Forum Post: Here's a idea...will it work???
Posted 12 years ago on July 19, 2012, 4:42 p.m. EST by Underdog
(2971)
from Clermont, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
While discussing on another post the concept of what money is, it struck me that we could actually do away with money altogether.
Here's how.
Suppose we all decide that time served in the community takes the place of money. If I work X hours (say the standard 40 hours per week) I will be credited 40 hours time. We then devise what 40 hours time can "purchase" such as food = 2 hrs, electricity = 3 hrs., rent/mortgage = 5 hrs,, phone = 1 hr., etc., etc., etc., A certain amount of time served could be assigned to discretionary time-spending on non-necessities like recreational activities and so on. For those who can't work for whatever reason (sickness, retirement, whatever) the necessities would be provided along with a small stipend of time credits for discretionary use. To curb abuse of "time-welfare", one would have to prove illness or age that would apply in order to receive time credits.
I got this idea from a guy who insisted that work = money. I argued that money is a medium of exchange (which it is).
I don't have all the details of this idea worked out yet, because I just thought of it. I'm sure this idea must have already been thought up by someone else and, perhaps, expanded on. Does anyone know?
If money were eliminated, there could be no wealthy class and poor class because everyone would be required to work to obtain necessities (everyone would be equal). By proper calculation of time values to necessities provided, it could be determined what would be required for everyone to have a comfortable middle-class lifestyle/standard of living. The ultra-wealthy would be eliminated and the poor would be eliminated.
I'm sure many will say I'm crazy for suggesting this. Maybe I am. I have no idea if it would work or not. I'm just throwing it out there for discussion.
NOTE: APPENDED BELOW 07.24.2012
The concept of using time in place of traditional currency is not new as the below links indicate. What is apparently different about what is being proposed is that the time credit ("tic") is not traded or exchanged. It is a single-use transaction medium that destroys the "immortality" normally associated with money. The concept of immortal money, along with the idea of trade or exchange (that evolved from the barter system) is the basis for vast wealth and vast debt. Both contribute to the great imbalances we see in the world today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_banking
Money cannot be eliminated any more than you can eliminate telephone, stove, chair and table. You are right about Money = Work but there is a hidden flaw. Focus on work and you will see Work = Quality + Energy. Today they mass produce things to make money and 99% of products become garbage in one year (see "Story of Stuff" in Internet). They fat-heads stripped science and engineering down to consumables and disposables. Thus, they are mass producing Quality Garbage and the entire world pay the Price--literally, and in hard cash! So, it appears to me, the updating is necessary as below:
I do not advocate that Money = Work. That is advocated by others. I advocate the dictionary definition of money which is that it is a medium of exchange (that replaced barter). If you read the various comments on this post you would see that my two biggest complaints about money is that its exchange/transfer quality coupled with its "immortal" nature allow for the accumulation of vast wealth and vast debt. The proposal on this post suggests the possibility that an alternative to money might be possible provided all of the variables/difficulties associated with anything new can be worked out. Admittedly, convincing world populations to replace money with something better would be a very hard sell, as money is all people have known for thousands of years. But all people knew for thousands of years was the horse until someone invented the automobile. If an idea is good enough, and begins to gain ground with enough people, it stands a possibility of being accepted. It is all a matter of showing people why one system is better than another. And there are a lot of people that think that our current money system, in its current form, is a very great evil that allows for enormous corruption, massive world debts, raping and pillaging of the planet in the name of capitalism, and other similar problems.
I am delighted that you speak the same language as me. As an Indian, I surely have misinterpreted your statement. Good people always impress me and you are no exception. I wish the 1% were people like you. I fail to understand making troubles and din all around how the 1% expect to live in happiness.
In the USA, about 1.4 million people belong to the 1%, and the beginning of the 1% is about $380k per year income (or thereabouts). Some of them achieve this through hard work. Others inherit their wealth. Now there is nothing wrong per se, imho, with wealth as long as they don't get political and begin to buy influence and rig the system in their favor. But those that do engage in those things represent the real problems in our society (especially the most wealthy -- the 1% of the 1%). Those that choose to get political and buy influence and try as hard as possible to preserve the status quo that pushes for things like Citizens United are the most dangerous. Regardless of income, all those who oppose an egalitarian society, who obstruct progressive plans to better society in favor of their own wealthy agenda, are enemies of the people and the planet -- and they do not appear to care or they would be stepping up and leading the way with all their wealth to make the world a better place instead of seeing to it that means are taken (laws) to preserve the status quo and their incredible wealth.
That is why I am exploring alternatives to money and systems that do not use it. Destroy the evils of money by destroying money itself and you might have a chance at saving this world from its current destructive course. I often wonder how the ultra-rich think they will live in a world that has been raped and pillaged of its natural resources at the expense of their continuing capitalistic practices. Do they think this course can be maintained forever? it is obvious to any intelligent person that we are on an unsustainable path. Why do they not step up with their financial resources and influence and work toward fixing our mess? They are in the best position to do so. Obviously, because they are the ultimate selfish predator. Monsters, sociopaths, and psychopaths.
I'm not sure if one can get the world away from money any time soon, but we all as individuals can start taking money out of our lives right away, or at least in part. Borrowing on Underdog's thought, all one needs to start is to do things one self, and exchange good deeds with one's neighbor.
Say we make that the culture, and much money exchange will go away.
Appreciate your input, and you are absolutely correct that how we treat each other might have just as big an impact within the current system as my hairbrained idea to try to force the money out and replace it with an entirely different paradigm. I would appreciate any ideas you might have that could push this idea along that I am trying to develop on the spot in this post.
Maybe you can talk your local town into providing coupons or credits of some sort for work done for the city which can then be used to offset one's city taxes?
Conceptually that is a really great idea. When it comes to implementation, that would be more of a challenge b/c that would require quite a lot of citizen participation, and most people are too busy/selfish to volunteer for that. They would rather just pay the tax.
But I live in a fairly small town of 25,000 so I could bring it up at a city council meeting and see what people think. Thanks for the suggestion. Appreciate it.
Port Townsend, WA. did this a while ago; I don't know how it turned out. "Town Dollars" were used within the town for all those businesses willing to do so. They also have a very good co-op market.
I'd be interested in knowing what happens..
[Removed]
Weaning us off off the idea of currency is already happening: www.fourthcornerexchange.org
Pretty cool. thanks.
The most important thing is that only work must be rewarded therefore everybody must chose to work.Next everybody should chose to help everybody else(I think this is equally important).People must communicate with each other with ease.People must evaluate each other on all accounts.Then we can use iterative processes to evaluate each person value of work.I should use this chance to0 inform you that a Kashmiri has worked thoroughly on the alternative to the contemporary economies and the contemporary money.
In spite of income, all those whom oppose an egalitarian modern society, what person obstruct progressive plans to raised society simply their own affluent agenda, are enemies in the people and earth -- and they just don't appear to care or they will be stepping up and in the lead with all their wealth to generate the world a greater place instead of seeing for it that means are generally taken (legal guidelines) to maintain the status quo along with their incredible riches. http://www.abbybridal.com/chiffon-spaghetti-straps-floor-length-a-line-bridesmaid-dresses-under-100.html
Agreed and obvious.
[Removed]
Perhaps. But I can envision a system that would make it much harder to manipulate than exists today (and perhaps impossible if it were engineered with enough rigor and forethought). By design, the wealthy class would be eliminated, and the poor/poverty class would be raised up into the one middle-class. Egalitarianism would be within sight.
[Removed]
Are you talking about a book? I have already started an outline and am gathering supporting data. It will take quite some time, as the subject matter and detail requires a lot of research and references. No ETA. I would feel a lot better if I already had a serious offer from a publisher. Have you ever written a book?
[Removed]
Did you get it published? I went looking for a reference to it on Google but got nothing.
[Removed]
Well, maybe you ought to revisit it. Time seperated from a project like that brings fresh perspective if taken up later. You might come up with something new/better worthy of putting into print someday. Who knows what might happen? You might just write something that would be wildly popular.
Then you could retire from OWS and smoke big cigars on your yacht with the rest of the 1% :-)
Have you given any thought as to whom, in this egalitarian world, would do the menial labour jobs?
Perhaps a roster system for garbage pickups, street sweeping, sewer works?
The egalitarian reference is that of class, not jobs. All jobs would remain as exists today (except for those who do not produce by relying on money to make money). Everyone works in order to be compensated for labor by the central computer(s). Everyone...no exceptions.
I don't like it.
For one thing, I don't trust any kind of databasing of humans.
I know it's already happening, and I don't like that either.
Are you proposing micro-chipping, so the 'puter "knows" who it is paying?
Not necessary, though possible. I propose card swipe as exists today for transactions (but utilized differently). We are almost there now, in the sense that people can be paid by direct-deposit to their bank checking accounts and pay their bills via on-line banking. Credit/debit card swipe enables purchase of goods/services today. So in today's world already it is possible to live almost entirely without touching paper currency. So the system I am proposing is already within technological current-day capability.
Bio scan would add a layer of security to the system to reduce/eliminate potential fraudulant use of stolen cards, but again bioscan is not necessary to implement the system. Today when credit/debit cards are lost or stolen, notification is made and the card is voided. Then another card is re-issued. This would also be applied in a similar manner to the new system I am proposing.
Credit card fraud is huge.
So is skimming, meaning slipping a card-reader into an ATM to send info to a nearby laptop. As fast as we can upgrade security on the card system, the crooks come up with a new scam.
This will eventually lead to what was predicted; dna-swabbing of everyone, and microchipping.
Men playing God. It's the wet dream of every NPD sufferer out there.
The fraud exists because the money system exists. Remember, we are talking about the elimination of money altogether. That puts things on an entirely different footing. Data encryption is enormously sophisticated now, and getting better. Someday (admittedly not soon enough) quantum computing will make the type of fraud you are talking about impossible...physically impossible.
If you're looking for a way to poke holes in the system I am proposing, you will probably find them. But is what we have now preferable? Look at the mess the world is in now with inconceivably monsterous national debts, LIBOR scandal and all the abuse with influence peddling, destruction of environment(s) due to the profit motive, and on and on and on, etc. (you know what I'm talking about).
Check out my blog here for more detailed info.
So the 1%ers are just going to have to step away from everything they've accumulated?
You're aware that they basically own the govt, which means they own the police force, the military, and can pay any amount in real coin/drugs/guns/women.
It's not like there's a hope in hell that there won't be resistance.
Of course I realize that. Do you think I'm stupid? I will admit to idealistic, but not stupid.
This whole thing will be in the hands of the masses to determine. The 1% will bring all of their power to bear on it in order to preserve the status quo, to be sure. They would certainly know what would be at stake, and would put out all the disinformation about it that they could muster in order to try to kill it before it could gain any ground. I consider it likely that were this to gain serious consideration there would be war break out over it. I am simply a man with an idea (not an original idea btw). What people decide to do or not to do with the idea is up to them.
But ideas can be dangerous to the status quo. History has proven this time and time again. And time and time again the status quo has sometimes given ground to the new ideas. This is not fantasy. It is fact.
I've often suggested alternative currencies on this forum.
The only reason people think that printed paper is worth anything, is from group conditioning. Allowing a somewhat clandestine group of people the sole rights to print this valuable paper was a huge act of trust. That trust has been broken.
The evidence of that breach of trust is in our hands now. Time to forge ahead, and create a new way to trade amongst ourselves.
I'm in agreement with you, and I don't think that you're stupid. I just have to get the facts straight, before giving credibility to ideas. You know that there's gaping holes in your plan, and the plan in and of itself is quite elitist, making assumptions that a) everyone involved is computer literate. And b) everyone has access to the web.
Both a and b assume that the infrastructure as it is will remain, and the power grid will continue indefinitely. There's no backup to your plan without both a power grid, a monstrous array of interstate and transnational cabling, and multitudes of satellites. Not to mention that computers and PDAs will break down, and require replacing.
Conclusion is, I'm still in favour of a tangible exchange note/coin/symbolic representation of labour, rather than an intangible bunch of ones and zeroes in a database.
If the power grid goes down in the way you are talking about we would be completely screwed anyway regardless of what system we tried to use, and there would be a lot of other worries besides financial. As for the central computer(s) themselves, failsafe computers in the DoD and in the Financial Sector already exist today with triple/quadruple redundancy (including power supplies) because such systems are deemed of such critical importance to the nation that they simply cannot fail. For them to do so would be catastrophic to the country. So the computers I'm talking about could be engineered/configured in the same way and housed in super-secure facilites like a Ft. Knox kind of thing.
As far as computer literacy goes, how much does it take to swipe a card? Yes, currently there are those in the older crowd who aren't computer savey (my mom is one). But not so for anyone 30 years old or younger. Eventually, the entire population will be computer literate. It will not be an option. It will be required and it will be fact.
Web access will eventually become universal also as the entire population becomes web savey it will no longer be a matter of choice. It will be a requirement that there be sufficient Internet infrastructure to handle the demand (and demand will be universal). I am talking about a society that will provide the means when the demand is there. And it will be there in the not too distant future when the older crowd dies off.
All of the objections you are bringing up are valid concerns. But I don't see how any of them are insurmountable.
This is just for the US, you mean?
Roughly half of the world's population don't have lights or running water at this point in time. Forget the internet, or "swiping cards".
A first-world country like Australia is still in the process of rolling out a national broadband plan.
What will all those people do for "coin" until they can get online?
Or, as I said, is this plan just for people in your country?
This would be rolled out as capability allows. Of course, it would be a long time coming in certain parts of the world. But again, as demand increases infrastructure would be built to provide the means. It all depends on popularity/demand of use of the new system. If demand is high, the infrastructure would likely be provided relatively quickly (like 20 years or something). If demand is not high it might take 50 (or it might not happen at all). Again this is all about whether or not people want a universal egalitarian society, resistance to the idea by the 1%, etc.
Internet money is ones and zeroes.
How could I take them to the markets and buy myself some vegetables and fruit?
I hate paper money. We used to have a tiny strip of valuable metal inside our paper money here in Australia.
Now we have the most advanced polymer technology notes in the developed world. It's still just a piece of plastic.
I have several logs of local cedar in storage here that are appreciating in actual value faster than gold, but I can't see myself carting them off to the markets to trade for food.
Your model assumes that wherever people need to trade goods, there will be a swipe machine hooked up to the internet, and every trader will have one.
You've just ostracised over four billion people in the world, and made it impossible for the easiest solution to corporate domination to flourish.
Ran out of reply room to this comment so will reply here.
You're failing to grasp the capability of technology. I have an IT background, so I can see that technologically there is nothing that would necessarily prevent this from being implemented. Even today, there are cell phones (smartphones) like the iPhone that have apps with your credit/debit card in them that can be used in lieu of swipe. Just explore what's available even today and you'll see what I mean. In another 10 or 20 years, technology will be so advanced that none of your technological objections will be a concern.
I'm with ya! See
http://metacurrency.org/
for a great way to put all this into perspective!
Open Source Currency is a way for the community of folks who accept the currency to support real world change by giving out currency to make those projects happen. We don't need to turn to Dad-dollar to approve of - and give out allowances for - our efforts in our communities. What's interesting, is that when you link these different local complimentary currencies together online, you can get a digitally backed currency that can be used to purchase items online! This can help get local currencies off the ground much quicker because there is a pre-existing global market to spend them in. A perfect example of glocalism - though God, I do hate the sound of that word!
Thanks for that. Is this digital barter between companies/corporations? I had heard about that but hadn't investigated it in much detail.
A very cool topic. (talk more later about it). I am finding it helpful to step back, prior to the invention of money, and study those societies that lived without it. I am learning more about the characteristics that gave rise to money by peering into the writings about barter. You mentioned one of the characters of money above where you said that "money is a medium of exchange..." I am finding also another key characteristic- its usefulness as a store of value. There are tons of materials on barter which may be helpful in understanding what currencies came to be accepted (in place of barter) and what money became the most acceptable currency. By way of contrast, we have a currency that we have no choice except to use by force of law.
Thanks for your response. I have actually created a blog about it here as I really feel everyone is trying to fix a "symptom" and not the cause. I feel the underlying cause is money itself. It is all so obvious to me now. The rich love the money system because it is so easy to abuse and manipulate in their favor, and in doing so they abuse and manipulate the rest of us in the process. I'll just go on the official record and say that I want to eliminate the wealthy class entirely, and also eliminate the poverty class. One comfortable middle-class is what I would like to see. This is the only way I can conceive of any kind of egalitarian society.
Keep in mind that not all rich people love the system. Those that do, however, are no different morally than pirates. The surest way to eliminate poverty is to eliminate theft, especially theft enshrined by law which is exactly the political foundation for our monetary system. Like Manna's post just below, money can't be eliminated any more than you can eliminate the telephone, a stove, a chair or a table. Like these goods, money is also a good. And like any good, money has to be produced first before it can be used. The act of exchange whether in barter or indirectly through money is the exchange of property.
Ask a Banker where he got the money in his Bank. Ask the central banker the same question. Was it deposited by those who do produce or did they make it up electronically? We rail against the car thief, the hold-up man and the burglar. Finally, we are rising up against the worst of the worst- those who steal from us under the protection of law. The class of people that I am out to eliminate are those people who force us by law to use their money. They are worse than any common criminal because they leach our productive energies day-in and day-out over the course of our life times, all under the guise that it is legal. The money that has to be eliminated is the false money that they force us to use as currency. There is still time to do it and there are still plenty of us to do it. Even among the rich, there are still some of them who haven't crossed over to the dark side. To Manna's post below, I'd add "Money = Property" and the admonishment- Let's learn to protect it.
But can't you see that it goes deeper than that? We are talking about human nature itself. Even if you eliminated all of the thiefs you are talking about for a time, they would soon figure out a way to come back another way, because the money system itself is so very deeply flawed. I am convinced it is that way by design...on purpose...they want it that way. So take the damn thing away from them. They spend a lot of time figuring out how to protect their interests. Developing a system like I'm talking about would make it damn difficult (and perhaps almost impossible) for anyone to abuse the system anymore. Like spoiled children, that would really piss them off. There would surely be tantrums for a time, but the society would be more egalitarian in the long run and people would get used to the new way. People adjust to things fairly quickly, especially when the majority of the general population are in favor of it. People adjusted rather quickly to the automobile after having the horse around for thousands of years. Same principle.
Eliminate the forced monetary system for a voluntary one. Repealing legal tender laws is key to getting to a voluntary money (or monies for that matter). Only with legal tender can they effect their design. Without it, they know that people would look at their money and say, "NFW, we're fine with our own money." You have to keep in mind that fiat isn't the chosen; it's the forced. That's why in principle I don't agree with your tic system because you want to force it into society. With voluntary money, people would evaluate tic. Some may even use it. Over time though, I'd say that most people would gravitate to commodity money.
In general, people would be reinvigorated to handle their money with the utmost scrutiny and safety. They'd insist by contract that their deposits be handled in only one of two ways- 1) as a source of lending; or 2) as a deposit not to be lent. They would also insist that the perverse legal precedents that morphed their property (i.e, their deposits) into someone else's property (i.e., the bank's) be overturned for the fraud that they are.
My vision for tic is that it would co-exist with money until people could see the inherent advantages, much as the automobile co-existed with the horse until the horse was eventually replaced entirely because people could see the obvious advantage. This might take 10, 20, or 30 years or more (or it might happen in less than 10 years, I don't know). Regardless of the timeframe, I never envisioned that tic would replace money entirely all at once. That would create mass chaos and obviously could not work.
With that (your interest in tic), you would greatly favor the repeal of legal tender laws, no? With such repeal not only tic but any money could be voluntarily chosen to use. The market would sort out and lay claim to the best money to use over time.
I favor the repeal/elimination of money, period (whether legal tender or otherwise). What I am proposing is not money as the definition currently exists, because what I am proposing eliminates exchange. It also eliminates the perpetuity that exists in money today.
Hmmm. I must have missed that. I am sorry. I'll loop back to your definition of tic and how it'd be practice. In the interim, you say that tic eliminates exchange but I can't see how. Give me a few and I'll be back to the discussion. Sorry 'bout the miss.
Tic is a voucher type of thing. One time use only. Tic is destroyed when item is "purchased". There is no exchange between two parties as exists with money. All tics come from the central computer(s) to both parties. Both parties are laboring and both parties get tics (not ticks, hee hee). I know the concept is strange because money is all we've known from birth. But once you get your head around the concept, it starts to make sense (at least to me).
Did you check out my blog about it for further detail?
Just checked it out. My friend's son is an artist. The artist just finished a painting. He spent 1800 hours creating it. Another friend of mine is a software engineer. He spent two man years over the course of 3.5 calendar years creating a series of programs to further secure wire transfers. Henry Ford and Thomas Edison spent most of their waking lives innovating. Using these as examples, I simply can't square tics. Sure they'd be remunerated (somehow) for their labor but it leaves uncovered the rest of the transaction, namely the value others place on their innovations.
Not following you exactly. Can you elaborate or explain your concern differently? Btw, I welcome all objections to this, and mostly what I get from people are objections, as it helps me think through all the details required to fill any holes I may have overlooked. I am not god.
I am thinking about tic within the broad context of production and exchange, and within production and exchange of profit and loss. Labor is part of both production and exchange.
My friend's son, the artist, may never sell that painting, even though he spent considerable time in creating it. Is he remunerated by tic? The software engineer above may never sell the programs, he developed, even though he spent 2 years developing them. Is he entitled to get tic? And Ford and Edison created a lot of stuff some of which never made it to market. Will their tic-account be credited just the same?
Each of these entrepreneurs believed that there'd be some demand in the market for the results of their work and were motivated to invest not only their time but also their savings and the capital that they raised. The artist paid the landlord for the studio he leases from him and purchased his drawing pads, canvas and paint. The software engineer upgraded his development environment with the latest software tools. Ford paid his employees (designers, engineers, line workers building the prototype, etc) even though, for example, the car was scrapped before getting to market.
Tic remunerates for labor but (as I see it) tic doesn't account for the payback on products that make it to market. I am not sure about it because it seems to be singularly focused on time spent. As such, tic doesn't provide for an accounting which an entrepreneur needs to have, namely the measure of profit or loss. Money by definition does provide for this.
In the past, some labor leaders argued for hard money to back fiat. They knew its importance in protecting the rank and file from the machinations of the elite's monetary schemes for inflation.
I say that it is money that has to be reconstituted, not discarded. Creation and control of it has to be taken out of the hands of those who corrupt it. I am suggesting that a key in doing that is to repeal the legal tender laws that they've forced on us thereby making money voluntarily chosen in the market.
Oh I get you now.
The people you mentioned like the artist, software engineer, Ford and Edison, etc. ALL get compensated by tics, because tics aren't money. This is the hard concept to understand, so let me elaborate.
Why is it that everyone scrambles under the money system? The reason is that the hoarding instinct in humans is reflected in money that is hoarded (wealth). So human emotion is involved in the money system as humans are the source of money. But in my conception of this, humans are not the source of tics...the computer is. The computer has no emotions. It will gladly dispense tics until doomsday. It doesn't care about wealth. It is only concerned with providing tics based on labor time worked by humans.
Lest you still be thinking in terms of money, there is no reason to be concerned about inflation, deflation, stagflation, etc. because those concepts apply to money. Under money, the more of it you print up the less valuable it is (inflation). You can't inflate/deflate tics because you can't inflate/deflate time. An hour is an hour is an hour. Since tics are destroyed during the first transaction, they can't accumulate thus creating any possibility even remotely similar to inflation. It is impossible.
And consider this. Were this theoretical model implemented worldwide, everyone would be paid the same because, again, it's time we are talking about and not currency. So someone in the US and someone in China gets the same tic for the same amount of time put in. Never again would there be this concern about jobs going overseas because the labor is cheap there and capitalism seeks the lowest wage-earners possible to keep costs as competitive as possible. That worry would be gone forever under this model.
Did I answer this to your satisfaction?
Great idea. Kinda like the bitcoin idea but maybe better. We could still afford swimming pools (for all) and RV's aplenty. Keep the great ideas flowing people!
www.naturalmoney.org
http://www.lifecurrency.org/
hey..it's not a bad idea. but how realistic?
There are tremendous challenges associated with any relatively new idea. I don't even know if this is new or not. It could be something old that was rejected. Assuming that it is new, a great amount of analysis needs to go into it to determine the strengths and weaknesses.
One thing I haven't explored yet is how this system could replace capital investment. Let's say the government wants to build an aircraft carrier. Today they would do it with taxes. With the tic system, all labor that goes into making it is "paid" for with tic labor, and this includes the labor required to produce all the various parts that make up that carrier. So the government really wouldn't have to pay anything because the government doesn't produce any labor in building it (it is contracted out to the private sector). This means there are no taxes required. Those employed in government (public sector) earn tics just like in the private sector. So there are no taxes at all under this system. Everyone who has a job earns tics. But in today's money world, capital investment is raised to pay for things. So the question of how this tic system would pay for things like new businesses (venture capital) and such needs to be better understood. Maybe it could still work under the tic system because every single thing that exists in society (except for natural resources) has been produced by human labor, and under this system every single person is payed via time credits. I don't know. There are still a lot of things that need to be thought about with this.
At www.naturalmoney.org it is pointed out that after WWII a city in Austria and a city in France both implemented local currencies which, by definition, had to be kept within the system and not hoarded - there was a charge for holding money! Both were working so well that other cities wanted to do it too, so both countries made them illegal. What better recommendation than that? And, it's already working: www.fourthcornerexchange.org
why build aircraft carriers. how about building a better individual.
I admire your idea. I just think you may be wasting your time.. I think money is here to stay, and to pay. Cash is king.
It is argued at naturalmoney.org that it isn't the money itself, but the system by which it is used that needs changing. Comparing money to the blood and the economy to the circulatory system. The heart wouldn't withhold blood from the kidney, or charge it 'extra' if it has to fight a disease; the whole body requires that blood keep moving. The theory is money should always be in circulation, never hoarded, and, of course, not become a commodity. The explanation of how this would work is simple and ready for any town who wants to to implement right now. All it takes is agreement. BTW, I am 68 years old, and I have never heard of ideas that have been around for decades. Port Townsend started using local currency at least 8 years ago, and it still does as a part of the Fourth Corner Exchange (I'm guessing that "fourth corner" refers to the Pacific Northwest, where it started). If it weren't for this forum and the OWS movement, I would never have discovered so much information. It's difficult to cut through the chaff sometimes, but the ways people are thinking -- and to know that they are thinking -- is well worth wading through the vitriol.
a worthy comment..thanks
I can't deny that people are in love with money. But is it more beneficial or more damaging to the world? That's the question that needs answering. If everyone thinks its beneficial to society then fine. But if it turns out to be seriously flawed and damaging to the world, then we would be collectively insane to continue to use it and an alternative to money needs to be found. I'm not saying it has to be time-credits. But it should be something better than money if money turns out to be destructive to the planet.
Money. Is it more beneficial or more damaging to the world? Real money is (and has been) the most beneficial innovation in the history of mankind. It's corruption has created the worst evil ever. (Any number of studies on the history of money demonstrates both.) I'd say focus on reconstituting real money.
Disagree, but respect your opinion. To each his own.
An effort could be made if people are willing; I asked a question under a post called People's Solution. I'd appreciate it if some of you who like the idea presented here would check it out and let me know what you think -- but no naysayers nor vitriol, please; only constructive ideas or nothing at all. Money has become a commodity, no longer representative of actual things or services. I refer to it generally as "energy input, product or service output" -- which is the true value. A medium of exchange should, by definition, represent something substantive. A community would have to decide what has value, which can be tricky. We would have to throw out everything we've been taught has value and get down to what we truly believe has value.
I tried to find the People's Solution post but couldn't. Could you provide the link please?
It is just my own idea at http://occupywallst.org/forum/peoples-solution/, or so I thought. From others I learned the ideas are really set out most clearly at www.communityplanet.org in a video by Jack Reed. Then if you google intentional communities or cooperative communities, you find a lot of websites that are in one stage or another of forming a real community in the real world based on common goals.
When I went to your link there was nothing there (????).
Where are the incentives for working hard? Or getting an education? If there were none you might see the end of skilled laborers. You are getting very close to communism and passing socialism. I think that we can still make our current system work with a few modifications.
We the people hold all the power. We have just forgotten how to use it.
First off if you don't like wallmart stop shopping there. If enough people agreed with you, a difference could be made. Nobody is forced to shop there.
If you think that the big banks on Wall street are corrupt stop giving them your money.
If you don't like who is picked to run for president vote in the primary. If enough people agree with you and a change is not made vote out the incumbent that was responsible the decision. I was registered to vote as an independent but changed to republican so that I could vote for Ron Paul.
We can all sit here and say that it won't make a difference because "I'm just one person" but that's just an excuse to be lazy and exactly what they want.
Money is not the problem. It has been used since the begining of time. We are the problem. We are like those horrible parents that just ignore our kids and then just complain when they do something wrong.
"I think that we can still make our current system work with a few modifications."
Our system is completely broken and were I god I would throw it out and start over. Capitalism has proven itself to be extremely flawed. It works for awhile under certain conditions but then degenerates. We are witnessing it now at the height of its degeneration with unspeakable acts being carried out all over the world in its name. It's ultimate goal is the concentration of enormous wealth in the hands of a tiny few. It is the most anti-egalitarian economic system ever devised by the human brain.
And people shop at Walmart because it is cheap and the economic slaves produced by capitalism are not really given the option of shopping in better stores because they have no money. Economic serviles must shop where their economic masters dictate.
the problem i see with this is that it puts the control of the hours (credit) in others hands, whereas money, (cold hard cash) you have in your hand you are in control of. Great idea though!
I don't follow you. How does it put the control in other hands? You still work and you are still compensated for work. It is very similar to the money system we are so very familiar with, except that it eliminates monetary profit and transfer, and thus eliminates the means for vast wealth to accumulate. It has a built-in means to put a time limit on money instead of money's current "immortal" status, which along with the exchange/transfer component of current economics, is the basis for vast, concentrated wealth in the hands of a tiny, powerful few.
Money is not the problem, it already represents human labor. The problem we face in our society is one of unfair trade.
If a corn farmer and a wheat farmer each labored the same number of hours to produce their grain, but the corn farmer convinced the wheat farmer that his corn was worth more, who would prosper? If the wheat farmer traded 100 bushels of wheat for 200 bushels of corn, who would become rich and who would become poor? Obviously the corn farmer would become rich. Not because he worked harder or longer, but by deception. He convinced the wheat farmer that corn had value that it really did not possess.
In our world, the poor work for a single farmer who farms grain. He labors for 8 hour and produces 8 bushels of grain. His wages for this day of labor are 4 bushels of grain.
He goes to the nearby market to buy some chicken. He pays 4 bushels of grain from his 8 hours of labor for one chicken. The chicken required 2 hours of labor to produce.
So the poor worker lost out in both trades. First as the laborer, second as the buyer. He traded 8 hours of his labor to purchase a chicken that only required 2 hours of labor to produce.
The key to wealth is trading less of your labor for more of anothers labor. The rich understand it, the poor do not.
But under this system, if you have read through the comments on this post, there is no trading between parties. So you are talking about an underground economy that is back on the barter system?
It's really fruitless debating adopting another economic system when the problem facing us is so much larger. The people have been brainwashed by years of public education and media indoctrination. We can't get the people to back something as simple as a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United because most don't even know what an amendment is. Don't you think it would be a thousand times more difficult to overturn our present economic system with the large corporations in full control of Congress?
The most important function that Occupy can perform is to educate the people about the injustice occurring in the present economy and that they can and do have the power to stop that injustice. Until that most basic goal accomplished, no other goals really matter.
I see your point clearly and agree that there are many important things other than this little discussion that need our attention. From a practical everyday perspective it makes more sense to most people to figure out how to pay for a burger to shove in their mouth than to contemplate string theory. But if people didn't also spend time trying to figure out how to improve things we would still be back in the stone age picking fleas off our animal skin cloths and climbing trees to keep from being eaten by predators.
A car started off as an idea. After a few of them were made people began to see their value over horses. When Henry Ford figured out how to mass-produce them at an affordable price for everyone, the horse was gradually replaced (perhaps not so gradually).
When an idea, any idea, gains momentum it starts taking on a life of its own. People are always skeptical of new ideas. It is easier to sit back, watch and criticize new ideas than to embrace them (if they have value). I'm just glad that all those great people of the past pushed forward with their ideas regardless of criticism and ridicule (not that I consider myself great by any means or would compare myself with them...I am nothing).
So what you are saying is that people are stupid
It's not a matter of intelligence, but of knowledge. When you buy a product, do you really know if you are getting a fair value for your money, or are you paying much more than it's worth?
When you receive your paycheck, do know for sure that you are being fairly compensated?
Most people do not have the necessary knowledge to determine what is fair or unfair in the economic world. They go with the flow. If it seems about right, they buy it. If the pay seems about right, they accept it.
The people who do have the knowledge, have the advantage. And they usually have the money too.
we must oppress to succeed. Success = live somewhat > poverty. poverty is relative anyway.
If we applied Darwin's theory that evolution favors the fittest, to an economic one, then all of the predators within capitalism, the lions, tigers, and wolves would all have no need for teeth.
By feeding so vigorously for dozens of years on their docile victims, the bulk of fat that makes up their ever enlarging, horrendously enormous bodies, is all that is necessary to roll over and squash entire herds of prey.
Dictators rule by oppression, corporations rule by compression. And when we feel our wallets being squeezed by that unstoppable invisible economic force, we know for certain that Darwin was correct!
seems so. do you work? or are you too smart for that?
I work at opening minds.
Well then you have your work cut out for you with that one - as his user name is fantasy - he has a closed mind and is quite happy that way.
that sound like a bunch of bs. although you do write some thoughtful bits.
It doesn't sound much different then what we have now, unless you propose an honor system, there will still be some medium given for work done and it will be traded for goods or services. The more unique but desired services will lead to someone eventually collecting more hours, credits, dollars, whatever then he/she really needs.
Interesting idea though, but it might have to be accepted world wide or society broken up into small Amish type self sufficient groups.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/heres-a-ideawill-it-work/#comment-787247
Yes, essentially what is being proposed is just another money system, i.e. instead of. dollars, we have "time served units". So, at the fundamental level I agree its not that much different. In fact all that is being stated is the essence of money. There is a difference though, in that with this 'time served" money system the present financial industry which is controlling our dollar does not come with it. I believe the problem we are facing now with our present dollar currency (as well as some other major currencies throughout the world) is it has been corrupted by those controlling the finance industry. We the people no longer have assurance of the sanctity of the money which we are using. Thus we get screwed in so many ways (which I don't need to elaborate on here.) Not to say its not possible to also corrupt a "time served" currency system, but at least the present set of crooks do not come with it. What this "time served" proposal offers is an alternative, and this alternative can be implemented by any one person, or any group at anytime.
The fundamental difference is that it eliminates money transfer between parties and destroys the "immortality" of money. I would call those significant differences.
Yes I see that now too.
But we must keep in mind that like money a time served accounting system can also be corrupted. A long time ago the church prohibited the taking of interest on money. Over time that taboo went away. Lately we've seen the repeal of many money handling laws like the Glass–Steagall Act. Our money system got out of hand. Similar can happen with time served system as less than honorable people get involved and change the rules.
I certainly acknowledge that no system is perfect. There never will be a perfect system because of the nature of humans. But I think this idea might be worth exploring in greater detail because it would appear to have some big advantages over the societal-damaging capitalistic system that is taking over and raping and pillaging the entire planet.
Definitely.
To me the only real question is how does one bring in to being.
I could still use your and everyone else's input in thinking through all of the potential pitfalls of this. Do you see any other problems with it that haven't been addressed so far?
Problems, like anything else, I'm sure will arise, but over all in concept its a great idea.
Thanks for your support. I really don't know where to begin to grow this into a viable model. Maybe in a lab environment first with a small number of people to discover all the problems on a miniscule scale, then build from there to the next logical size. I would like to be able to get people on-board with the idea because that is where all of the creativity pro and con will come into play (some will support and enhance the idea and others will discover its pitfalls and figure out how to circumvent it...perhaps returning to old-fashioned barter).
If you were doing something like this, how would you go about it? Write a book? Recruit college kids? I don't really know the next step for this, but would like to find out how to move it forward at least to the point where it proves itself either viable or unviable.
I'm not exactly sure either. I like your idea of bringing it up as a coupon or tax credit scheme at the next city council meeting in your town. Maybe start a small trading co-op with a few people. If it works on a small scale then maybe it can grow, or franchise.
Wiki system is an honor system, open, equel, share, and direct action.
Occasionally people with little honor misuse it for their own selfish reasons too.
Misuse it for how long?
Does it matter how long or how often? The point is not all people can be relied on to act honestly. Not that big a deal in a Wiki entry. When you're talking about an economic system and people's selfish desires come into play it becomes more serious.
people as a species seek knowledge
wiki actions are stigmergy. Stigmergy is a form of self-organization. It produces complex, seemingly intelligent structures, without need for any planning, control, or even direct communication between the agents. As such it supports efficient collaboration between extremely simple agents, who lack any memory, intelligence or even individual awareness of each other. wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmergy
I still have not thought through everything yet, but believe that the earned time credit (I'll call it a "tic") could be accumulated but not transferred. My reasoning for this is that today, with the $, it can be transferred to someone or something else without that someone or something else having exchanged a single second of their life for it. Today, a $ can be created out of thin air without any time exchange whatsoever. So an individual might be able to earn 40 tics per week, but only use 30 of them. But it shouldn't be possible for those tics to be transferred elsewhere. That is how enormous wealth arises today, and that is in conflict with an egalitarian society, which is my goal here with this concept.
I haven't thought everything totally through yet, and reserve the right to change my mind as I become more aware of what this concept might imply.
Help me to understand and work through the implications of this please.
See my comment to MsStacy a few posts above.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/heres-a-ideawill-it-work/#comment-787247
Hard to see how you could eliminate the need to transfer these tics. We live in a service economy. The path that money travels is more a web then a line. I go to the dentist, somehow give him some tics, he has to personally pay his staff, buy supplies,or personal items using my tics, or those of other patients. It's part of how money evolved, the need for transfer. If they aren't transferable you'll have a black market trading in something that is transferable.
The Spanish anarchists in Catalonia in the early 1930's tried to ban money. They had to resort to vouchers essentially creating their own money, like your tic. They made money illegal, but had to use death as the penalty for using it, making me think people still used it or some other valuable item in spite of the law.
I don't see the actual problem as being the money, it's human nature that creates the problem. Eliminating dollars is simply covering up a symptom. People will hoard something else.
No, you don't give the dentist some tics. His tics are generated from time labor on his side. A central source independent of government and private enterprise generates tics. Labor time is calculated and corresponding tics are generated and added to a persons tic account. There is NO exchange in this system. That's the big difference between this and money (which IS a medium of exchange).
What if a central computer assigned tics to everyone instead of people trading dollars? Money is all based upon this idea of exchange or trade. But since money is theoretically immortal, it becomes possible to theoretically create and accumulate an infinite amount of it. And isn't that what we are witnessing now with these ridiculously and obscenely crazy national debts? Money needs a way to become mortal, to be destroyed, not to live forever and be grown like a plant into infinite proportions. This concept of the single-use "tic" allows for the power of purchase contained in money, while also eliminating the ability to grow enourmous wealth or enourmous debt (because debt is a transfer concept).
Those are really good points you are making. I'm trying hard to push myself to break free of the concept of money for purposes of this post. It is a VERY hard thing to break out of the money paradigm, because it's all we've ever known. But people thought up money, and we should be able to think up something else if the money system isn't working very well.
So here is another comment from elsewhere on this post that I offer for your continued grateful input:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/heres-a-ideawill-it-work/#comment-786582
I read both your reply and the comment before it. I think you have a major problem in that you are attempting to create an economic system rather then let it evolve naturally as the use of money did. Money wasn't simply an idea, it filled a need at the time. If people don't see the need to drop it then you won't be able to replace it.
We can see the problems, but you would need almost universal agreement that money is the cause, not, as I suspect, just a symptom. Everyone works and everyone is provided for sounds simple and beautiful, but I don't believe people are altruistic enough to work together for society. The level of truly caring about people decreases as you get further from the self.
...you would need almost universal agreement that money is the cause...
Isn't the 99% almost universal agreement? Occupy is based on that concept that the transfer of money, that is immortal with no expiration date, leads to the accummulation of vast wealth over time into the hands of the 1%, creating an enormously imbalanced, inverted pyramid of money at the top, with a traditional pyramid of people at the bottom all scrambling for dollars.
Money needs a time limit, an expiration date, so that vast wealth can't accumulate at the top via a system designed to operate in favor of a tiny minority who can buy power and influence, manipulate politicians and laws. Money is a great evil that was initially created thousands of years ago as a means of convenience to replace the barter system. But people were short-sighted and failed to understand how the concept of transfer, basic to barter, would lead to vast wealth by "immortalizing" money.
The 99% is an economic class, at present they don't agree on any course of action. They are composed of conservatives, progressives, independents all with different beliefs. Those that offer to represent the 99%, those in Occupy, are a very small minority. They act without the consent of the people they say they want to help.
It brings up an interesting point. What would the consensus be if you brought this to a GA? I would say if the idea is accepted then it can move forward. If its debated and there are dissenting opinions, you know it's a non starter for the nation at this point in time. How could you expect to ever convince those of a conservative leaning, if you can't get near unanimity from Occupy?
I would be embarrassed to go before a GA or anyone else with this concept until it had been throughly researched and analyzed to determine the strengths and weaknesses. I was hoping by posting it that it would generate enough discussion of other ideas (pro and con) that there might be some light shed on it. If you reread my original post, this whole idea just struck me by way of another discussion on another post with someone else who was arguing vehemently that money = work, and that got me to thinking about money...what it is, how it accummulates, how it has no expiration date, etc...
I am not an economist so even if I put a book together (or even just a research paper) and got it published I would probably not be taken very seriously, since most people tend to want to have credentials associated with any serious work in print.
But I must admit I would find it funny if I wrote a best-seller that made millions of $$$ on a book that advocated the elimination of money and profit. :-)
it's still suggesting that we shouldn't have everything we need to survive by virtue of being a living human being. that we should "earn" a living. we should have something like socialism mixed with capitalism.
Not following you exactly. Could you elaborate a little?
I'm not sure what you have against earning a living, just about every animal out there has to do something in order to survive. Forage, migrate, stalk and kill, in effect earn a living. Fortunately humans can create surplus that can be used to assist the old or sick, those unable to earn a living. But some form of work for survival is still the norm.
there's nothing natural about trading, there's nothing natural about bartering. there's nothing natural about money. animals don't hoard, animals don't make businesses, animals don't specialize insanely in an attempt to gain an upper hand over the competition. neither do children. or people in their natural state. the act of trading is learned. if this were nature, everyone would only take what they needed and would have no interest in supremacy, which is really a response to fear. if we weren't scrambling to gain an edge over one another, we could just live.
let me correct myself. people who have evolved beyond lives of fear know that nature will always provide them with everything they need to survive. and when you die, you die. they don't feel the need to hoard and compete.
Of course not, animals live day to day, doing whatever their job is until death. Humans developed surplus and with it came specialization and all the other evils you mention.
Those things though, the barter, trade, money, all grew out of another natural tendency. To get the most benefit for the least effort. It's why a predator doesn't spend energy chasing down the strong prey.
Individual feelings vary. Some hoard others don't, it depends on the person. I believe death is the end, but have worked in an attempt to achieve a certain security until that time. A time, retirement, where I'd like to coast a little. Nature will provide in a hunter-gather sense if I've been trained to see the natural opportunities, but survival is still a job to work at. Nature will not drop off food for me, I have to go out and get it.
We used to be like that too.... barely a step above the "animals." Hunting, gathering, building structures in the wild. No money, no trading, no bartering. Everyone out for themselves, providing for their own sustenance and that's it. You call that living? Not for me, thanks.
[Removed]
It won't work........I can forget about 'money' as an economic exchange medium.....
But I cannot forget about silver and gold....can you?
Has been and always be a draw to for people to own it as a source of wealth and survival.
Silver and gold is also a medium of exchange. It isn't fiat currency, and has value because of relative scarcity. But you can't eat silver and gold. True value lies in those things necessary for human survival. Food, water, clothing, shelter. Silver and gold were used back in the day before the invention of the printing press. Had the printing press pre-dated gold and silver as a means to produce money, it is likely mankind would never have used it as money because it is harder to obtain (has to be mined) and is more bulkier to carry around. Paper money is far easier to make and easier to transport.
And people have largely forgotten about gold and silver, because now we use paper fiat currency. Furthermore, we don't even use paper much anymore. People can be paid electronically with direct-deposit paychecks directly to their bank accounts. They can go on-line and pay all their bills with on-line banking. They can make all their purchases with debit/credit cards. In what part of this has anyone actually touched paper? It is all just electronic impulses changing bit values in banking computers.
Money is just an abstract number now.
You are saying the exact same thing that the guy who said that "work=money" was saying. You're just exchanging the word "money" for the word "credits".
There are at least two problems your system will have to deal with.
1-Getting everyone to AGREE that every hour spent "serving" in the community are of equal value. That the "work" of the person who serves an 8 hour day digging ditches has the exact same value to society as the work of the person who serves an 8 hour day smiling and answering phones in an air conditioned office.
2-Getting everyone to agree that every "food item" or "house" or "phone" has the very same value as every other item in that same category. Unless everything produced for everyone, or purchased by everyone is exactly the same in every way, or has the exact same "value" to everyone, then differences will automatically evolve.
The idea that no one would be "poor" because everyone really WANTS to work and labor, and no one really wants to be lazy or inactive isn't one based on reality. The lazy would still be poor and so would their children. And if "time credits" are not transferable, then those people would starve and suffer and so would their families.
Or is it your plan to just let them die off because they will not be willing to produce anything "of value" to your society?
No matter what system you use, there will be abuse, transfer, trading, stealing, etc.
Thank you for your input. What I am really trying to do with this concept is work toward an idealized goal of a more egalitarian society. I'm thinking that everyone would acquire non-transferable time credits ("tics"). These tics do NOT come from an employer, and employees work primarily in cooperative environments. These tics are not the same as money, although it would appear on the surface that they function similarly. By not allowing for transferability as in money today, these tics are "used up" or "evaporate" the moment a good or service is "purchased". One immediately would ask "Well, what does the supplier get out of it if there is no exchange?" My answer is that there is no profit in this system. Everyone needs a job to produce a good or service because everyone needs tics. So if it takes 10 people 80 hours to produce 10 lawnmowers, they would all earn 800 tics. Each lawnmower would cost 80 tics. The "employees" have earned their required tics to "pay" their bills (even though those tics expire the moment those bills are paid). A purchaser spends 80 tics on the lawnmower, and likewise those tics instantly evaporate. But everyone has earned their tics by putting in their time, but there is NO profit being generated.
The goal is actually to eliminate money. If this theoretical society seeks to move all people (as much as possible) to what we now label as middle class, then a persons goal is simply to acquire tics and not profit, and the use of them would, more or less, pay for a more or less middle-class oriented goods and services society. So the tic cost of those goods and services should be about the same for everybody.
Regarding your point about ditch diggers and white-collar phone attendants, the assumption is that in the majority of cases people will train for and seek out work that they would want to do. Those that don't/can't find work that they enjoy will still have to obtain employment doing things they might not really like. Don't see how that can be changed, but we have that today under money and probably always will.
I'm thinking that tics are not earned from an employer, but assigned (perhaps by computer???) based purely on the time of one's life exchanged for them. Since there is no profit possible in this system, greed cannot arise. It has been eliminated. Yet everyone earns tics and "spends" them, but since they cease to exist after the first "purchase" there is no transfer of wealth, unlike our system where dollars can actually be theoretically immortal. Not so with tics.
UnderDog, have you seen my idea on the hour -coin system.. ? Where an hour coin is worth an hours work , or education ..and it can be printed with out limit because it expires the moment it is spent .. I've been talking about the hour-coin system on this forum for many months now .. surely you've seen it.. It's an EXCELLENT idea..! the hour-coin would provide opportunity for every person on the planet .. and completely change the extreme wealth vs abject poverty system we have today .. The problem I have been coming across , is that no one wants equal pay .. where as an hour coin for an hours work represents equal pay for everyone .. and trying to convince equal pay is a fair system has been the true challenge in moving forward with an HOUR-COIN operating system.. The final outcome is truely egalitarian .. AN HOUR-COIN (or hours credit) for an hours work..and all education will also receive an hour-coin for all training equally across the board.. IT's a system worth developing and implementing .. it would provide an unlimited currency for all labor and education .. just imagine what the world would be like if we would accept such an idea ..! TRUELY BEAUTIFUL !
I haven't seen your hour-coin posts, but remember I was away from this forum for a long time until just recently returning. It sounds on the surface that your hour-coin and my "tic" is pretty much the same thing. You indicated that your hour-coin is printed, whereas I advocate independent computer systems (independent of the public and private sector) generating tics onto magnetic card for swipe just like credit/debit cards today (this could even be linked to bio-metric identification to reduce "tic theft" such as thumb print, retena scan, or other such unique form of ID that can't be duplicated).
Could you provide some links to some of your hour-coin posts for me to look over? Think we are very close to being on the same page with this concept.
Underdog, it pains me that you would claim this hour-coin concept as your own, after I have been discussing this for many months on this very forum..
You sir , have no honor.
I am not claiming it as my own. Until you mentioned it to me, I had no idea that you had been discussing this concept. It looks like we simply came up with the same idea independently of each other. Issac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz both came up with Calculus independent of each other at about the same time. I think the same thing happened with you and I (not that I would compare us with the greatness of those two men).
I am not really interested in who gets the credit for coming up with it. I am interested in knowing if the idea actually has any merit in todays very complex society. Economics is enormously complex (just read through a macroeconomics textbook and you'll see what I mean). To have a high-level conceptual discussion about hour-coins or tics or whatever you want to call them is childsplay compared to trying to analyze all of the complexity associated with implementation of the concept. There are many, many things that have to be thought about and anticipated...chief of which is how people would try to get around the system. Would they create an underground economy? Would they circumvent the structure upon which this new paradigm is based?
Trust me, these discussions on these forums have not even begun to scratch the surface of the analysis required.
Sorry FOB but you have it wrong - reread UD's comment.
[-] 1 points by Underdog (1644) from Clermont, FL 37 minutes ago
I haven't seen your hour-coin posts, but remember I was away from this forum for a long time until just recently returning. It sounds on the surface that your hour-coin and my "tic" is pretty much the same thing. You indicated that your hour-coin is printed, whereas I advocate independent computer systems (independent of the public and private sector) generating tics onto magnetic card for swipe just like credit/debit cards today (this could even be linked to bio-metric identification to reduce "tic theft" such as thumb print, retena scan, or other such unique form of ID that can't be duplicated.
Could you provide some links to some of your hour-coin posts for me to look over? Think we are very close to being on the same page with this concept. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
I just found this on Wikipedia while researching the history of money. It appears neither you nor I originated this concept. It has been around for quite some time apparently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_voucher
[Removed]
http://positivenews.org.uk/2011/community/5029/time-credits-scheme-flourishes-social-money/
Thanks for providing that link. Looks like he is way ahead of me on this concept. The big difference I see in his time-credit Time Bank and my idea of "Tics" is that his can be swapped or traded/transfered and mine cease to exist upon being redeemed for something. In my view, anything that can be traded or transfered holds the possibility of being excessively accumulated for future use. This is exactly what money is, and money is theoretically immortal, so vast fortunes of it can be aquired over time. My idea of the "Tic" is that vast fortunes can never be made because Tics cannot be traded and thus accumulated. Tics can be accumulated by the individual based on tics assigned for hours worked. So if someone decides they want to work themselves to death by working 80 hours a week to get 80 tics, there's nothing to prevent that. But there is a limit to how many tics can be acquired because there is a limit to the amount of hours in one's life.
A side benefit of this system is that, unlike money, there can be no inflation or deflation because you cannot inflate or deflate time. It is a fixed constant. A tic is a tic is a tic -- forever "ticking" away.
Thanks again for providing that link. I think I need to read his book and get an idea of what he is doing in more depth.
[Removed]
[Removed]
I am very aware of who you were probably talking too and will sidestep that for the moment.
How I actually view money is that it is a storage device. It represents a battery that stores energy for a later use. Much like you suggest, it represents hours worked in most of our cases. If you can work enough hours to exceed your cost of living expenses, then you are able to store more energy for a later use. (wealth)
Now a couple of questions 1) This unit of credit, can it be saved for later use? 2) When used, does its value (energy) disappear or does it transfer to someone else?
I know that you may be skeptical of my questions, but I assure you, this is only for discussion of your idea.
I still have not thought through everything yet, but believe that the earned time credit (I'll call it a "tic") could be accumulated but not transferred. My reasoning for this is that today, with the $, it can be transferred to someone or something else without that someone or something else having exchanged a single second of their life for it. Today, a $ can be created out of thin air without any time exchange whatsoever. So an individual might be able to earn 40 tics per week, but only use 30 of them. But it shouldn't be possible for those tics to be transferred.
So, although I haven't thought everything totally through yet, and reserve the right to change my mind as I become more aware of what this concept might imply, I would say that the answer to your first question is yes (I guess???), and the answer to your second is that the tic "energy value" disappears (???)
Help me to understand and work through the implications of this please.
I think I understand what your intent and concerns are. You are correct about the power of wealth. It is all relative. A person that has a nest egg of $20,000 and all bills paid has more power that someone living paycheck to paycheck. I am curious myself on the percentage of the very wealthy that actually put effort into manipulating markets, politicians etc. to their advantage. The most skeptical would say all of them. I suspect that the percentage is far lower. So I ask, do we legislate to destroy the "very few" no-gooders and in the process, destroy all those who have done nothing wrong? -or- is there a way to regulate those that would do harm without harming the honest ones.
Your "Tic" would only have value until it is spent. When that "Tic" is spent and pays for an apple. The person who grew that apple does not get the value? Where does there "Tic" come from for selling the apple?
I am all about helping the poor and lower classes to rise up. Does removing the rich somehow change this?
Finally, if I grow old and have no ability to save "Tics" for a later use, how do I pay for things in my years when I am too old to work? Am I allowed to own a home?
I am trying to wrap my head around this. I am skeptical of the true workability of such a plan. Also, their are personal liberties that I see being lost with such a system. Not saying no, just saying how is this an improvement.
My opinion is that we teach others how to not live in debt. I know it sounds like BS, but I personal got on the path to being debt free in 2006. Though I am not completely out of debt yet, I am a good 2/3 of the way there and know that I have much more power over my own life because of it. If you can truly own your own home, own no one a monthly and can pick and choose when you spend for the most part, the rich or politicians cannot do as much to you. The more people do not depend on politicians and the wealthy, the less power they have over our lives.
I regret that, so far, I can see no other alternative but to eliminate the wealthy class altogether by making the entire population middle class, and this includes raising up the poor. In such a theoretical egalitarian society, there must be sacrifices for the benefit of the majority. Remember, the goal is the greatest good for the greatest number, not the greatest good for the smallest number. This is a difficult concept to wrap our heads around because it is completely foreign to those raised in a capitalistic system where profit is king. I appreciate you putting in really good ideas that challenge me to think through all of the implications of this, admittedly, possibly hair-brained idea that I have not had time to fully flush out.
Regarding your tic and the apple, the concept is that the farmer has also been assigned (notice I didn't say earned) his tics for the amount of time he has spent growing apples. He does not earn tics from someone else through transfer. He earns them from the time he puts in, just like everyone else. He is providing a valuable service to society (food) and being rewarded for it through his time-labor. But in this system he does not earn a profit. Nobody does.
As idicated above in the OP, those in the special category of old age or infirmity can have tics provided to them in a social program. Since tics are not theoretically "immortal" like dollars, they can be assigned and used up without concern that they are a burden on the economy. I'm not even sure that we are actually talking about an "economy" at all as we normally think of the word under this theoretical model.
Here is a comment elsewhere in this thread where I try to explain it in greater detail, and please realize that I'm really struggling here to make sense of this, but would really like to if I can. Appreciate your help and input.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/heres-a-ideawill-it-work/#comment-786582
I like the idea of a single class society.
So do I if it results in a comfortable, but not excessive, standard of living. According to my friend in Sweden, that's pretty much what they have. There is lower, middle, and upper, but there are not these huge income inequality gaps like we have. There is not a great deal of noticable difference between the classes there.
Would also get marketing to settle down to reality - well maybe not. But nothing would be out of reach as the society would need to conform to that single class range. That might also put a stop to pollution or irresponsible manufacturing practices that are now common due to profits over people.
Yes DK, if you elimate profit you also eliminate the profit motive which results in doing all kinds of bad things to the planet, since people are very short-sided, greedy, and can rationalize anything under the current money system.
That is exactly why greed needs to be regulated. Just like alcohol needs to be regulated and drugs need to be regulated. There will still be addicts but they will not be able to be open about it and it will be harder for them to fuck people over in their need to satisfy their money addiction.
That's a very interesting analogy that greed = addiction. Maybe we should call it "buckaholism" :-)
Studies have shown that the same areas of the brain that addicts have stimulated by the anticipation of drugs/alcohol also show the same response to traders making deals or anticipating making deals. Gamblers react the same way as well.
I wish I could answer your questions properly, but I'm not sure I can because I haven't worked through all the implications of the idea yet. What I would like to see is an egalitarian society. What I would hope is that by substituting actual time for dollars it would be impossible for enourmous wealth to materialize, because people can accumulate billions of dollars, but I think it would be pretty hard to accumulate billions of time-hours-credits because people don't live for billions of hours. And regarding the poor, if the value of necessities are properly calculated toward this time-credit society, then it can be determined what is necessary in time-credits for the poverty class to be eliminated and raised up to at least lower-middle class (at a minimum).
So from that information, any ideas on how to achieve what I'm looking for?
I have a couple of more questions, but am building on what you are telling me.
1) What are your biggest concerns about someone becoming wealthy? 2) In YOUR opinion, describe to me what too wealthy looks like.
I follow you on your points, but I may differ in my concerns of the wealthy.
I believe in the greatest good for the greatest number, not the greatest good for the smallest number. So I favor a range of comfort that has typically been classified as lower-middle class, middle-middle class, and upper-middle class. Once you get into the realm of the super rich, I think there is the potential for power to enter the picture. With great wealth comes the potential for great power. And with great power and influence comes the potential for great abuse, even oppression. Perhaps, idealistically, there is nothing wrong with great wealth if someone has no interest in using it to control and manipulate -- to just sit back on their 40ft yacht and enjoy life. Unfortunately, we know that great wealth is frequently not used for benign purposes but to purchase influence and lobby for laws that favor preserving that wealth/status quo even if it is to the detriment of society at large. I confess my inability to conceive of a way to preserve the ultra-rich and to eliminate the potential for power, corruption, bad influence, and all the other negatives we typically associate under the general (but probably not totally accurate) description of the 1%.
And, of course I favor raising up the poor to at least lower-middle class as previously indicated.
I completely agree that the poor need to have their wages raised, but what is the proper method for accomplishing that goal?
Taxing the rich is an indirect method that places more money under the control of Congress. For every tax dollar taken from the rich, how many will ever make it to the poor? The best way to limit the power of the ultra rich is to increase the wages of the ultra poor.
What is needed are strikes, unions, collective bargaining, and professional negotiation. We can't wait for Congress to do what is right. We must do it ourselves. Professional athletes use agents to negotiate their contracts. We should do the same.
The average worker in the U.S. produces $100,000 in goods and services. Why do 90% of those workers take home such a small share of wealth they help produce? Ignorance. If they really knew how little they were paid, a revolution would begin.
For purposes of this post, I'm trying to free my mind completely from any concept of money that we know about such as just about everything you just mentioned (tax, profit, wages, etc.). The discussion on this particular post is "Is it possible to construct an egalitarian society by eliminating money and the profit motive (aka greed) and substituting something that would result in everyone in that society having a comfortable middle-class standard of living?"
I would appreciate any input and/or suggestions as to how we could do that.
You don't ask any difficult questions do you?
Is it your preference that I ask easy ones? :-)
No no - just making an observation. It is good to have questions that challenge the gray matter. {:-])
That would require people who do not exist on this planet. Every economic system will fail because of man's shortcomings, no matter how carefully constructed. Greed is a basic element of man's internal programming. It is both incredibly constructive and destructive. Capitalism uses greed to full advantage to provide enormous wealth. The problem lies in it's inability to tame the negative side of greed. That instead of creating wealth, it takes wealth it did not create.
The best we could come up with would be a system that takes full account of human weakness and renews itself before it becomes completely broken. That is nature's way, to discard the old and replace with the new. The purpose of death is to keep the species healthy. Without death, life would gradually degrade to the point of not functioning.
We should devise an economic system based on this principle. One that assumes that the people within the system will malfunction and cause the entire system to fail. Maybe one something like the Jewish jubilee when all debts are forgiven and land is returned. At least it would be egalitarian for the better part of every 50 years.
"Every economic system will fail because of man's shortcomings, no matter how carefully constructed."
So is that just another way of saying that mankind is ultimately doomed? All societies operate within some type of economic system, whether those societies be simple or complex.
Your statement is pretty pessimistic. Perhaps you're right, but I prefer to think that if we were smart enough to think up money thousands of years ago, we ought to be smart enough to think of something better that doesn't bring the worst out in us (greed, power, etc.), but seeks by design to bring out the best.
Look back at all of the ancient civilizations. They all collapsed and so will the U.S. The same ritual of life and rebirth repeats itself throughout the universe.
But perhaps they had the disadvantage of not having a lot of history at their disposal to learn from. That should not be the case with us. We should be able to learn from their mistakes and not repeat them.
But I do see your point clearly. Merlin said in the movie "Dragonslayer" (I think that was the film) -- "It is the doom of man that he forgets."
Correction and appended -->> The quote was from the movie "Excalibur"
Look upon this moment. Savor it! Rejoice with great gladness! Great gladness! Remember it always, for you are joined by it. You are One, under the stars. Remember it well, then... this night, this great victory. So that in the years ahead, you can say, 'I was there that night, with Arthur, the King!' For it is the doom of men that they forget.
I read a treatise (paper for a conference, actually) on natural money at: www.naturalmoney.org/Teslaconference. It really, really blew my mind to learn about this. You may have steered me there, for all I know, but if you haven't heard of this before, it's absolutely plausible. Comparing money/the economy to the bloodstream of a human -- to block it, hoard it, or charge extra for the lungs to use it over the kidneys makes no sense at all. Keep it moving. Local currencies could start doing this immediately with, you know, cooperation :)
Thanks for providing that link. I read through the first two links of it (it is an extensive read to digest all of it). It makes some good points, and it is 100% accurate about the road capitalism is taking us down. It is amazing to me that anyone who isn't in denial can plainly see what is happening under crapitalism but nobody wants to take action to correct it. Anyone reading this that falls into that category, I ask you, "Why on earth why?".
I thought to be particularly noted was the part about those communities who do take action (like the examples where towns and villages created their own scrip) getting struck down by central banks and governments, because the scrip model apparently works amazingly well and would be a severe threat to the status quo, so it is declared illegal (thus keeping the banksters in power). This is completely and totally predictable. It is also completely and totally criminal. If the experiment was repeated again in the US I am 100% certain the Fed and US Government would move to declare it illegal again. So I am not sure whether another attempt at it would serve a purpose, unless it would show the world the blatant evil purposes of the banksters as they squash any attempt to circumvent their corrupt and greedy system.
Small communities are largely ignored by the federal government, and this would exist within the larger economy in that we would still pay taxes and all that stuff. We use coupons now, along with money; just drop the money part :) It's certainly worth a try, anyway, if you live in a town small enough to reach agreement yet large enough to provide for most residents' needs.
no.
Why?
Because his username lies - he has a closed mind and is quite happy that way.
[Removed]
just a gut feeling that it won't work..sorry. you are so funny. what altitude is Clermont at?
190 ft. above sea level.
A gut feeling has its place sometimes, and other times not. I'm exploring this alternative to money because I think the evils of the money system have become so apparent in our world that humans ought to consider other ways of being compensated for work that doesn't allow for vast wealth accumulation and the power that goes along with that.
I think this money system has been around for a long time. and you are kinda unrealistic with this wacky proposal. Too bad you weren't ship wrecked on gilligan's island..you could have started this system there.
Change starts with an idea first, then discussion, then consensus. If enough people see the value in changing something, it happens.
you need to lay off the mood altering stuff and get real doggie. sorry...
So I guess you're happy with the status quo. So why are you on a site that is devoted to discussing change?
I'm on this site for mindless entertainment..similar to pinball.. no quarters needed though.
Self esteem comes from what you contribute, not from what you steal from others.
yeah. I'm in agreement. do you work?
Great idea! maybe we could make those credits out of paper and make them green. Hey! I have a great idea! We could put a picture of President Washington on a 1hour credit bill and a picture of Abraham Lincoln on the five hour credit bill.
Pretty cynical. How about offering up some useful suggestions? I wouldn't suggest that these time credits (or "tics" for short) be made out of paper anyway, but electronic impulses. With the auto-destruct aspect of this "currency" (single use, no transfer), that would be a lot of paper to clean up and throw away after each transaction.
A central computer housed in a super secure Ft. Knox type of facility (or perhaps a few of them located in appropriate geographic locations) operating independently of the Public and Private sectors would be responsible for tracking time served and issuing time credits electronically to time accounts. User transactions would be by magnetic card swipe, or even bio-metric identification to further reduce the possibility of tic theft.
Maybe metal discs made of gold and silver and nickle and copper?
What's your point with these responses? Do you think this concept is the same as our existing money that is traded/exchanged for goods and services? I have already explained that it isn't transferred between parties and eliminates money's immortal quality. Do you not understand the difference and what it implies?
Yes, it is the same as existing money. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
Well then, what is your concept of something that could work that is not your definition of money? What is your definition of money? The standard definition is that it is a medium of exchange. While it is true that there is an exchange of time credits for labor under this proposal, it's single-use aspect eliminates exchange between parties. So a huge part of the problem with wealth accumulation has been eliminated with this idea.
Try to say something constructive for a change.
We would have to determine what constitutes "work" -- playing music, holding classes for different things like yoga, meditation, being a good listener for those who are sorting out what they truly believe as opposed to what they have been told -- all of these have value, albeit not necessarily tangible. This goes back to improving how we value (treat) each other. Thinking outside the box is the only way we will change anything, and thank you for your willingness to do so.
Yes, agree that we need more creative thinking. But there are so many people, especially conservatives, who are in love with the box, afraid of getting out of the box, will defend their box to their dying breath, that we really have our work cut out for us to educate/convince them.
Value is usually linked to demand. Sometimes, however, there is little demand but high value, such as high-priced works of art that the rich bid on and acquire for status reasons. There probably needs to be more consensus on exactly what value is as I think it might mean different things to different people.
Well, perhaps we should form our own intentional communities and convince others of the validity of our ideas by being an extremely appealing way to live.
Do you have any ideas on how to do that? It kinda harkens back to the 60's communes. They were an idealistic experiment that failed due to those young people of the time growing up under what was then called "The Establishment". They just couldnt break free of their upbringing, and eventually they all left the communes and became Yuppies, Young Republicans, etc.
Not trying to be pessimistic. I would actually love it if an alternative economy that worked for the benefit of all and served as a model community could successfully operate.
Not like the 60's at all. Searching under cooperative communities brings up a lot of websites dedicated to working in a new way within the confines, in the beginning, of the old way. Most of them have restrictions -- no alcohol or drug abuse, some no cats, some no pets: but they do not look like the picture that comes up when you say "commune". The focus is not on economic method so much as changing the way we relate to one another first. At www.communityplanet.org is a video explaining the goals. It's long but informative and intriguing (natch; they are all ideas I've had myself :). One of the communities I found is in New Hampshire and a home there costs over 400,000 - it's more of a "community within capitalism" so to speak -- business and money are still a major part, but it's worth looking at.
If it is a medium of exchange, what does it represent? If little green pieces of paper just represent little green pieces of paper, they are not worth anything. They have to actually represent something real, and that would be work.
They represent value assigned by humans, not work. And that value fluctuates every day, hence the exchange rates between different world currencies change daily. The value of money is not tied to human labor. The value of money is arbitrary. That is how/why you have inflation and deflation. Money is just a number. Technically speaking, it facilitates exchange of real-world goods and services by an artificial medium universally agreed upon as valuable by humans, thus eliminating barter. Money is actually a peculiar type of barter using an artificial medium.
Most humans exchange their labor for money because they have nothing else to offer in exchange for it. This is what Karl Marx was talking about with the difference between those who own the means of production, the bourgeoisie, and those who have nothing except their labor, the proletariat. If the proletariat had a lot of stuff he could trade for money (e.g. merchants), he wouldn't need to labor. He could sell his stuff and get money that way. But he doesn't have a lot of stuff to sell so he has to sell his labor in exchange for that artificial substance that is universally recognized as the means to facilitate exchange between parties -- aka money.
The only reason anything that is agreed to by two people to have any value is because the item represents work. Any item that requires no work has no value. Name one item that has value that does not require work to give that item value.
How about natural resources like wood, oil, and minerals? They are the ultimate source of all value, because nature provides all things.
And money is not an "item", yet it is assigned value by humans. I don't know if you're the same person I was arguing this with on another post, but money does not equal work. Slaves can work without being paid money. Volunteers can work without being paid money. A castaway on a island will have to work to survive. Does he receive money for that?
Here is a definition of money right off Wikipedia, very similar to any definition you would see in any reputable dictionary. The use of the word "work" is not used anywhere in it.
Money is any object or record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in a given socio-economic context or country. The main functions of money are distinguished as: a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value; and, occasionally in the past, a standard of deferred payment. Any kind of object or secure verifiable record that fulfills these functions can serve as money.
You must like to argue. I do not. I am not here to argue but to discuss and reach consensus on a variety of issues important to Occupy. If you cannot accept the standard definition of what money is then that is not my problem.
All those things require work to bring them to you. I would bet money that you would not go out and bring me a gallon of oil you yourself had purchased the land, drilled the well, extracted the oil, refined the oil, packaged the oil, and provided the location I could visit to purchase that oil for $5 a gallon. I will make a similar argument for wood and minerals. You may have the land that has the resources, but without the work involved bringing the resources to market, the value is limited without the work involved in bringing them to market. Money represents the work involved in taking a raw, unrefined resource to market.
Money = Work
if Money = Work how can it be created out of thin air by the Fed through Fractional Reserve Banking without any work being performed whatsoever by anyone at all?
And why did you completely ignore the definition of money that I provided you?
That is exactly why the dollar and the currencies of the world are failing. The people who have been put in charge of printing our money have disregarded the true meaning of "money = work" and have believed that creating money out of thin air will be able to orchestrate the value of money by their sheer power and will. That will only last so long as people believe that money = what the government says it does. Once that belief is exhausted, dollars will be worthless, and commodities will be what will have the value. What will be used for money when the belief in government printed money collapses? I don't know. It is up to you to know whether to place all of your faith in the power and ability of the government to orchestrate the value of money, or if you want to look at truth and try to do your best to accumulate items that will hold value.
It is up to you to come to the truth on your own. You will be told that the dollar is stable and the economy is doing fine. You will be told that everything is okay. You will be told by the government that "we have this under control, we can just print (or electronically enter into the books of banks) money and use it to pay for programs and services that the population wants." There is no work involved to give that "money" any value.
You can argue any definition of money you want. The truth, when you boil it right down to the facts, is that money = work. You are right that it is an agreed upon form of exchange, but if that form of exchange involves no work to produce, it will have no value in the long run. Printing or electronically producing money involves no significant work and in the end will have no significant value.
This is the crossroads we are at. We are being asked and told to believe that we are at a point where we can do what we want and acquire and use what we want by using the force of government to take from those who have and redistributing it to those who do not. We are being told and asked to believe that we can receive the benefits of work without having to do the work involved to earn it.
In the end, work is the only thing that has any value.
Ok. I'm going to try one last time to get through to you. Try to have an open mind about this. Let's look at your statement
It is up to you to know whether to place all of your faith in the power and ability of the government to orchestrate the value of money, or if you want to look at truth and try to do your best to accumulate items that will hold value.
First, I have no faith in government. But that is off topic. The argument is "does money = work?"
Let's look at part two of your statement -- try to do your best to accumulate items that will hold value.
When people lose faith in paper currency they usually turn to gold or silver. They do this because they think that gold/silver holds value and paper does not. But does not gold/silver fluctuate in value? Just go online and look at the history of gold/silver over the past several years and you will see that its value fluctuates all the time. One day its value is assigned X. Another day that value becomes Y. How can this be if money = work?
The answer is that people decide what value is to any given thing. It is a decision based on consensus and agreement, not on the amount of work involved in producing something. Value is usually tied to the scarcity of any given thing. The more abundant something is the less clamoring there is for it because it is everywhere. The less abundant something is the more clamoring there is for it because you have more people competing to get their hands on it. This is what determines value. Gold is considered more "valuable" to most people because there is a finite amount of it on this planet. Paper or electronic bits in banking computers can be theoretically infinite and thus have the potential to become valueless.
People can work until they drop dead and not produce anything of value (minimum wage jobs). People can also work very little and produce things of enormous value (derivatives in the world of Wall Street shenanigans for example). Value/money is not tied to work. Value/money is tied to what people believe something is worth. Why is the Mona Lisa so valuable? Objectively it is just some canvas with some oil paint arranged on it in a certain way. But people consider it priceless. How long would you have to "work" to "purchase" the Mona Lisa? The answer is an infinite amount. You will never be able to purchase it no matter how much/hard you work because people have decided that its value is so great that it belongs to all of us and no one person should be able to own it. Why did people decide that? Because it is unique. But there are lots of unique things in the world that are not considered anywhere near as valuable as the Mona Lisa. Why is that? Because people decide value. Because people assign value. Because people reach agreement and consensus on the value of things, and this includes the value of money independent of whatever "work" is involved in obtaining it.
I am not going to debate this with you any longer. I have grown weary of this discussion and if you are not able to see the difference between money and work and continue to insist that it is one and the same thing after all I have said and provided (including the actual dictionary definition of money), then I will leave you with your continuing closed mind on this subject and wish you good luck with your future mental operations.
You win. I give.