A world without money.

[Reincarnate]

mhss1992: I don't understand your argument style sometimes. It's like you completely ignore the points that render your argument invalid and continue along with the same line of flawed reasoning.

You cannot create value out of thin air. At the end of the day you always have to ask "Who is paying for this?" You want to make education free, food free, etc -- without considering that these have implicit costs. You *have to compensate these costs in some way or these things won't get done*.

"People who produced food would gain credits just for producing it, and people who needed the food would get it for free."
-This is the same as the government subsidizing food purchases. Farmer A grows apples and gets paid X dollars by the government so that the average consumer B can partake in the food as dictated by the government. And where do you think the government is going to get this money?

"The ammount of food you could get would be calculated depending on your weight, number of people living with you and you could get extra food with enough credits if you wanted to make a party or be a bodybuilder or something. (obesity rate would also go down)"
-Just another example of the government controlling what and how you can spend your money. You're still going to run into "unfair cases." What if I want to eat for the pleasure of eating? Could I not just say I am constantly bodybuilding/throwing parties? How would you enforce such a silly thing?

"No one would be homeless unless they wanted to."
-More accurately, no one would be homeless if they worked to earn credits. Same can be said for this current economy. If you don't work, you don't earn any money. If you don't provide any value, you don't gain any value in return.

"Nobody would lose credits in order for someone else to gain."
-You're making the same mistake Dossar did. Just because you're "renaming" your system to cater to a "score" system doesn't mean you aren't still making some underlying exchange of goods. If I am gaining X items/services in exchange for your Y items/services, we're both losing something and gaining something. Any expenditure or deliverance of a good/service is a cost/loss that you desire compensation for.

"What are you complaining about? Of course goods would be limited. They are limited now, too. But they would be more fairly distributed. In what aspect, exactly, is the system I described inferior to our current capitalism?"
-Because *you are not solving anything* and are basically giving the government more say in how we can spend our money. I'd rather be able to spend my money on what I want without the government getting in the way of dictating what kind of lifestyle I choose to lead. You define it as "fairly distributed," but it's never going to be perfectly fair. If you divide resources among everyone with controlled limits, you punish fair-value compensation and live in a society with a lower standard of living and devalued incentives to work hard/innovate/etc. If you divide resources to those who provide value, you punish those who are either lazy, unintelligent, unskilled, born into poverty/abuse, born without opportunity, etc.