Money Can’t Change The World

imgresTwo people are stranded on an island. One person has a trillion dollars in cash and the other has nothing. It doesn’t matter if the trillionaire pays the other person one dollar or a trillion, the other person will not be able to build an airplane to get either of them off the island.

The above example also applies to the entire world population. An infinite amount of money does not mean an infinite amount of output. If we want to change the world we must understand that money can’t change the world, only human allocation can. If we want to cure aging, for example, we need to have more researchers. So far money has been our best system for human allocation. There is, unfortunately, not a very strong connection between changing the world and making money. A person in Africa building wells that will save thousands of lives might make significantly less than a Starbucks franchise owner.

To fix this problem involves mixing both capitalistic and socialistic ideals. Money that is collected in the form of taxes need to be distributed based on performance of philanthropic capability. This of course is currently faux pas because anyone who is doing charity work shouldn’t be making good money and this is completely backwards thinking. If money is our best method for human allocation then people doing things to help the entire world should make the most. Philanthropy should be a competition; we should be competing over who can feed the most people.

Bother conservative and liberal ideology are incorrect in regards to economy. While private enterprise can create quality, it cannot create wide spread quality. In contrast, while governments can create universal services, it cannot create universal services at peak quality. The best political system is one that utilizes socialism for infrastructure and capitalism for quality services on top. Infrastructure includes everything that allows humans to physically survive; these  include water, air, shelter, military/police, food, healthcare, roads, fire fighting, and garbage collection.

 

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Money Can’t Change The World

  1. Abandon TV

    In your system how would you define ‘money’?

    In our current society money is created out of thin air and forced onto the public by governments. Governments control the value of that currency and can destroy that value at will (and by force) through printing and debt.

    Without legalised force controlling money people would be free to transact in any way they wanted, using whatever currency (or currencies) suited them best. Anyone could start up their own competing currency and offer it to the public, and the best currencies would become the most popular.

    How would money work in your ideal society?

    “..Money that is collected in the form of taxes need to be distributed based on performance of philanthropic capability….”

    Who is collecting this money and how? Are they collecting it by force?

    Who decides how it is spent? Are they imposing their decisions by force?

    What if I disagree with the amount of money collected and/ or how it is spent? Am I free to disagree or will someone use force against me to take my money from me against my will? How much force will they use against me?

    What if I resist that force and try to defend my person and property from this aggression?

    In your ideal society are the products of my labour my own or is someone else claiming ownership of (a portion) of my property? If so by what authority do they make a claim on (a portion of) my productivity (my earnings etc)?

    Reply
    1. Jonathan Wagner Post author

      In your system how would you define ‘money’?
      Money is a means of trading labor for products and services. This isn’t how I define money, this is what money is. I am not really going to talk about proper ratios because that is to challenging, but money or currency has always acted a medium or proxy for trade.

      In our current society money is created out of thin air and forced onto the public by governments. Governments control the value of that currency and can destroy that value at will (and by force) through printing and debt. Without legalised force controlling money people would be free to transact in any way they wanted, using whatever currency (or currencies) suited them best. Anyone could start up their own competing currency and offer it to the public, and the best currencies would become the most popular.
      How would money work in your ideal society?

      You are only partially correct in terms of governments controlling the value of money. It is very true that they could destroy the value of their currency but the fact is they don’t print infinite amounts and how this money moves around geographically affects its value. There is a pool and how this pool is moved around affects its value, it is not only governments that change its value, currencies can be traded on markets and that adjusts values. You are also talking about a very unrealistic idealistic scenario. The reality is if competing currencies emerged one or several would emerge as dominant and eventually whoever controlled the majority of the supply would end up regulating and controlling power in the same way governments do now.

      I am not actually sure how money would be used in a ideal society. Money will ultimately be a way of prioritizing automated systems. When concepts like Marxism emerged they often talked about the “means of production” and they functioned by assigning everyone jobs even jobs people didn’t want and the exchange was everyone gets more free time. However these philosophies never considered full automation this was an unfathomable fiction that is only now becoming a reality.

      “..Money that is collected in the form of taxes need to be distributed based on performance of philanthropic capability….”
      Who is collecting this money and how? Are they collecting it by force?
      Who decides how it is spent? Are they imposing their decisions by force?
      What if I disagree with the amount of money collected and/ or how it is spent? Am I free to disagree or will someone use force against me to take my money from me against my will? How much force will they use against me?
      What if I resist that force and try to defend my person and property from this aggression?

      All the above questions are answered through one word, democracy. Through a combination of automation and providing the statistics in real time a true democratic process can be created using technology. Communism doesn’t work because a government is not capable or efficient enough to manage the distribution of funds, it is also unfair.

      Also the concept of money may fundamentally change if you have the capability of producing anything you want personally through things like 3D printing. Eventually we will be able to construct things at mass at the atomic level. Materialism is the result of labor and material scarcity without materialism the concept of money becomes very different.

      In your ideal society are the products of my labour my own or is someone else claiming ownership of (a portion) of my property? If so by what authority do they make a claim on (a portion of) my productivity (my earnings etc)?
      I believe in private property, I don’t believe that all property should belong to everyone. This is a communist ideology that I don’t believe works.

      Reply
  2. tiffany267

    LOL classic “stranded on an island” scenario.

    Guess what, sweetie? We aren’t buying it. We don’t live on islands – we live in harmony with each other, and money is the means by which we cooperate peacefully.

    Reply
    1. Jonathan Wagner Post author

      Sorry about the incredibly late response, the wordpress comment system is not the best. I am not sure if you actually read the article but I am actually not dismissing money and in fact if you read my other articles I actually talk about the usefulness of money. I completely agree that money encourages cooperation though I don’t believe it is always peacefully. I would recommend you actually read the article and the other articles I have written on this issue.

      Reply
      1. tiffany267

        Darling I’m not falling for this nonsense. Money doesn’t encourage cooperation – money IS cooperation. Unfortunately I did read the “article” if we may stretch the term accordingly, and I therefore explained that the world isn’t yet so far gone as to fall for your attempts to turn humans into sacrificial animals. We have more intelligence and dignity than that, and any rational individual can see that you have no argument if you must turn to “stranded on a deserted island” tactics to win favor. The real world functions on individual rights and liberty, and capitalism is simply the manifestation of that cooperative state of humanity, despite your sick attempts to subvert it 🙂

        http://www.tiffany267.wordpress.com

      2. Jonathan Wagner Post author

        The purpose of the island metaphor was to explain that money is a medium and people actually do the work. I have used this metaphor before to explain why wealth redistribution would never work. Money has no value without the labor behind it and if everyone was given a trillion dollars not everyone could purchase a trillion Ferraris.

        What do you think I am trying to win favor for? I believe people should own their own property and I believe money is currently our best way to facilitate trade. I also believe capitalism is required to create innovation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s