No Money, No Problems

Remember that hit song from Notorious Big, Puff Daddy and Mase called "Mo Money Mo Problems"? If that's true, if having more money causes more problems, the opposite should be true as well; less money causes less problems and, taken to its extreme, no money solves all problems. Sounds stupid, doesn't it?

_{source: YouTube}

But it isn't stupid. Not at all. We only think it's stupid because we have difficulty imagining a world without money. More precisely, we can't imagine a world without the thing that money enables: trade. Although trade seems to be an intrinsic part of human cultural evolution, is understood to be "common sense", and vital for specialization and the division of labor, it would be wise to understand that for the vast majority of human history trade simply didn't exist, was unnecessary. In our tribal communities of the past we understood two things: 1) that all members participated in supporting the community, and 2) that all members were supported by the community. If one member did something to help another, no explicit exchange was made, rather it was understood that some day that favor might be returned. Anthropologists, by studying existing tribal communities, haven't found examples of so called "barter economies", but instead found many examples of "gift economies" or "gift cultures":

A gift economy or gift culture is a system of exchange where valuables are not sold, but rather given without an explicit agreement for immediate or future rewards. Social norms and customs govern giving a gift in a gift culture; although there is some expectation of reciprocity, gifts are not given in an explicit exchange of goods or services for money, or some other commodity or service. This contrasts with a barter economy or a market economy, where goods and services are primarily explicitly exchanged for value received.
_{source: Wikipedia}

According to many anthropologists the notion that money evolved from barter economies is simply not supported by evidence. Primitive cultures with implicit notions of reciprocity support the idea that credit or debt preceded currency, rather than bartering. It's the old story about the baker and the butcher again: the baker, who had a surplus of bread and was in need of meat, had to find a butcher who not only had a surplus of meat, but was in need of bread as well. What if the butcher already had enough bread to meet his immediate need? The baker had to go on a quest for another butcher in hopes of striking luck next time. This system is so cumbersome that it's easy to assume that it's never really existed. Not on larger scales anyway. Not even if we incorporate the existence of market squares; all examples of those we know of already had currencies of some sort. Bartering is real and has existed and still does, but not as a viable economic system as described by many economists and economy textbooks in schools.

It's far more reasonable to assume that Adam Smith used his example of the butcher and the baker, in light of specialization and division of labor in the economy, as a thought experiment to show the practical usefulness of money as a means of exchange and calculating value. This becomes even more reasonable if we consider that Smith was fully aware of gift economies within smaller communities and within families, as he discussed in his book "Theory of Moral Sentiments". In that book he also described how trade and commerce within those communities as well as between communities have dissolved the ties of kinship, and at the same time have strengthened the ties between communities, creating ever larger communities, as they've come to depend on each other for trade. I am often very critical about Adam Smith, but he wasn't stupid; he was a genius in fact. He was simply wrong.

If we insert the notion of profits and growth, as Smith did and as we've made common sense, problems arise. The charitable reading of the quid-pro-quo exchanges that define our societies right now goes like this: if I buy a loaf of bread for one dollar, that doesn't mean that loaf of bread is worth one dollar, rather it means that the loaf of bread is worth less to the baker and more to me, so we both go away thinking we've made a good deal. There's the famous "win-win" situation our brilliant socioeconomic system's based on. Even if we think this reading is correct, it lies at the basis of the giant wealth-gap we now have. It's the furnace that bakes the bread consisting of millions of poor people next to a few hands full of insanely rich people. And all other related problems caused by the for profit economy: extensive poverty, homelessness, stress, stress related illnesses, waste, pollution, exploitation of man and nature and so on.

The quid-pro-quo type of deals we've based our modern societies on hadn't existed for the vast majority of human existence: we simply took care of each other. Simple. Clean. No fuss. No money. As easy as this is to imagine for very small, tightly knit communities, it's just as hard to imagine this ever working for national communities or the global community consisting of millions who'll never even meet each other. Or is it? Just imagine all the problems we encounter only because of money (or the lack thereof). Money is the single biggest worry for the vast majority of people on this planet. Try to imagine what it would mean for your personal freedom if you just knew that your basic needs are always taken care of, without conditions. You don't have to worry about next month's rent. Food is always available, as is drinking water. Education is free, as is your color-TV. Communication is so basic that the notion of paying for a telephone- or internet connection strikes you as outlandish. Think of the outburst of creativity this would cause, as people have time on their hands to fully develop their personal talents and interests. How many Einsteins, Newtons, Maradonna's, Bach's and Puff Daddy's have we missed out on because all they had time for was putting bread on the table?

Do you really believe that if this was all true, you and your fellow men and women would suddenly become lazy? That you wouldn't feel the urge to contribute to the community that's giving you all this freedom? If you do, you've fallen for the same misanthropic story that's been told to us in the Bible (we're natural sinners) and Smith (we're cold, calculating self-interested fortune seekers, "homo economicus"). They'll tell you it's simply in our nature to climb up on someone else's back. But is that true? Could it be that such people exist because we believe that's true? Could it be that we've created a socioeconomic environment that breeds such people? Really, ask yourself those questions, and then ask yourself if there's a way for us to return to the simple notion that it's in our own personal best interest to simply take care of one another. To help you get started, visit the web page of the "Open Access Economy" community, and watch the below linked video in which best selling author and founder of the Free World Charter, Colin R. Turner paints a compelling argument for an open access economy. Maybe it's not "No Money, No Problems", but surely a lot less problems at the very least.

Other sources used for this post and useful reading material:
The Myth of the Barter Economy
The Myth of the Myth of Barter

Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, stay safe, stay healthy!

Recent articles you might be interested in:

Latest article >>>>>>>>>>>	Free Speech Divide
Flat Earth Distinction	Democracy's End
Eternal Waves	Free Market Phantasm
Language Of Lost Freedom	Fascist Doll

Thanks for stopping by and reading. If you really liked this content, if you disagree (or if you do agree), please leave a comment. Of course, upvotes, follows, resteems are all greatly appreciated, but nothing brings me and you more growth than sharing our ideas.