This again!

Short answer: No.

Long answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I have a few problems with this.

First of all, if currency didn't exist, trade would exist in the form of either one of two systems: exchange of some sort of units which represented resources, or exchange in the resources themselves.

Let me start with the problem of trade in using resources themselves.  Imagine a town with 10 people, each one producing only one good.
Adam grows apples.
Bob builds boats.
Carl builds crayons.
David makes dinner (he owns a small restaurant).
Edward does haircuts (Edward Scissorhands).
Dan mines diamonds.

Problem #1:
Problem 1 is simple pragmatism: How will each of these people bring their resources to trade?  For example, is Carl supposed to bring 40 million crayons in order to buy a boat?  Is Adam supposed to wheel around an apple cart every time he brings the family out for dinner?

Problem #2:
One trait of currency that makes us like it is that it won't degrade as easily as some units of value.  Let's take Adam here, for example.  Adam is going to have one problem with his orchard.  The apples will only grow in particular seasons of the year.  How will Adam have the resources to survive when his orchard doesn't produce for the season?  He could try to keep spare apples for the year... except that apples rot.  That would kill any trade value of those apples.  So his next strategy would be to sell off apples and buy someone else's goods for value storage.  However, most resources require maintenance of one form or another.  Boats can require upkeep even if unused.  Crayons can melt.  Long story short, holding resources themselves would see perpetual degradation of savings.  So much for that whole "retirement" thing you were planning!

Problem #3:
Bob wants to go out for dinner.  However, Bob only builds boats, which are nearly 100 times more valuable than a single dinner.  How does Bob engage in the trade?  In a currency-based economy, this wouldn't be a problem because currency can be divided up through change.  Giving someone 1/3000 of a boat wouldn't be at all pragmatic... it would require tearing up a boat... which mean destroying its value.

These first three problems, a transportable medium of exchange, value storage, and divisibility, are the 3 most basic reasons why currency exists.  There are very few resources that can even have 2 of these qualities.

Now let's consider the second possible way a resource-based economy would work: one in which certificates were issued which represented units of value (this has been proposed in this forum, so I'll preempt it with my pragmatism argument against it).  For example, if I produced apples, I could exchange said apples to some storage facility in exchange for units representing the number of apples I produce.  I could exchange those apple certificates for a boat, haircut, etc.

Some resources, however, only have a value upon inspection.  What's the first thing a good shopper does when they're looking for melons?  They start lightly tapping on each melon, or doing some other procedure to figure out which melons are still ripe.  Every melon is different in size, shape, and ripeness, each of which will affect the value of that melon.

Most resources have this type of problem.  Two restaurants may both serve hamburgers, but they'll have a distinction in value if one is fast food-produced and the other is flame broiled.  Two diamonds will have vastly different values based on otherwise subtle differences in appearance.  Every wine fanatic knows the quality, and thus the value, of a wine is based on the production date and location, but can be changed in value depending on other factors, such as the storage method.  The list goes on.

Currency does have an inherent value to it.  As a storage of value containing the 3 qualities mentioned above, it performs a service for producers and consumers.  However, it only performs a service as long as there is stability in the institutions which support that currency (the government in question).  Notice how the highest valued currencies are the ones with the most stable governments (US, Europe, etc)?  In short, a holder of currency isn't holding a valueless item.  Its value is derived from the institutions supporting it, with the value being a direct result of the utility of being a medium of exchange.

What he actually meant was, if we live in an utopia we don't need money. And he's right about that but we don't live in an utopia, and we never will.

Currency might become digital though.

Simple way to defeat this:

Everyone would love to meet Michael Jordan. Everyone would like time to shake his hands. Well maybe not everyone, but lets, for arguments sake, say 100 million would like to do so.

If he shook a hand every 2 seconds (and said hi, hello, or nice to meet you), he would take 50,000,000 seconds to shake all hands. Put into a better context it would require 2314 days and change to shake them all.

Put in deeper context this means no sleep if he kept at it. If we allowed him a mere 8 hours rest, no breaks, and no eating, it would require 3471 days to complete, or the better part of 9 years.

This means we have a supply problem of Michael Jordans, and thus the price goes up from free to a 'wee' bit higher to meet him

Until you can resolve the celebrity problem, you can never get true socialism, communism, or free stuff for everyone

Zarf,

True enough. That is the largest barrier atm, and I feel slightly uneasy about what the long-term consequences would be. On the other hand, a lot of our financial transactions are increasingly digitalized, making digital currency more of a possibility in the future.

In lines with the OP, I was thinking of one possibility where currency would become largely irrelevant. Suppose humanity invented a non energy intensive device that could turn energy in to matter, and that this device can create an android of sufficient intelligence to provide nearly any desired service. Then humanity would nearly enjoy perfect abundance. However, I cautiously use "nearly." I'm having a hard time ruling out all goods and services, such as some artistic goods and many basic public services provided by the government.. Although, I imagine the government could be a lot smaller.

From my post #6:

> The only way a society would work in which everything was free would be if by some method, all goods and services could be produced in a way which required no effort on the part of any human in the production process, using resources which are widely available.  Now, I've read of a couple technologies (specifically, nanotechnology-driven molecular manufacturing and artificial intelligence) which have the possibility of creating such a system.  Fair enough.  However, I'd warn a couple things:
1: Don't count your eggs before they hatch.  Let's see what the technology actually brings before jumping on it as our saving grace.
2: New technologies tend to bring plenty of new problems along with their new solutions.
3: Even if some amazing product existed which could produce everything we wanted at dirt cheap prices... someone would have to have built it... a business owner, an inventor, etc.

Let's assume Microsoft built a molecular manufacturer (a theoretical machine which could rearrange atoms to turn ordinary items into whatever you wanted).  The first three things they'd do?  First, they'd grab the patent on the machine so nobody else could invent it legally.  Second, they'd start mass producing those machines for their own factories.  Third, they'd flood the market with dirt cheap goods, careful to protect their own monopoly on the machine itself.  It's kind of hard for even an industrial farm to compete with a little box that produced food from dirt... so pretty much any business that sold goods would die.

The result?  Microsoft would be able to control every resource on the planet, because it just bankrupted all competition.

How's that utopia of yours looking now?

That should at least be a sufficient response to your technology issue.

In addition, I want to make one additional note regarding something you just mentioned.  Have you ever considered just how inefficient "first come first serve" is, with regards to the concert issue?

Let's take, as an example, Black Friday sales.  You have 50 people waiting in line at a Best Buy for 8 hours in order to catch the next day's sales (some people will be waiting for up to 3 days in order to be first).  That is 400 hours of people's lives spent pretty much standing there.

Let's assume each of these people have minimum wage jobs, at $6.15 per hour (this is a very low estimate because we can safely assume that the vast majority of people standing in line to buy electronics would have an income high enough for some discretionary spending).  That's $2460 of lost productivity by these people who are instead just standing in a line.  Even if these people would not be working at the particular hours designated, their leisure time would have value to it.  However, rather than using that time to their fullest... the people are... standing... in... a... line.

Now, in all fairness, the scenario described above doesn't represent that inefficiency because someone could avoid the line by paying more (all they have to do is shop the day before, the day after, or otherwise just avoid the sale).  This is actually a pretty nice system, in part because people are given multiple options based on their resources (someone making $500 an hour should consider their time valuable enough to avoid lines, whereas someone making minimum wage may be more willing to spend 8 hours to save $400 on an item).

What you're describing, though, is a scenario in which the line can't be avoided.  You either participate in the line or you don't get what you want.  That means everyone, from the person making minimum wage to the $500 an hour lawyer, must waste hours upon hours of their potentially productive time standing in line.  The more items there are which have maximum prices, the bigger the lines become, and the greater the loss in productivity for people who are waiting in the line.

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> From my post #6:

> The only way a society would work in which everything was free would be if by some method, all goods and services could be produced in a way which required no effort on the part of any human in the production process, using resources which are widely available.  Now, I've read of a couple technologies (specifically, nanotechnology-driven molecular manufacturing and artificial intelligence) which have the possibility of creating such a system.  Fair enough.  However, I'd warn a couple things:
1: Don't count your eggs before they hatch.  Let's see what the technology actually brings before jumping on it as our saving grace.
2: New technologies tend to bring plenty of new problems along with their new solutions.
3: Even if some amazing product existed which could produce everything we wanted at dirt cheap prices... someone would have to have built it... a business owner, an inventor, etc.

Let's assume Microsoft built a molecular manufacturer (a theoretical machine which could rearrange atoms to turn ordinary items into whatever you wanted).  The first three things they'd do?  First, they'd grab the patent on the machine so nobody else could invent it legally.  Second, they'd start mass producing those machines for their own factories.  Third, they'd flood the market with dirt cheap goods, careful to protect their own monopoly on the machine itself.  It's kind of hard for even an industrial farm to compete with a little box that produced food from dirt... so pretty much any business that sold goods would die.

The result?  Microsoft would be able to control every resource on the planet, because it just bankrupted all competition.

How's that utopia of yours looking now?

That should at least be a sufficient response to your technology issue.

In addition, I want to make one additional note regarding something you just mentioned.  Have you ever considered just how inefficient "first come first serve" is, with regards to the concert issue?

Let's take, as an example, Black Friday sales.  You have 50 people waiting in line at a Best Buy for 8 hours in order to catch the next day's sales (some people will be waiting for up to 3 days in order to be first).  That is 400 hours of people's lives spent pretty much standing there.

Let's assume each of these people have minimum wage jobs, at $6.15 per hour (this is a very low estimate because we can safely assume that the vast majority of people standing in line to buy electronics would have an income high enough for some discretionary spending).  That's $2460 of lost productivity by these people who are instead just standing in a line.  Even if these people would not be working at the particular hours designated, their leisure time would have value to it.  However, rather than using that time to their fullest... the people are... standing... in... a... line.

Now, in all fairness, the scenario described above doesn't represent that inefficiency because someone could avoid the line by paying more (all they have to do is shop the day before, the day after, or otherwise just avoid the sale).  This is actually a pretty nice system, in part because people are given multiple options based on their resources (someone making $500 an hour should consider their time valuable enough to avoid lines, whereas someone making minimum wage may be more willing to spend 8 hours to save $400 on an item).

What you're describing, though, is a scenario in which the line can't be avoided.  You either participate in the line or you don't get what you want.  That means everyone, from the person making minimum wage to the $500 an hour lawyer, must waste hours upon hours of their potentially productive time standing in line.  The more items there are which have maximum prices, the bigger the lines become, and the greater the loss in productivity for people who are waiting in the line.

>>>>>>so in your first example we have a magical box that spits things out, they drop prices on items to beat the competition. does this box demand a fuel of some sort? lets assume not otherwise there is a production cost already. so now thier competition is out of business, aswell as anyone who supplies those type of stores. but wait. if they have this magical box. what are they wasting time making cash? they can make whatever they want. for free. utopia still pretty solid.

as a response to your second part, yes scarcity is a big reason why currency and a value system is needed, however with the proper tenchnology scarcity should not be an issue. i think you would also find that people will do quite a bit to sustain a comfortable lifestyle