Remove Shekel

Shekel has been removed at various times in history. I think the most important issue we face is removing the Federal Reserve and other central banks/international institutions

Credit. Then use your money to pay back interest-free loans. Problems solved.

Interest-free credit from government credit service. Then use expiring money to pay off the loan. Saving is degenerate anyway, since it is hording the means of exchange.

False.

Is that right?

Not an argument.

It sure is.

And we need it.

Then the problem of money solves itself since the vast majority of the population will be moneyless.

The outcome is the same either way. I don't see a problem.

So it can't work. Wish you had put that in the first line of your first post. Would have made this a lot easier.

I'm halfway up the pyramid. Pretty good. But it is false. See England and Amsterdam.

you are an ass hat

(miss the old memes)

yea, no. GTFO hippie

The post was intended as an outlining of the problem, and the genesis of the solution.

No I don't have a "strong theory" of a society not based on money, but I wanted to see if we can develop one.

A lot of redpills are pipe dreams in the current year. It doesn't stop us believing in them, or trying to find ways to bring about their realisation.

Yes. Eventually that will be the outcome, I'm not saying we are 100% there yet, could take another 100 years. But it's obvious that we have blindly created a world where money=power, and those with money are exploiting it to get more power. See; the democratic party, its donors and globalist corporations.

We are not duty bound now, but in an ideal society we would be. Do you even into national socialism?

It's always been wrong in theory. In practice, people have got by with it because the system hadn't progressed far enough to expose its flaws/they were oppressed by more immediate and obvious factors.

Also, people are short sighted. The ultimate expression of the theory of money is globalism, we're just now in the last few centuries beginning to understand the true horror of what it can cause. If the stone agers could have seen the future, they would have avoided becoming dependent on money.

This also solves the problem of creating only things that can safely create a profit in a few months or a year. It would be great if the new Trumpmerica the best engineers to think of the best things to build and the people voted on what they wanted to work on.

Fuck off commie

This.

Even if you don't agree with the full-blown "remove shekel", we still have a hugely corrupted monetary system.

"Remove shekel"'s scale of implication could be reduced to simply mean removing the fed and international banks that have power over us. Although, once that overton window was shifted, I think people would be more willing to realise the potential for human society to progress without money illusion altogether.

The olution is literally tax the big guns
think about something in the lines of
makes less than 10.000, no tax
makes less than 100.000, 1% tax
makes less than 1.000.000 10% tax, and so on, just don't go straight to 100% ever

I'm talking about removing money-based capitalist competition and replacing it with social competition, more in line with our actual nature.

Wealth would still be created and a hierarchy would still result.

I can think of a few things

I'd like to see them create some giant edifices with no other purpose than to show off the power of American/Trump/Nationalist economics, and to stimulate the economy further/pay labourers.

That's what we should ask you. NatSoc has money - unjewed, but still money. What you advocate is not NatSoc.

It's a good basis, but thinking of it as the be all and end all perfect ideology is restricting. If we can reason our way to better permutations, we should.

I always thought that the Trump wall built right would serve that purpose. But America has the potential to do even more. It should be done
Berlin in Nazi Germany would have become the greatest city in the world

No offense OP but your theory sounds to me pretty much the same shit as Zeitgeist the movie or even communism in theory aka it is a pipe dream.
The private and central banking system need to be replaced by a single national bank entity for every country and money needs to be backed by precious metals/resources and we are fine.
Also pic related on topic.

This is why money corrupts our purpose.

The purpose becomes to make as much money as possible by any means, rather than thinking about what society should actually achieve.

I think one of our higher purposes is simply to build magnificent buildings- every high culture throughout history does it.

and it's nothing like communism, communism a) uses money and b) seeks to defeat the natural order by dragging everyone down until they're "equal".

To be honest, I think the only way remove shekel would happen is if we had a BIG collapse of economy/society in general and people could be convinced it was the flaw of money itself that ultimately caused it. We might rebuild without it in this case. It is a pipe dream, I concede it.

Still, it draws attention to the problems in our money system that we could potentially fix, as you say.

"Hitler took over the privilege of manufacturing money, and not only physical moneys,
but also financial ones. He took over the machinery of falsification and put it to work for
the benefit of the people."
This is definitely relevant

high quality gommie bait :DDD but sorry gold will always be the standard and im sorry that the (white) nation building tool that enables commerce triggers you anarchists, maybe you and jamal can have everything free in somalia and exchange social standing at a rate of one ooga booga per muh dick

Isn't your idea pretty much North Korea?

Shouldn't you be fucking off back to Holla Forums?

In communism, everyone gets as much of everything as they need. It's supposed to work when people are duty-bound to not hoard for themselves (but it's nothing like what you propose amirite?). Money does not enter into the equation at all in communism - what would it be for?

Then do as (checked) suggested and try it with a few people. Until then, you won't convince anyone with real life experience (college doesn't count).
You can reason your way to anything, but it won't mean jack shit if it fails IRL due to some people not being willing to cooperate.

This is just a shit argument, are you drunk?

Money only enables commerce because those are the rules we've written. Did you read the post? See "money illusion". My point is it's an unnecessary middle man if you have a cohesive nation.

No, leftypol would have everyone just gibben gibs.

In the current situation, you earn money to buy goods, but it's not as simple as that and inefficiencies, hoarders and power grabbers arise, as we see currently.

In my suggestion, you earn social standing, in other words "rep", with your neighbors and wider society. They give you free stuff because they know you're a contributor. You give them free stuff because you know they're a contributor.

That's how societies worked in the very beginning.

Free riders and immigrants are supported by money being the god. "Immigrants make us money" is basically the excuse they're in the west in the first place.

In a money-free society they'd be socially ostracized and left to rot.

Sage.

You have no idea what words mean. Fucking kill yourself.

>>>Holla Forums
>>>Holla Forums
>>>Holla Forums
>>>Holla Forums
>>>Holla Forums
>>>Holla Forums
>>>Holla Forums

Do you mean before being able to obtain a TV I'd have to prove to all the workers in the TV factory I'm a good person?

we dont argue with jews that think they know better than uncle Adolph. how about you make an argument from the position of the NSDAP instead of Holla Forums pilpul then we can talk because right now your thread is "redpill me on why i'm a raging faggot"

Good post, but don't treat every sentence as a paragraph. You don't have to double tap enter after every period.

No

You can't have it. The Kikes won't let you. Samson Looms.

And the state has to enforce it because that's not natural. In my idea, everyone gets as much of everything as they DESERVE, as determined by everyone's inherent social instincts. The state doesn't have to enforce anything, because humans will naturally resent and ostracize non-contributors.

Money is a corruptible and inefficient way of assigning who deserves the benefits of society.

They'd change their minds pretty quickly when they saw the in-group feeding and generally looking after each other, while they were on the outside starving.

Not an argument :)

Misunderstanding. If this system was in place we probably wouldn't have TV's because they are a waste of fucking time and effort. I have conceded I'm talking in theoreticals here/future lessons once this civilisation falls, our current system is so entrenched/far gone.

no.

The problem with your prose is that it's just about as realistic and will probably be as corruptible as communism itself.

Tu réalise que l'argent est exclusivement controler par la Federal Reserve aux USA qui elle meme exclusivement diriger par des kikes…

Pour te débarraser il faudrait exterminer tous les Juifs et leur leur chiens goyims…ce qui n'arrivera pas bientot…

Tu peux remercier ce chien de John Law, un Britbong qui a inventé la planche a billet…monnaie qui n'st pas basé sur l'or ou l'argent..

so you're actually saying hitlers economic policies were bad.
WHERE BOSS?

Ce chien a envoyer le monde dans une spirale de jeux économiques sans fin…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Law_(economist)

How could it be corruptible when those seen as corrupt would be easily cast out?

It's not a theory that would have to be enforced, or preached, or stabilised by a government. It would be a move to the more natural way of interacting with other humans, where a person's right to use society's resources is judged (and they would be judged harshly) on their merit and contribution.

Sorry for some reason I read that as NASDAQ.

And all of NSDAPs policies would pretty much work in the same way. Money is a tool, not an ideology. They used it because everyone uses it, because the foundations of using money in society were wrongly laid millennia ago. Remove the money, and we'd see that we were better off with our natural tools of judgement and rationing resources in the first place.

ESPECIALLY in a national socialist country.

A system like this would tend towards our natural in-group out-group instincts, and smaller communities, which globalism is destroying. In fact I'd say if the money disappeared tomorrow, it would act as a very strong catalyst towards national socialism, because it would put the natural order first, not the current unnatural "whoever has money is good".

Could you elaborate on this "duty" you keep talking about?

What would you consider to not be a waste of time and effort?

Don't expect most of these guys to listen. They are mostly post-libertarians who still believe a lot of the capitalist stuff. They just believe if Jews weee gone it would all suddenly work (it would certainly work better, but a lot of the same problems would persist).

I have a whole folder for folks like you.

Theres your problem.
You dont want to remove money, but rather USURY.

...

...

...

I don't understand what you mean by elaborate, ask a more specific question.

And well, anything inherently GOOD. I'm not the judge of that, but at the moment the judge of what's good is "what will make me the most shekels" and not "what can I do/ produce that will make our society better off, and thus will get me better social status, which I need to be fed/accepted".

Nothing I've said is remotely communist, I keep referencing how this would work best in a NatSoc country.

Stop strawmanning.

Currency is still a good way of facilitating trade. The problem comes in with the "store of value" part. We need to dissociate the two, so that currency is simply a tool to facilitate trade while wealth is stored elsewhere in real commodities with an upper limit on the amount held in this manner, probably best accomplished through a progressive property taxation.

But communism would work without jews?

Antisemitism has never been tried.

No. Communism cannot work. Nobody here is advocating communism.

I'm having a hard time seeing why everyone would just grow crops and make things for free just because it is their "duty".

...

"For free" is a misrepresentation. If there was no money the entire social order would change from the (((rich))) at the top to the great, the good, and the sexy at the top.

Some would grow crops/labor because it would be their best way of achieving some status, getting a woman, and justifying getting looked after by other areas of society. Others would make shit, defend the nation etc because that would be their best way of getting status, etc etc. Thus the natural hierarchy would come into place. A natural equilibrium would be reached.

Duty comes into it because to get a place in society you'd have to do SOMETHING, because if you didn't, people wouldn't see you as part of the in-group, and you'd become a social outcast.

The point is all the functions of money can actually just be done by natural social pressure.

Test

kek, but currency does have inherent flaws. Removing the advantage-takers would only leave room for new ones.

Currency is a good way of facilitating trade, but within a nation it just leads to sup-optimal things being traded, like cigarettes, prostitutes, fast food, the list of misemployment today is almost endless- whatever gets you the most currency is king.

Real wealth is stored in healthy, high art, high tech, high class society itself, and only dies out with the people.

Furthermore, when automation comes in and we have mass unemployment, people will start getting /fit/ and sexy to gain status, which is a good thing for the nation as a whole and doesn't leave everyone destitute through no fault of their own.

Not very much the unit of account function. At least as I understand it. I don't see how labour, investment, and entrepreneurship would be conducted in any kind of rational way without the uses of prices to co-ordinate society based on profit and loss data.

You could say 'social shaming will allocate labour properly', but still that sounds to me less efficient, not more efficient.

Especially it gets worse the larger you go and if you tried to co ordinate a global economy without profit and loss I think people would end up with a much worse standard of living.

Clearly you don't care about such degenerate things like high standards of living, but other people do

You do know currency is only a substitute for other resources right? People don't want money because it's green or shiny, they only want money because it can buy resources.

If you took out money people would still trade their labour for lots of other things to try and become rich. To some extent it wouldn't happen as often because money is more convenient than trading for cows and chickens as you want people to do, but to that extent you would just have less division of labour and fewer rich people performing complicated roundabout tasks. Also it seems to me poor people would be the most hurt by removing efficient methods of trade because they're usually less mobile and have few options anyway.

Doesn't matter what subhuman normies care about.

At least one of you will admit it that you don't aim for a peaceful prosperous society

I don't aim for pleasing normies. This is standard right wing, what normies want doesn't matter because they are subhuman degenerates. They want to masturbate, eat Doritos, status signal on social media, etc.

A civilization cannot run on pleasing the degenerate masses. The idea that it can and should is left wing. That mentality is how we arrived at the point we are today. That is actually the exact opposite of peace and prosperity because normies are moral cowards and comfort-seeking degenerates who will always choose the path of least resistance, even if that path leads to destruction of civilization.

The unit of account function would become unnecessary. In fact, a lot of our current system is frankly unnecessary. I understand it's hard to see the vision because we are so deeply entrenched in the monetary system.

What standards of living? People work longer hours than ever before, commit suicide more than ever before, and are depressed more than ever. Money is king. If we reset our whole economy back to viking farmholds, the standards of happiness would rise.

Being able to produce a million burger patties an hour is highly efficient, but it's not GOOD.

Yes, I studied Economics and finance. The resources people need are not complicated- people only need money to buy them because those are the rules of the game. We are in a situation where we have to work more than ever before to survive, we are utterly materialistic (because material goods sell) and we are not happy.

I'm not saying we should trade cows and chickens, I'm saying we don't need to trade at all- just share within (contributors of) nations, and according to inherent social pressures. Technology allows us to create abundant food, and if we arranged our society properly most of us would never have to work. We could create abundance, more art, great buildings… just because we'd have the time and opportunity.

Money at its heart makes us (by "us" I mean countrymen) competitors, not collaborators. "Efficient methods of trade" just lower wages and give us a race to the bottom. If you think a poor person is better off working a 12 hour night shift than he would be simply tilling a field for his family and community a few months a year, you're a fool.

OP I think you're on to something, but it cannot happen overnight. The star trek system where absolutely no money is needed, no reason to pay for anything is a utopian dream. You can't force such a system upon people they have to believe in it the same way they believe in bits of printed paper now.
What if we explore the possibility of transition away from our (((their))) current system. The idea of basing the money on labor is well known and quite workable. It has the advantage of being a monetary source that grows with the population as well as technology.
The idea that every person's time is worth exactly the same as another's comes from the fact that time is all we have and an hour of my time is as precious to me as an hour of your time is to you.
The argument that skill and talent and training make one more valuable than another is part of the (((merchant meme))) whether you wish to believe that or not. Investigate the origins of why one person's labor is worth more than another and you'll find (((them))).

No they aren't. Hours worked has gone down continually as the world has industrialised

I doubt it. When your children don't mostly die, when you can afford more leisure time, when you aren't involved in countless stupid housekeeping tasks, you tend to be happier.

Fuck off into the woods you retard

Actually production is the source of abundance, and people who own more things tend to be happier.
You haven't convinced me that having things is bad. Maybe your anti civilisation rhetoric needs work.
I think if you took all my things and destroyed them, I would be less happy

You need to study more

I don't think so. The number of hours you need to work to produce any given thing has gone down.

Clearly wanting things is an evil which should be destroyed
We need to blow up the world so people don't want things, trust me it's gonna be great

That's why socialist countries are so rich and have high wages. Oh wait efficient methods of trade heighten productivity you fucking retard who hasn't studied economics

End your life. Most historians agree they worked even more than stone age people which would be more than ten hours a day, every day.
With practically no leisure, no luxuries, no healthcare, back pain, bleeding hands, etc.

Go be a peasant in North Korea

What is it with this religious-like obsession with "freedom"? Freedom is an abstraction that really has no true basis in the real world. In reality nobody can ever truly be "free" in an absolute sense. People are fundamentally bound to the communities, nations, families by duties and obligations from which separating themselves would require the complete isolation of tgemselevs from human society altogether. Instead of focussing on the creation of some abstract "free society", our focus should be in ensuring our race survives and prospers. Let the white race prosper before freedom

This is false. They have gone down compared to early industrialization, but not compared to middle ages.

Gold standards are shit. Stop spreading this meme

Ideal societies don't and never will exist. If your idea has to rely on the assumption that there one day will be one, then it is fundamentally flawed.

Two the two(?) guys arguing in in favor of this system:

What would you do if such such a society ever came to fruition? What kind of job or duty would you have? What would you do in you day to day life?

Citation needed
Most of the articles which put out this point of view are written by leftists distorting the truth by saying the work peasants did to pay for rent, was the only work they did.
In any case it seems to me peasants wouldn't have minded working more hours in order to live a better lifestyle, save up money and maybe not starve whenever there's a bad harvest.
In developing countries usually people want to work more hours not less

Irrelevant even if true because we've had money for millennia, also

What a strong argument. You're wrong, by the way.

Not an argument :)

Yes. You don't need money to do it. Learn to read, and if you want to refute points, learn what a strawman is, and how not to use it.

haha.

Hurr durr what is division of labour? Greater efficiency and working more hours are not mutually exclusive.

This is the dumbest fucking strawman I've seen in my life

Productivity does not equal good wages or quality of life. See China. Again, you don't need money to produce things, if the system is set up properly.

Did I say peasants? Obviously farmers these days would have a different lifestyle to fucking peasants in the middle ages. FUCKING STRAWMAN AGAIN

Please kill yourself for the good of the gene pool, jesus christ. Do you just see something your pathetic one-track brain associates with muh communism and sperg out?

so, literally communism

oh hey, what's up assholes and elbows

ban run out finally?

because 'being corrupt' and 'being seen as corrupt' are two VERY different things

apart from the exhaustive refutations of that statement made in this thread.

Tell me how it could be corrupted? how would one group take advantage of another?

If everything is free, someone could just take everything and hoard it up.

That already exists it's called inflation.

Obviously a society under this system would have laws or customs to prevent that.

It's stabilised and regulated by individual human judgement on a transaction - by- transaction basis. Humans have an inherent sense for the justice of these things, which is why we don't need money to ration for us. Next.

why would you take more than you need?

Alright, hopefully we can accept that people aren't working anywhere near more hours than ever before and move on to other points.

I think this is one you should also consider giving up

You need money and prices for any sophisticated level of production above the local level. Socialism doesn't work m8
You seem to realise this while at the same time saying production is a bad thing, making your point more confused.

It's not surprising that people responding will get confused.

Look if people are night guards instead of farmers it's because night guards are in heavier demand.
You can say we should give poor people enough resources essentially so they can afford to be farmers instead of nightguards but I think there are less retarded ways of doing that than your new NOT COMMUNIST system of abolishing money

Fuck off back to Holla Forums

Yeah, and then we shoot them like any other parasites ruining the nation.

We even have retarded Holla Forums shills like this one that fails to understand the concept of parasites.

I understand parasites, I was asking you d89b3d why you would take more than you need. I'm not asking about some hypothetical parasite, I know that type exists I was asking you.

oops.. my bad I meant c8b0bf not d89b3d

this post is such a mess of misquotes and misunderstanding of the central point, clearly it's gone straight over your head

STRAWMEN FUCK OFF BACK TO CUCKCHAN

If everything was free why would you need to hoard anything? And parasites get freer reign under current system, under my idea they get BTFO by society

No, they need to work to earn money

Taking it for yourself was never implied with that question because usually when people say "someone" they are referring to a person that is not themselves. How much I take has no significance in this case because the question is still about other people. Even if I were to take the absolute minimum physically possible, someone else simply hoarding shit is still a net loss.

Because you don't have it and human wants are infinite while resources are not. I know that seems like an impossible concept for Commies to grasp but please try.

Yes, I read that chapter of Econ101 thanks. See

That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard and even if it were that easy, there are plenty of ways around it like working with a group of people to fuck others over. Unless you are trying to argue a society of only twenty people, it is incredibly naive to rely on trust because even if there is a 0.0001% chance that someone acts like a parasite it wouldn't exactly be the easiest of tasks to ensure a society of a hundred thousand (which is being very generous with how low the population would be) would suddenly be filled with nothing but saints.

How exactly? You'd still have police/the right to bear arms.

It doesn't rely on trust, it relies on mutual benefit, duty and the structure of a NatSoc society.

The problem is not money. The problem is usury. Take away the ability for people to make money merely by having money through interest or by lending that money out, and you remove the biggest part of the problem.

Don't you think the problem poor people face is insufficient access to credit which makes them either unable to borrow, or else forced to borrow from credit sharks and what not?

This fucking wall of text….
I don't care what you think, or what form you want it in, we need a universal exchangeable item.

Want 30 loaves of bread to build my tool shed?

I think that the ability to borrow large sums of money hikes up prices and creates a need for the ability to borrow. For example, college would be much cheaper if it wasn't common practice for students to indebt themselves and take out student loans. It is only because of the existence of student loans that colleges can get away with charging much more than they otherwise would be able to. Without student loans, and without government assistance to stay afloat, colleges would be forced to adhere to a business model that accommodates most people's budget.

Removing usury would indeed be a very good step. Are there ANY political parties you know of who are against usury? It's strange how it seems everyone is at least passively for it.

hmm good point, maybe a global currency would do the trick? :^)

Your system seems like it would be rather difficult to implement, OP.
Also,
sounds like a recipe for tragedy and abuse once the population exceeds a certain threshold.
Not if they're charismatic and clever enough.

If you want to make a better society, just ban all forms of compound interest. Make usury a crime (for both the borrower and the lender), and a large portion of the current kikery will just dissolve away.

That doesn't cause crime and corruption to stop existing. Home invasions and simply muggings would certainly become much more rare, since that is where arms apply, but firearms don't stop all forms of crime under all conditions.
That's a funny way of spelling a trust. You are assuming that humans will always be capable of making entirely rational decisions and that there would never be a single situation where personal benefit outweights mutual benefit. For example a man with a family cheating by fucking their neighbour's wife isn't exactly that is rational or beneficial beyond mere hedonistic pleasure. Sure, once or twice they might not get caught but it is obvious that it is inevitable that after enough close calls the next time they will be caught for sure. And what then? The pleasure is long gone and the resulting impact on both themselves and their familes greatly outweighs the benefit of having pleasure for a short period of time. And it's not something suddenly new that I am stating here, this is an issue known since the dawn of time but human nature ensures that it continues to happen regardless of how smart that person seems to be.

They are unable to borrow because interest rates forbid the possibility to do so. There are plenty of banks out there that work set rates rather than interest that are doing perfectly fine and ensure people aren't enslaved by exponentially growing debt because they missed two payments but rather increase the debt in such a way that rather than paying for the rest of their lives they pay for the two extra months.

Yes but we have scarce resources as far as college teachers and etc. go so it makes sense prices would go up when a lot of people want to go and have access thanks to credit markets.
Still if someone's saying they're willing to bear all those large costs, including interest rates incurred from using scarce credit, it seems to me he still benefits from having the option and must really want to go to college for some reason.
This is different from state funding where you reduce the cost to the student and end up sending people who don't even need to go to college that much to take up scarce places, which drives up costs for a dumb reason.
I think STATE FUNDING is the real problem

read the disclaimer in OP. I only see it being implemented once a lot of other shit has been sorted out (like usury) and we have proper nations again.

I also have previously stated, I think if money disappeared tomorrow (after a lot of shit went down/things stabilised) it would force us into a form of national socialism.

Sure, but charisma is a good adaptation to have in the gene pool, if they can charisma their way up the social hierarchy you could say they deserve it. Also, with abundance provided by automation a lot of people are going to be unemployed either way.

None of this rambling identifies a problem that isn't already a problem.

So you would build a tool shed, house, fix cars, other physical labor intensive shit, for fucking bread… Logic. Why not become commie so you can live out your dreams of working your ass off for shit tier food.

Usury and currency based on shit like debt or gold is the ultimate slaver OP. As long as currency is backed by labour and goods produced, controlled by National bank where usury is forbidden, Nation will prosper.
Currency is a tool for universal exchange of goods so will always occur naturally.

Look into NSDAP's economical model and Manifesto For The Abolition Of Interest Slavery by Gottfried Feder.

lies, organizing with other people for mass lies, control of the media to reinforce these lies

you know, ways that are not even remotely different than what's happening now

kek.

This whole thread has to be bait

Did the Nazis not borrow money at interest?

If so, why did they not just ask for money for free without any interest?

The idea being impossible due to how human nature works is actually a very big problem in this case, m8. I don't care how many layers you try to add to it, it still boils down to the idea being shit.

This.
Hitler didn't abolish money to make the economy work again, instead he freed up trade along with banning usury and took over the manufacture of currency.

This triggers me.

Borrowing money without interest is easily done by setting a fixed sum rather than making the rate increase exponentially over time as you would for interest rates.

>>>/reddit/
>>>Holla Forums

Read the literature I mentioned in that post, you'll find your answers there.

yeah, you're arguing against simple bartering, not my idea. Read the thread and try again.

lies to what end? to get more… what? when you remove the (((money=power))), all you have left is the power of consumer voting and election voting. Under NatSoc this works.

yeah, I still haven't seen a real refutation, just

Tell me in clear terms why a NatSoc country which obeys natural order, has a social hierarchy, citizens with a sense of duty and doesn't use money internally wouldn't work.

At that point, you won't need to ban money.
A good adaptation for an individual, but not one that really helps your system.
Absolutely not. What would make you think this way? What mechanism would prevent some of those unproductive, cheating (but socially well-regarded) individuals from subverting your system?
A charismatic person might make a good leader or figurehead, but you only need so many of those.

So do you mean bonds instead of interest? Wut?

A loan you can pay back any time, but which you have an incentive to pay back more sooner rather than later, seems like it's good for both people

Or maybe you mean simple interest vs compound interest

Not that it's impossible to work, but currency will occur naturally because of the need for universal tool for universal exchange of goods, not to mention the efficiency it produces.
NSDAP did use the barter system to trade directly with other countries (resources for resources), which is where you are right, when trading with other countries; its the best way to regulate import/export of goods and to protect stability and self sufficiency of your country.
Especially if other countries use currency based on kike bullshit.

Don't care to read a wall of text, short hand it or fuck off.

Because even in a fairy tale bullshit scenario that you use to as proof that it would work magic still wouldn't work.

Bartering like niggers wouldn't work dumbass

At that point, my point is you don't actually need money. You can use it, but it's surplus to requirements. An unnecessary middle man.

How could they subvert it? Society would feed people if we deemed them worthy, and if not, we wouldn't. All individuals would be forced to find their place on the hierarchy.

That's what China's doing you idiot.
People are given ratings on a social media app and their whole purchasing power comes from their rating.
Good luck with that.

Would work
Would definitely work
Would also work
This is the part I have an issue with because it is impossible to have a functioning economy without the government going full Communist (and this is ignoring efficiency) without a medium of exchange. It can be anything that can be percieved to have value, many people used gold because it was rare but there are also others that used amber, salt and silver because those were far more effective than trying to find a way to split indivisible and clearly unequally valued commodities to allow exchange.

Well yes, it is one thing that shitskins in the Middle East at least got right. There they have a lot of banks that will give people money without interest but rather a fixed rate. Having a fixed rate rather than interest because it ensures people cannot be entrapped. That is why in a lot of literature interest is called debt slavery because due to factors that you cannot control you may end up eternally in debt to a small group of people with no way to get back to your previous state.

And who would decide who is worthy? Is there some magicly "in stone" gauge that people will some how not stand against? Whos to judge if a baker is more or less worthy then a builder?
If food is of so much value "because we all need it" then farmers and bakers would be the new jews…

I remember when I was in high school too

A universally accepted form of currency allows people to branch out and be more creative in all aspects of life, be it styles of art, tech, ect. If we ALL had the skills to feed are selves, we would not need to rely upon others for are basic necessity's, yet civilization would grind to a halt as no one would have the time to work on anything like new medicines, new construction techniques, other ways to improve production well requiring less skill, knowledge, physical force.

Fuck off then stupid cunt. Trying to argue against something you haven't even read, jesus fucking christ

Why do you think I'm advocating bartering? I haven't mentioned bartering once. Everything being free at point of purchase is not bartering.

So a major country is trying a form of my idea right now (I hadn't heard of this) and I'm an idiot?

Why? Why would you need the government to impose it? People would keep going to work and keep producing, because of their sense of duty, their social standing they have to protect, and their knowledge that they are in an interdependent system.

Yes, it's called common sense, this is the point. Social animals like humans can judge character, it's within us naturally. Especially in a homogenous and cohesive society.

This is so amazingly retarded and clueless that I'm having a hard time finding words to express how enormously retarded and clueless this is. You're proposing that people should stop using the only way to tell how much others believe that things are worth and to hold on and exchange that value in order to adopt a system where everyone supposedly gets as much as they think others owe them, and if it wasn't stupid enough you actually believe that everyone will have intimate knowledge about everyone else in an entire country, will agree on the value of everything and will accept that you take things from them even if you never gave them anything back. Not to even mention the accounting problem, you believe that people will just know how much they should produce or consume without ever having to look at a single number. I'm not going to even bother searching for a reaction image because I know that I'll spend a lot of time and still not come up with anything that can even come near describing the disturbed and incredulous state of mind that came upon me when I read your post.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
"Common" sense… You sir, are truly a naive child.
My common sense says to remove you from this earth, seems more then a few here have the same idea, but somehow, your "sense" is the only correct one right? Alrighty Holla Forums.

Why not pick this post apart.

archive.is/oTF9g

The ACLU doesn't like it, so it has that going for it.

Like this, for example:

Who is this "we", and what guarantee is there that this "we" won't fuck up resource allocation?

Well I guess if you hold a politically unpopular opinion, you can say goodbye to your place on the hierarchy.

Bold attempt to discuss a topic which requires higher intelligence on an image board comprised of capitalist burger and brit pigs.

Historically money/currency/intermediate units served a necessary and good purpose but with increasing stages of civilization it becomes obsolete. Money, or any unit of measuring value for goods and services, becomes a more of a tool of power the more civilized societies become. In other words: where there are different societies, there need to be units to organize exchange of goods and services.

Within advanced homogenous societies, money has no purpose other than to transition to the next stage of goods organization. Hitler already had visions and implemented shekel-free systems in the early times of the reich which propelled german technolgy, industry and society far beyond any other society on the planet.

You're stating the obvious, more or less. For money and its influences on society to disappear, we would need to nuke inferior species (americlaps, kikes, britbongs, niggers, shitskins) off the planet. Because as long as other countries exist who are interested in extending their degeneracy and control, shekels will exist.

Practical current observations are plenty. The shekel is used as a foot in the door for manipulating countries and slowly taking over economic, political and cultural control. For example all of these 'orange revolution' contracts which promise money if oil is privatized or European contracts, where countries have to 'democraticize' in order to receive funds.

This is how the modern jude enters economies and therefore can exercise control over media, kulture and power structure.

Not an argument :)

No, that's not what I said.

I think you gravely misunderstood while looking for those words to describe how you are unable to conceive of a different opinion.

read disclaimer, structure of economy would change dramatically, but ultimately create more positive externalities and fewer negative ones

This is an argument against bartering, again.

"We" is whoever you're getting your stuff from. And what do you mean by "fuck up" resource allocation? It's pretty fucked up at the moment. With abundance of resources, it's not that big an issue.

See; It should be implemented under NatSoc, not current regime

Given that you know all of that, how can you possibly argue against money. Money is just a representation of the goods and services available on the market. Take money away and these goods and services still exist, except you can't buy them anymore, there's no medium of exchange and you'll have to travel to south america first, to buy bananas, because the monkey won't sell his shit for anything but bananas.

This, OP probably just got a lecture about Das Capital from his jewish professor and is now an expert why we need islamic communism

What are you trying to do, sell us something good or something better than the current situation? Because the latter is very easy, but nobody here will care unless it's the former.
Your model should solve the current problems, not handwave them.

Who gauges it then? Everyone? Everyone has a different set of guidelines jackass, note all the people calling you a fucking retard within this thread.
But again, some how it will magically work because you said it will. Worked so well in the forum of communism huh? Not corrupted at all huh?

You are attacking something that is a non issue. A universal form of currency has been in almost every form of civilization, its the people who manipulate it that you truly have issue with.

You still have not attacked
yet. Why not see what you could do to that commie.

No hotpockets comrade?

NOT BARTERING

Things being free at point of purchase is not bartering.

If;

then what's the point in a medium of exchange? That high unemployment can also be directed to things like art, science, building etc like you said.

Not an argument :)

You conceded that it would solve a lot of problems like mugging and petty crime. And other deeper problems it would solve have been addressed

Yes, but they are intrinsically reliable enough especially in a homogenous society. Gift of being social creatures, we do it naturally. Again, with capability of creating abundance we don't need to be that strict, just ostracize obvious non-members/contributors of the in-group like migrants

Communism uses money and state enforcement of equality you fucking retards

this is dumb

The charismatic merchant in the example is not bartering at first, he's giving away the initial tokens (with a promise of future goods) in order to corrupt your system. After this, exchange of tokens for goods follows naturally.

A system based on that assumption won't survive hard times.

Who would need to accept this if they can get goods for free anyway?

Yes because all resources are only available at those resource shops and you couldn't just go anywhere else if you fell out with a specific producer

The system creates abundance, partly with tech, partly with NatSoc economics, partly with abolition of misemployment

Stupid goy, money is already removed.
Hehehehehehehehehe.

I won't sell my shit for anything but heroin and taco bell seasoning

No they haven't. That's the handwaving I'm talking about. Specifically, what will you do if 1% of your population gets together and demands that you accept whatever random demand they have (e.g. they want money back, they're dissatisfied commies etc.)? They have guns. Wat do?
Mugging can only be solved by a race war btw, since niggers will keep nigging.

You fucking dumb nigger… Bitch at me about not reading your wall of text then cant even bother to understand that ittybitty bit…. Fucking scum…

To there family's, not others.
White or not, if you don't work, I'm not feeding you as I have to feed my own family. No one has ability to exchange shit for my extra food, so it all goes in to storage with canning/freezing/drying and fuck the lot of you.

Too busy ensuring my family has food and shelter to even learn shit beyond trade skills/agriculture

That's why there is starving people all over the world? Notice how only a small percentage of a "civilized" country is feeding everyone. Now, not only do they have to work on there own equipment to maintain it, show me a single doctor who's going to be there to tend to there wounds/aliments when they fuck up trying to fix there own shit with there no skills. Better yet, show me the mechanic who would work on there equipment for some unprocessed wheat, unpasteurized milk.

No shit, we are slowly moving to a point to where "as stated in post you replied too"

If you could fucking read,
NO ONE WOULD HAVE TIME TO DO ANYTHING ELSE IF THEY ALL HAD TO LEARN TO REPAIR AND FEED THEM SELVES.

Because you say so huh? We are all now drones because "muh natsoc". Sorry asshat, I would never do a fucking thing to ensure you survived. You will never be my equal, no mater what plain of reality you wish to dream up.

Okay, i'll bite. How do you exchange value for value? If everything has the same cost (free), there's no way to calculate costs, is there?

test

Wall of text, tl;dr

I'm thinking of it as sort of extreme socialism, within a nationalistic country.

exchanging value for value is sort of by-the-by because as a country we should produce enough food, medicine, housing, clothing, raw materials etc etc to make it all free to individuals and firms. (We produce enough food on Earth for 10 Billion people, poverty/scarcity of resources is a structural problem). Duty and social incentives stop most people from just lounging/scrounging from it and makes them contribute. People/firms have time and opportunity to pursue arts and produce luxury goods.

The cost is just human time and effort. Kind of like labour backed currency I guess, but I think in a NatSoc country with labour-backed currency, the currency would just be surplus to requirements.

Wall of text, tl;dr

I'm thinking of it as sort of extreme socialism, within a nationalistic country.

Exchanging value for value is sort of by-the-by because as a country we should produce enough food, medicine, housing, clothing, raw materials etc etc to make it all free to individuals and firms. (We produce enough food on Earth for 10 Billion people, poverty/scarcity of resources is a structural problem). Duty and social incentives stop most people from just lounging around or scrounging from it and makes them contribute. People/firms have time and opportunity to pursue arts and produce luxury goods and technology.

The cost is just human time and effort. Kind of like labour backed currency I guess, but I think in a NatSoc country with labour-backed currency, the currency would just be surplus to requirements.

They don't need to, but the merchant is very charismatic and people follow along so they can be on his good side. Also, the tokens would allow people to actually choose what they're given, instead of just be given stuff they may or may not want. That idea is pretty enticing.

You really couldn't, because your system is based on trust from social standing:

Vague as fuck.

Not an argument :)

Nice double post too faggot. I see you must be ass blasted sense you cant even commie plaster my points.

The government wouldn't need to impose one because people have and will find ways to impose their own. It wasn't mandated by law for people to use amber as money but they still did and it managed to become a very useful commodity. For example in many countries they not only accept their own country's currency but also the US dollar even though the law doesn't dictate to them that they must do so. The government issuing its own currency allows you to be sure that you aren't going to get fucked in the ass, given the government hasn't been corrupted beyond repair.

Found the Jew.

Simply saying "false" does not state any case, much less an opposing one. It is the meme version of a child saying "nu-uh!".

If you alter your premises enough, you'll never have to worry about reaching the desired conclusion.
Here's the thing: We do not produce enough medicine, food, clothing, etc. and the only reason why you are able to buy them in the store is because they are "rationed" by the market via the pricing mechanism that gives each item the approximate market value. If everything in stores was free, we wouldn't have anything, because the disincentive of having to spend your hard earned money on the item is gone and people will no longer be frugal. Shortages are the inevitable result of socialist policies, because we do not live in paradise and the world is not a place of abunfance.

If your ideology requires a fundamental shift in human nature, then your ideology is shit and you are a total retard for believing in it, and you will get anyone stupid enough to follow you in your foolishness killed.

I am a national capitalist, like the good folks in Apartheid South Africa, Rhodesia, or the US from the end of Reconstruction until 1913.

Poor Holla Forums commie faggot… Too stupid to name the jew, too naive to understand that people "including whites" are inherently greedy.

Greed is a good thing, if not wholly governed by it.
Greed is drive to strive and achieve, to want for the finer things in life, to have it better then others, not simply stagnate.

Bumping my question . Another question: what will you do with people who do not agree with you (there are a lot, as you can see) and want to keep using money? Will you just let a dual society in which those who want money will use money and those who don't will make their free society?

You're not "given" anything, you go out and "buy" whatever you want.

Your second point; I'm not coming to you with a fully fleshed out manifesto of a new system, my OP was

I'm not suggesting it should be based on if I deeply trust you or think you're a "good person". If the guy coming into your store looks decent, dressed like a member of your nation, speaks with a similar accent, and you have plenty of food and he's pleasant to you, why would you refuse him? Especially if you have few economic concerns because you yourself can get everything you need for free? That's my point, human judgement can regulate it. If the guy is a dreadhead dudeweed cunt who speaks inner city slang to you you'd be within your rights to tell him to fuck off, or not, if you're generous.

because I've already made the point a few times over the thread.

...

You're just calling me a commie and for some reason talking about everyone suddenly having to fend for themselves and grow their own food/make their own medicine. I cba to refute that wall of autism.

Yeah, you wouldn't have anything else either. No one has incentive to BE productive, only incentive to APPEAR productive. And someone who APPEARS productive might just take advantage of that appearance to hoard goods for sale to people who do produce a lot (and thus have things to trade), but don't APPEAR to be productive. All goods instantly disappear and go to black markets, just like what happens with every other hippy dippy bullshit communist jerk off fantasy that has ever or will ever be tried.

...

Because you "like a commie" think any one, "out of the goodness of there hearts, would simply work like dogs well others paint because muh art" would aline them selves to your bullshit… Simply no… Everyone would sit on ass and spray shit upon a canvas for food and shelter, well losing the skills to grow/build… Fucking commie nigger.

Well said, user. Ultimately it is the desire to survive and escape death.

Pic related is how fucking dumb your shit is.

More like, you take from whatever a few people you know personally want to give you, and if you don't like it you either die or you fuck off and hope other places are better and will accept you.

In other words, if he's charismatic enough?

Because maybe he's a charismatic cheater, considering that your system completely favors those.

Sounds like a scam. If you give away your bread to opportunists, you'll have less bread to give to the trustworthy people of your community, and therefore your social standing will take a hit, which mean you're more likely to be deprived of resources, which means that you'll have a harder time producing your bread. The cheaters win and everyone else loses.

Some one risks nothing by saying X to gain Y
Now you see the issue… If I can convince enough dip shits that it is so, dishonest or not, it will be so… Integrity will be withheld within the community of people who fallowed along with the guise.
Enough retards think communism is a good thing, thus commies have integrity with in there own community's and truly believe there shit is a good thing, regardless of everyone pointing out there flaws and stupidity, much like your self in this thread.

Greed is a sin. And again, I'm not a communist

Well I wouldn't forcibly impose it on people, even if I could. Apparently most of Holla Forums hates the idea, although it seems to be more MUH COMMUNISM spouting burgers than rational arguments. I think if we could simulate it it would be an interesting experiment. As far as I know, no organised modern society has ever not used money. As I said people naturally started using it in ancient times due to ancient pressures, but I'm still not convinced it's the optimal set up for a future society. Nobody's offered much of an argument that isn't based on how capitalism works today, which isn't really what I was hoping for. Admittedly, my ideas for restructuring the economy so this would work are extremely far fetched (as are many of Holla Forumss aims I point out), but the discourse here is so poor, like this blessing to the Aryan race it's like arguing with chimpanzees- can't see the arguments through the shit.

I already understood the classical keynesian reasons why this theory was wrongthink, but I wanted to entertain the idea and see what came out of the machine.

SOCIAL STATUS WHICH REPLACES MONEY
god damn you are a thick-ass stupid motherfucker

"i saved the village from 30 dinosaurs myself" "it's true i saw it" "here have all our shit"

You clearly cant read can you…
What part of "if not wholly governed by".
If you have no drive, you are worthless, even within the confines of your own arguments.
Sick sad fucking spaz, commie nigger.

GREED
IS
A
SIN

And drive does not come from greed.

This, yeah. Without some sort of limiting mechanism people will breed until scarcity prevents it. See: africa

Well it sure don't come from the goodness of ones heart.

So… you're evil?

m8…

With money, if there is a lack of certain goods, let's say lemons, then lemons would become very expensive, and people would rush in to make more lemons and cash it. If there are too many lemons out there eventually producing lemons would become pointless, being too cheap, and a lot of people would stop making them save for those most efficient at it. It's a self balancing system that promotes technological progress.

Now, how is your system going to handle the lack of lemons? There would be nothing to gain going for the lemons business except for social recognition. But who decides what is actually necessary? Who decides if we need more liquid nitrogen cooled coils for NMR machines to use in medical research or perhaps we should use that brainpower and labour to develop synthetic limbs? Right now both the state and private citizens can influence this by spending money, but how would you organize this kind of decisions in practice without money? In short, how do you handle the fact that resources are limited and must be allocated? Whoever decides on this will be in charge of everything, and your system smells like a new form of slavery to the state.

My drive comes from the NEED to PROVIDE for MY FAMILY, NATURE AND ENSURING SURVIVAL OF THE SPECIES. Nothing more.
Nature is not inherently good or evil, it just is.
A tsunami whipping out an island is no more good then rains coming to a dry land to water there crops.

You know jews really hate? Being slaves. We should all become slaves. That would really confound the jews.
Lots of pros here, guys:

Minor downsides:

Another Commie thread

If you are not a commie, why are you advocating communist policies and use communist buzzwords?
Greed (Avarice) in the way bible describes it is a sin. Greed as you describe it certainly isn't.We wouldn't even have this conversation if you believed your own nonsense, because everyone who lacks the desire to consume is dying or dead.

Good joke, almost as funny as your system.

...

Love how long it takes this commie nigger to reply to posts…
If you want to truly help us, quit and kill self.

I can entertain an idea without necessarily believing in it, for my own purposes.

You won the thread. Thank you for being able to articulate an argument, these posts basically sum it up.

You lost the thread, for 0/10 tier arguments. Must try harder.

I omitted it

Way to defend your arguments. I'm sure everyone will take you seriously sense all you can do is dodge the questions.

Fair enough

Those problems are already solved naturally via inflation and deflation.

I can accept being wrong

Its just sad that with all the shit flung at you, everyone basically saying the same thing… You could not simply accept it because of your lack of understanding, or others lack of "conforming to your bullshit format because of your muh feefees".

Now do you see why everyone called you a fucking commie?

It was just that being flung at me, shit. My feefees don't come into it, I'll accept being wrong (I half knew from the beginning, I know standard communism doesn't work) but nobody could tell me convincingly why until ~100 posts in (which is worrying that we're so bad at debating what should have been an easy refutation). Anyway, an exercise in debate well executed by some, very badly by others. We do really need to improve the discourse in this place though, seriously.

Christ, if you wasn't some 22-25 y/o faggot who sucked the words of some commie "professor" of libarts like it would cure you of aids…

Need to learn to be able to broaden your narrative and understanding of others take on your narrative. There are gorillians of different peoples, standings, understanding, that you are going to have to deal with in life.

tl;dr debt-based, interesting-bearing fiat currency makes everybody debt-slaves to central banking kikes

Fake money that doesn't buy you shit.

Just about every communist country had a organic black market form using alternate money be it USD, vodka or cigarettes. That's what's going to happen in your Utopia too.

They got rich in the first place because they started lending out at interest paper script that they said was backed by gold that stupid princes gave to them. Fractional reserve banking, usury, fiat currency and the kikes who rely on them are the problems.

And you need to learn to string convincing sentences together so you can not make the right look like a bunch of knuckle dragging skinhead bumfucks, which my mouthy American friend is unfortunately who you type like.

Awwww darn, again I hurt your muh fee fees by again, not conforming to some mystical bullshit.

I am a "salt of the earth" kind of guy, take that how ever you wish. If that bothers you, then you have bigger problems then my shit writing skills.

OP, read up on and watch videos of Michael Tellinger's Ubuntu party. He has had a working town using exactly what your post(s) described for about 2 or 3 years now, possibly more.

Got links? Can it be found on YT easily?

youtube.com/results?search_query=michael tellinger ubuntu

Money enables commerce because it's more convenient than barter which is the only real working alternative to a money economy.

Hopefully, we can convince more people of this concept. There's something about it that is so pure and good, just like Gondola.

(checked)
(checked)

Holy shit, thank you for bringing this to my attention. This is based. This is exactly what I meant by my idea needing total restructuring of the economy, I couldn't express it very well because I got bogged down defending the details of my op.

I'll make an Ubuntu contributionism thread with this tomorrow combining the points from this thread and posting the video. I'll also be getting in touch with the UK Ubuntu party soon.

I'll be on the lookout. If we're lucky, Holla Forums as a whole might take a liking to what it brings to the table.

Checked

Just get ready for people spamming
and
You know some one will point out
to try and counter the narrative.

People should have kept on with inefficient, inconvenient bartering?

Yes.

Or we could say, let's cool it with the push to full automation, there's no reason why we should destroy our entire social and economic order just so we can slavishly pursue the myth of technological progress..

There's no reason we should preserve inefficient forms of production while will cause people in this country to be relatively poorer just because you think it's quaint

As someone who is somewhat involved in the whole bartering subculture that exists right now, it's extremely inconvenient, especially if you need a very specific thing or commodity and you only have a limited range of supply to trade. Better to be able to convert your commodities into value-backed notes and use those.

There's no reason to pursue more complex forms of production that will only leave more in poverty and obsolescence, so much so that a functioning market can not exist because there are not a sufficient amount of consumers. Our production is already so overly efficient, we deliberately produce shoddy, disposable products and encourage a disposable culture so that consumption patterns can begin to approach the level of production.

Also, what is the better quality item: something mass produced by our super-efficient and largely automated means of factory production or that same thing inefficiently hand-created by a skilled craftsman?

I was just shitposting if you couldn't tell.

This Ubuntu party thinger is mostly limited in efficacy to smaller communities the size of towns.
Trade between settlements could very easily still work as a money-trade type deal. The real issue is large cities. Large cities are lawless hellzones in situations like this, where there are too many people in the community for each person to be able to hold everyone else accountable for their actions and or misdeeds.

People will be very much poorer when they're rendered obsolete and their labor is unneeded.

This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

Only a credit card baby who has trouble paying back his loans will say this.

Saving is the most important activity you can make, you are laying of gratification to create a better future for yourself VS taking the credit card and maxing it like a irresponsible madman.

Credit card baby detected.

I hope you realize that this will have massive drawbacks for the gov?

However you only spout memes like:

Do you even know what the word "degenerate" means ? Its not a synonym for "idiot" or "stupid" to be used all the time.

Meme spouting will really not help you here.

Wrong. You seam not to understand money can not create money (normally) I recommend watching "In Time" its fiction however it shows the obsession with time where you pay with it for everything its basically money. Now at the end of the film the hero's realize that the money is not the problem you can take all the money away from the rich however if they own the businesses they can simply get it back since you will spend the money in shops and so (its thought provoking).

Additionally if you own the shops you can simply raise prices to get the money back.

Your obsession with money is childish its not the money its the power over the infrastructure these rich people have that allows them to get more money (its bought with money BTW).

Its literally a golden egg laying goose you can take all the golden eggs however if they have the goose they will simply get it back in time.

You can spend money and nothing more the only way to get money from money is by usury (lending money and you give me back 100% + more) and usury was illegal in history like other forms of parasitism.

The same way speculation and other non productive parasitic activities where illegal, simply make new regulations and it all works out good.

Make new laws enforce them end of story.

This all of this. So right.
Lets stop here and realize that today we don't have real physical money its all bits in computers, fictional numbers not different from WOW gold or minerals in StarCraft and people are still in the game.

And by physical money I'm talking about the paper that is on the level of monopoly money printed by the gov. So we don't even have the gov do the effort of making monopoly money they simply add to a electronic account some numbers on a computer.

Let me demonstrate:

Its fictional money in its purest form, you can not get closer to a abstract form of accounting human labor. And all of it is based on government fiction in the form of their post stamps they name paper money.

We did not do a
for a long time.

TL;DR
Money is good, fictional government money is good its all to give some form of accounting and its getting closer and closer to some form of abstract mathematics.

This is gibberish. How do you even implement this?

What mechanism will this society use to evaluate "deemed them worthy"?
its not like we are in a MMORPG and have a Social Score stat over our heads that everyone can check.

How will this be evaluated? Who will do this? Some voting? You literally have nothing.

To actually make a non insane argument try describing the daily life of someone in your society and how example man Adam gains more social score stat and how example man Bob gets his social score stat reduced.

Next describe how your social score stat is used to get more things, and please no

1) social score stat
2) ????
3) NS
4) ???
5) Every problem is solved the system is 100% good.

Everything I believe in put in simpler words +1 rep for you.

Money is a form of rationing its more fluid then having coupons

Fuck even bartering accomplishes this it only ends up that everyone starts bartering with the most desirable materials.

OP has nothing out side of hippy-dippy abundance nonsense.

I think one problem with Hilterbucks and other currency is it doesn't expire. If one person produces one apple and another produces one orange and they make an exchange through bartering, their trading ability goes to zero if they both eat it. But if the exchange was made with currency, the currency would still be floating around forever. The hitlerbuck earned by a worker on the autobahn it eternal.

Time banking solved this problem but a couple of hours of heart surgery isn't the same a couple of hours painting a house. Maybe time banking with multiple time tiers is the best solution.

bump

This is a quaint libertarian delusion of voluntarism. Nobody agrees to pretend money has value; money is given value by people honoring pledges, and comes to have more widespread value the more stable it is — i.e. the more confident most people are that such money will continue to be backed. At a libertarian level this is done by companies and the like with things such as store credits and tokens — think the "credit" of Paypal, which pretends to be US currency because it has a fixed 1:1 exchange ratio. In a similar way, money is created by many different people; effectively it arises through codified agreements; that is "You present this token to me, and I will honor its stated worth" eventually becomes "I will sell you this token for your goods because he will honor its stated worth." It's social trust, essentially. Now, decoupling this from libertarianism, most of the time this is done differently through government, most often as a mechanism of tax. For example, take a king trying to fund his army; he prints a large number of paper notes, worthless, and hands them out to his army. Then he declares to the rest of his subjects that he will only take the taxes they owe him in those notes; suddenly the notes have value and people have to trade with the army to get them. Boom, king's just funded his army with the stroke of a pen. In this case, the money was originally backed up by threat of force, not trust (unless you consider it to be the trust of the populace that the king would use force against them to get taxes). Over time, however, the money eventually comes to be backed by trust again once people start believing it to have worth because everyone else thinks it does, rather than because they need it not to get killed by the king.

It is precisely not self-evident. Back up this argument instead of asking us to take at face value such a ridiculous statement.

This does not follow. Short of shady banking practices, money does not inherently make money anymore than any other form of wealth does. I can "rent" out my money to someone (say, by buying shares in their business) in the same way I can rent out machinery to them. In both cases my previously earned wealth makes me more wealth, making this inherent of wealth, not money. Getting rid of money wouldn't solve the problem, mostly because the problem is greed. Money doesn't cause greed, nor would an absence of money abolish it.

Ignoring the fact that societies have existed having all those values and greed, how do you propose to get rid of greed entirely? You know it's an inherent part of the human condition, right?

Again, a function of wealth. Getting rid of money wouldn't suddenly stop a man from inheriting his father's estate and thereby granting him more influence. What do you plan to do to solve this? Abolish inheritance?

How is this a mathematically certain property of money?

Jews have wreaked their damage through two things: traitors and positions of influence. The first are self-absorbed or racially masochistic (i.e. defective), a problem not caused by money. The second comes from European naïvety and delusion of "Well, he seems like a good Jew. Not like those others; and he's so good at what he does. I'm sure there will be no harm in appointing him to X position of power." It has only come about because of Jewish ability to be competent at what they do, and pretending they aren't against the interests of Europeans. How would getting rid of money solve that?

Not at all how money developed. It developed out of state credit systems, which were codified and regularized to ensure smooth harvests and prevent peasant rebellions. Peasants would work all year living off credit, which would then be paid off at a set exchange ratio of barley when the harvest came. Money is a function of social trust, and thus inherently part of a state system. It doesn't arise out of anarchy.

This wasn't how history happened. Most large empires arose out of backwater, irrelevant cities or groups, and quickly squashed gold-laden neighbors. Rome didn't have much gold at all until it conquered the Greek world and took the Greek gold of the Near East back to Rome — well after the Republic had won its empire.

Look, don't use rhetoric when trying to make a logical argument. "Free everything" societies don't work well, never have, and never will, because even if you eliminate greed (unlikely), there is still the problem of resource distribution. If everything is free, no one has any idea where things are needed or wanted (i.e. where he can sell something). Secondly, how can "social standing" (whatever that is) be a medium of exchange? Do you even understand what a medium of exchange is? How can my "social standing" facilitate the indirect exchange of goods between third-parties X and Y? Thirdly, what is "human value" and how can it be used to store other value? Fourthly, how can holding people to account allow accounting to be performed? This is little more than mildly clever word-play without any substance at all. I can't even see how the two are related in a tangible manner. How does holding my friend to what he owes me allow me to quantify my wealth in a consistent unit-base?

It really can't. What you've essentially proposed is little more than tribalism; direct credit exchange ("free" things) between members of a high-trust community, with all the inefficiencies that go along with that. And that's not even getting into the nightmare that taxes would be.

Because we all know the majority are truly the greatest decision-makers.

And how will they know how much to farm and how much to build?

There's a reason they're ancient.

No, and they didn't sprawl over entire continents either. To directly compare the situations is absurd.

Look, buddy, this is getting ridiculously utopian. You know that, right? It's not much different from commies claiming that if everyone just had the right attitude communism would work. Instead of trying to fight human nature, how about you work with it?

Do you not understand you are in the far out group posting here. How fucking retarded are you?

he who shall not work shall not eat

...

fuck off bolshevik

only good thing is all the artists will starve

I'm not sure if OP even realizes how taxes work