A world without money.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

Doesn't matter if you give 10000000 credits or 1000 credits or 10 credits. Any time you inject money like this, you're just devaluing what it can actually acquire. In the end, it all comes down to the actual goods and services being exchanged. Money is just a way to grease the wheels and make exchange easier and normalized.

But it's NOT MONEY. THERE IS NO EXCHANGE BETWEEN PEOPLE.

You're not even trying to picture it. It's like a level-based privilege system in which everything is, essentially, FREE.

You still get incentive for the goods you produce, but you're not receiving this payment from who consumes it.

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

If you give everyone credits, but only allow them to leverage these credits if they work and produce value, and the addition of credits is a function of the utility of their output, then this isn't any different from a system where you just spend money on goods and services. I seriously have no idea why you aren't grasping this.

Of course, because we live in a world where money is always obtained through work, right?

You can't "avoid inflation" by making free stuff "in limited quantities." It's still a COST. Your "credits" will devalue in accordance with however many credits you inject into the economy without any real-goods exchange. If you're going to just reduce inflation by not increasing credit counts without underlying goods, then you must increase the counts WITH an underlying goods exchange. Yet again, the new proposed system isn't solving anything.

Credits don't need to devaluate by themselves, but the ammount of credits needed for specific products could increase depending on the availability/difficulty to obtain the product, while other prices remained the same. And, like I said, laws.

Limiting what people can achieve/own typically results in a ****ty life for everyone. It's generally seen as unfair by those who are capable of striving for something better, and it doesn't incentivize a lot of the utility synergies and value additions we'd like to have in our average lives. It also assumes people are OK with being held to a bound average and that the government has perfect information -- and you also assume the government won't also pursue self-interest and oppress the working classes.

This is a seriously asinine argument.
Things are already NATURALLY limited, because they exist in a limited quantity in nature.
You can't allow everyone to buy as many apples as they want when there is only ONE apple in the world.

Also, problems with the government exist independently from the economical system.

You're basically trying to argue that your retarded "credit systems" will somehow result in cost savings, when it doesn't. That aside, you're otherwise advocating a socialist/communist economy.

All that is needed to produce something is material and effort. These will be the same whether I pay 100 or 100000 dollars for a product.

What exactly define money's value? It's a function of the ammount of riches a country possesses divided by the amount of money?
What exactly measures riches, then? Why can't I say that I found a cool, really pretty and valuable stone and then create a new currency that can buy the entire rest of the universe?

There's no absolute referential. Every "value" is always relative to the person interested.

My point is that you treat certain concepts as real, concrete things, when they're not.

You're right when you say that money makes exchanges easier, but it doesn't change the fact that exchange itself will always be flawed because cost cannot be measured. Certain people like working and giving things for free. Others ask for too much or steal.

What I propose is a system where exchange between people is not necessary. And, in reality, it's not necessary. In this system, anyone could work and produce for free if they wanted, but that's too unlikely. Incentive still exists, only in a different form.