So what's the attraction of moneyless economies?

[mindstalk]

"No money in the future" is a common thread in parts of the Left. I think it's in Marx's communism, if not a lot older. In science fiction, we've got Star Trek (at least ST IV and TNG/DS9), Banks' Culture ("money is a sign of poverty"), MacLeod's Solar Union, probably LeGuin's Anarres, and "post-scarcity" economies in general -- which tend to mumble if you take them literally and ask for a planet.

But why? Why is this so popular, as opposed to the leftism where everyone has enough money?

The way I see it, any group that has a lot of trade will have a money, hacked out of fungible high-demand goods or IOU time-labor scrip if nothing else. So to me saying "no money" is effectively saying "no trade", which doesn't sound very attractive.

One might appeal to computers and advanced barter exchanges, but while that might make it possible to work out "you give an IOU to make A in return for B, to trade for C, to trade for D, to trade for E which you actually want", I suspect a money would arise anyway.

There's so much automation that no one ever does anything useful, but that doesn't seem fun. There's that plus people doing things just for fun, and I don't rule it out entirely... but if there's a high-demand artist, maybe people end up bribing her to help on their projects.

"To each according to their need" is great and all, but what about getting what you *want*?

[This was better written in my head, I may revise later]

[Edit: discussion on RPG.net is circling around "post-scarcity" being the key: it's not that money is to be gotten rid of (well, that probably is an appeal some of the time) but that post-scarcity is the appeal, after which there's no role for money. Whether post-scarcity is realistic, even at personal nanoforge tech levels, is another matter.]

Comments

[heron61.livejournal.com]

But those "market-driven non-essentials" will be purchased through trade, and when you have trade a medium of exchange naturally develops. Abolish "money," and something else, near-universally valued (and hence universally-valued for trading purposes) takes its place.

I completely agree, my point about this more practical alternative (which I didn't explain particular well) was that it would involve money.

Furthermore, you are ignoring technological progress. Would any modern First Worlder be happy with a 3000 BC Sumerian concept of "necessities?" Then what makes you think that the very concept of "necessities" remains stable.

And thus, as technology changes, the necessities provided by the government change - that's one of the advantages of elected government - response to changing citizen demands & priorities.

Also, state-run production tends to be far less efficient than private production, so unless you set your "necessities" level so relatively low as to be produced by only a tiny part of the economy, you are choking your "means of production."

In general, having the government produce consumer goods isn't all that efficient. However, it's equally clear that government administered & provided services (and especially essential services) often work vastly better than any private alternatives. Medical care is only the most obvious example, with medical costs in nations with government administered healthcare having on average half the per capita costs of those in nations like the US.

From my PoV, if you want a equitable (but not IMHO ideal) form of political economy, you buy your media players, shirts, shoes, cars, washing machines, and other consumer and durable goods from private for-profit manufacturers (which are regulated to prevent monopolies and to guarantee product safety, but are otherwise allowed to do as they will), but obtain essential services from the government

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

And your food, in the diversity and particularness that you want it, from private sources, even though food is essential.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

Agreed, which is one of the reasons for also including a guaranteed minimum income.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

The utility of social safety nets is my main disagreement with pure laissez-faire economics. This utiltiy exists even for those who do not use the safety nets, since it reduces their own fear of death through poverty, and consequently improves their enjoyment of life.

Great care must however be taken to keep the cost of the social safety nets, both in financial and behavior-distortion terms, fairly small. Otherwise, you can crash not only your economy but also your culture. I point to modern Britain as a good example of such a catastrophe.