What I argue is that it is technologically, physically, sociologically, and economically possible to create a society where no one wants for food, shelter, medical care, human interaction, and human thriving. Of that I am certain.
Whether or not we accept that this is possible and whether or not we are willing to make the changes necessary is our choice. But it is not a thing that happens so much as a thing we make happen.
How would you make that possible? I am really not sure if it is indeed possible because the real world is much messier than utopic dreams. For example, where does the money come from for all of these? I have not once seen an actual tangible budget for all of these things, and keep in mind that these things are much more expensive than those in power usually budget for, see things like constructing infrastructure almost always going way over budget and time.
The Roman empire didn't have enough money to fund it's conquests. Instead it created a new type of money out of proofs of participation in those conquests (Caesar's face went on coins paid to soldiers and taxes were collected in caesar-face coin. To get one, you had to help a soldier. This caused caesar-face coin to be traded above it's booluon value. After this change, Rome did have enough money for their conquests).
We could do the same thing except instead of basing the money on the collective willingness to attack the neighboring village it could be a collective willingness to feed, house, and medically care for the neighboring village. You couldn't press people into it will fear like Caesar did, but hope might work. Money a proxy for what people believe in, and beliefs can change.
Source on your first paragraph? The Roman empire conquered and looted neighboring lands to raise money for its conquests, and as it looted more, it continued amassing enough money for future conquests, a virtuous cycle.
I still don't understand where the money comes from, who is paying for people to grow food and farm the land? Is this only a local community idea, because I am talking at a global level. We see that "hope" doesn't work at scale, people are inherently selfish and don't necessarily want to help others beyond their current community (and even then, that can be a stretch), therefore, creating a profit motive where both parties of a trade are better off is what caused the single greatest change in human standards of living in the world. "Hope" is not what achieved that but rather harnessing human greed as its own force and steering it into productive pursuits.
Not a good source, I know, but... my Latin teacher in high school. I've added some relevant reading to my list, when I run across it again I'll comment here.
Even without the Romans, look at how the US banking system works. Money enters circulation when people are granted loans--loans which are issued based on the banker's belief that the debtors' endeavors will succeed. If the technology for providing these necessities improves to the point where it is believed that they're easy to provide (some may argue that it already has), then we can create new money based on collective support for that goal.
This money could be more legitimate than what you get from a banker, because it is backed by activity which obviously benefits the people. By contrast, when you accept a dollar you have no way of knowing whether the loan that put it into circulation was for activity that helps you or harms you. Collective trust in bankers is pretty shaky, and yet it still seems solid enough to keep the current system afloat. Collective support for solving the basic-needs problem would be a much sturdier foundation for a monetary system.
The point is, "there aren't enough resources for that"-style argument only works for resources like metal or water or labor... things that we can't create from thin air. Money is created from thin air to meet the needs of the system. If there's enough collective willpower to get something done, a lack of money can't stop it because we can just change the way money is created in support of the desired activity.
Money is not really created out of thin air, rather, it is a physical manifestation of value. If you just create money out of thin air or reallocate it not based on what people value but by some other metric, the money itself will lose value. Such is the case with inflation. Money is not tangible, yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't real, merely that it's a simulation of the underlying mechanics of people's desires. And that is why I don't believe in your idea, because I don't believe that people actually care much for each other, certainly not enough to base monetary policy around that.
- money based on which loans bankers will grant (e.g. the status quo)
- money based on ensuring that people's basic needs are met such that they're able to take on more economic risks with their free time (re: starting businesses and such)
What do you suppose the merits of the former are?
It's not about altruism, it's just about what works best. I think there's a lot of evidence to be found by just looking around that the former isn't working especially well. The only thing holding the latter back is buy-in, and if things continue to deteriorate there will have to come a point where giving it a try makes more sense than continuing to base our money on arbitrary decisions made by people we don't trust.
> It's not about altruism, it's just about what works best. I think there's a lot of evidence to be found by just looking around that the former isn't working especially well.
This is not how logic works. Saying that one system is not working well (which is, again, debatable, see how China and Japan grew in the last 75 years) is not evidence for another system working better. Ultimately you seem to have a naive view of the world and not much understanding of macroeconomics. I will have to point you to a textbook because I cannot explain it all from this level of understanding.
I have only taken two economics classes, so you're right about the naiveté. But it's hard to get excited about continuing such study when so many signs point to status-quo macroeconomics being a mechanism for harming the many to benefit the few. We're facing down a probable future where large swaths of the planet will be uninhabitable due to a deteriorating climate, and the only thing macroeconomics has to say about it is:
> Look at all of the growth we've achieved, high-five guys!
Well if you come from a third world country like I do and see first hand just how well capitalism works when lifting your family up from literal slum-like conditions to something middle class, you would understand why people say "high five, guys!" Does it have its problems, sure, but one cannot deny its effects. Every system has its flaws, it's just that certain systems like capitalism actually do what they say they'd do.
Thanks for sharing that perspective. It's a bit of a check-your-privilege moment for me.
What information I have from my travels and conversations has lead me to believe that the global market has been more of an exploitative force than an uplifting one, but I'm perhaps a bit too young to have a basis for comparison. I wasn't really aware of these things at a time when I could have a "before" snapshot. I just see the cracks in the "after" one.
Whether or not we accept that this is possible and whether or not we are willing to make the changes necessary is our choice. But it is not a thing that happens so much as a thing we make happen.