for fuel. It's oil for petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics, heating, lubrication, paint, etc.

The other thing, aside from peak oil, is global warming. I am fairly confident that we are not going to succeed in avoiding catastrophe. We didn't, and maybe we can't, act quickly enough, resolutely enough, and thorough-going enough to avoid it.

Now, I don't mean to suggest that the world's plutocracy will suffer very much. I wish suffering on them, but I don't think it will happen. It's the rest of us that will do the suffering (us and succeeding generations). But one way or another, the present world economy is going to be busted up. It's in that event that there might be significant hope for devolution/revolution to occur which might put us on a more humane path. Unfortunately it won't happen, probably, until the catastrophe has played itself out.

And, of course, we boundlessly stupid homo sapiens may miss the opportunity altogether.

I have had the same belief and hope for a more utopian society also, but this requires a change in perspective of our entire race to one that acts as a race and not as a collection of individuals.
To me the idea relates to the way cells act in groups- enough cells from a body that acts together as one entity. I would like to suggest that given the right number of humans that this perspective change must take place and that this must occur for humanity to survive and evolve.
Intentional evolution you could say.