How soon will a moneyless society change the way we percieve each other?

[Peacemaker]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Money is useful for trade, but it can also be used to create a subjective boost in IQ and EQ (emotional quotient). Let me give an example, say we had two people who were essentially the same in IQ and EQ. We give them both a project to build a shelter. To one of the persons we give $1M. The person without the money will have to use ingenuity and might come up with a crude cardboard shack. The person with the money can ask around and get a good builder to build him a nice house.

If we asked people passing by, which of the two has the higher IQ and EQ, almost everyone would assume the one with the nice house. He may even tell the passers by, that he had fun building this nice house, even though technically he didn't build anything. He merely leased the IQ of others, with money, and is recieving the subjective credit. If he is not grounded, enough feedback can give him an inflated sense of worth.

I am not equating money with IQ and EQ on a rational scale, since there are smart and mature people at all income levels. But based on the IQ and EQ you start with, money can be used to recieve a subjective boost. It is sort of the same affect as wearing designer clothes. It not only makes others look at you in a more positive way, but could make one subjectively feel a certain sense of poise that could cause one to feel more secure, helping to temporarily inflate the objective EQ numbers.

Say there was a natural disaster, that disrupted culture, such that money had no value. There are no logistics and people are too busy trying to survive to lease out their IQ and EQ for subjective inflation. At this point, we have a more objective scenario. There will be people of all incomes who have the IQ needed for survival, as well as people of all incomes with the EQ needed to keep a level head.

In this scenario, one will not end up with the same subjective IQ and EQ distribution. The builder who normally leases out his IQ, may use it to build a nice shelter for himself and his family. The person who normally leases IQ to have someone do that for them, may try to buy the house, so he can keep up the subjectivity he has grown accustomed to. But since money is of no use, the builder may not want to sell. One possible solution, is to get a gun and force the builder to give you his house. Force was the original subjective enhancement. One didn't have to know how to do anything, but one could sort of lease, with fear, whatever they needed. If you needed your ego EQ boosted you could force someone to kiss butt.

If very poor fourth world countries, force is often used so the leaders can get subjective enhancements using the power of fear. They also gather all the wealth, so others can not use money and compete for any subjective enhancement. Monarchies used the same principles of force and most of the wealth so only a small fraction of people were subjectively boosted. Every now and then an actual person with high IQ-EQ would lead. But most of the time, it was more neurotic due to subjectivity.

If you look at the leader of North Korea, he is smart enough to keep his culture poor. He controls the army and most of the wealth. Even if the first world boosted their economy, he would sabbatage it, since if others get the subjective boost, he would have trouble leadering. He may be an average Joe, but with the dual boost, he is a world leader. He may be a good example, of subjectivity versus objecitivty.

One problem with money is many people feel that if they can just get enough money, they can skip the efford needed to boost their IQ and EQ in a rational type of way. One only has to focus on making money, instead of a bunch of tasks needed get the objective affect. But humans are more subjective than objective, such that this action is usually given higher subjective value. Even in science, having the biggest budget makes one the expert. One can be good at science, but if they excel in the politics of getting resources, they can become the authority.

There is nothing wrong with money and many of the smartest people have plenty of money, but the subjective boost due to money does not quarentee all best objective EQ and IQ people are at the top. For example, political campaigns often come down to battle money, since it can be used to lease the IQ and EQ of others, to subjective boost your own IQ and EQ with clever adds. These hired hands can also be used to subjectively lower the IQ and EQ of your opponet with mudslinging. If money was not part of the equation, then it would come down to ideas and leadership, which would reflect objective measures of IQ and EQ. The system is not perfect; but money is stilll better than using force to define who will be deemed the person with the most subjective value.

So what are you actually saying HB?

I think the main problem with most of your argument here is that you see money and power as a way of maintaining and enhancing the lives of a few at the expense of many... and that's OK with you?

We have never tried a moneyless societ of the type I envisage. What makes you think that there is true value in subjective value? We are talking about living breathing human beings here, not untermenschen. Don't you think that we can do better?

Don't you think that we can interract as human beings without the artificial edifice of money, and comparing how much we have amassed, skewing our relationships?

Do you actually believe that in a world without financial limitations we will all dumb down?

Why would we?

What better incentive could there be than for all of us to work in useful, productive jobs producing, growing, developing or otherwise contributing usefully to our society? Without having to worry about taxes, or war, or where our next meal is going to come from, or who we may have to rob to get it.

It's Evolution my friend, away from what we are now, into the best we can be, and it's free. All we have to do is have the faith in each other to believe we can achieve it, and then act.
Best regards,
Peacemaker.

[freeztar]

I found this link relevant to the topic:
Nov. 14: People Can Put a Price Tag on Economic Justice, Say Economists at Carnegie Mellon, the Free University of Berlin - Carnegie Mellon University

How much would you pay to live in an equitable society in which people get what they deserve and deserve what they get? Economists at Carnegie Mellon University and the Free University of Berlin have developed a mathematical model to measure the value that people place on distributive justice - whether goods are distributed fairly among all members of society.

Applying their model to pre-existing survey data, the authors found that, on average, people are willing to sacrifice about 20 percent of their disposable income to live in an equitable society - but they also found that the value a person places on equity is substantially affected by their race and educational background. Whites place a higher value on equity than non-whites, and equity is valued more by those with high levels of education than those with less education. The paper was written by Christina Fong, research scientist in the Department of Social and Decision Sciences at Carnegie Mellon, and Giacomo Corneo at the Free University of Berlin, and it is being published in the Journal of Public Economics.

So for the proposed system (of this thread) to work, the mathematical models would have to predict a "willing to sacrifice" index all the way up to (close to) 100%.

[Peacemaker]

Originally Posted by freeztar

I found this link relevant to the topic:
Nov. 14: People Can Put a Price Tag on Economic Justice, Say Economists at Carnegie Mellon, the Free University of Berlin - Carnegie Mellon University




So for the proposed system (of this thread) to work, the mathematical models would have to predict a "willing to sacrifice" index all the way up to (close to) 100%.

Hi Freeztar,

Thanks for your post, unfortunately I would have to say that is doesn't add to the argument. It appears that a lot of smart economists have spent a lot of time working out something which is essentially useless to mankind. It will never happen. Money is so strongly required in our 'modern' society that whatever economic theories have and will be formulated, people and governments will always try to undermine them by taking more than their fair share.

My idea requires a 'willing to sacrifice' quotient of zero. The mass of mankind would be infinitely, and immediately better off than we are now, or have ever been. Even the current 'super rich' will be better off, due to living in a war free, kidnap free, crime free world. The only things we will be sacrificing are the traits which produce the current negativity in our lives. Like greed, and envy for example.

I just re-read the document I have produced, and still fully believe that it contains all the information required to successfully bring about the next stage of evolution for our species.

If you can re-read it with an open mind and faith, I hope you will better understand what I mean.

Best regards,
Peacemaker

[HydrogenBond]

Money is the water that waters the gardens of culture. Money is very organic and is an extrapolation of nature. But money not only waters the food plants and the flowers within the gardens of culture, but also the weeds. Money as the root of all evil is really talking about the weeds that seems to grow fastest within the gardens of culture. You seem to envision are the gardens of culture without the weeds. But to kill the weeds, the solution is to stop watering the gardens. In socialists cultures, this causes the good plants to lower their productivity but doesn't kill the weeds. A better way might be to weed the gardens, so the same amount of water allows the food and flowers of culture to grow at higher potential. This is all good stuff in culture. The people responsible for its care are moving things in the right direction.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

The reason lies in the fact that these socialist societies that you speak of aren't enclosed systems. They are surrounded by capitalist societies. And even the socialist societies themselves aren't truly socialist. They are distributive economies at best. What Peacemaker speaks of is a single, universal economy. One without monetary foundation.

The biggest argument so far has been that money = motivation. But that is only because money is the measure of power in this world, and therefore it represents security. But there can be other measures of power. There is more power in unity than segregation, and therefore more security. People woudl be motivated because there would not be any distractions. If we were all moving in the same direction, and we weren't creating anything that was not necessary to the survival and advancement of the human species, all there would be is motivation.

The problems that are being suggested are hypothetical, and do not necessarily convey what will truly occur. It could be worse, it could be better. But we find the solutions. Every problem has a solution, just as every solution has a problem. The only difference is that some of us are willing to make sacrifices to begin the change.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum

The biggest argument so far has been that money = motivation. But that is only because money is the measure of power in this world, and therefore it represents security.

Peacemaker keeps complaining that we "don't understand" because we "haven't read" his paper. Both of you are sticking to this "counter-argument" which similarly completely disregards the vast majority of the input to this thread.
To summarize some of the key points:

• The model assumes there will never be any limits on supply. This has never been the case, and times where supply runs out (e.g. Easter Island), results in tremendous competition for that resource no matter whether there is money or not.
• Money's primary purpose is not "motivation," it is "value" that provides liquidity for trade: the reason "elimination of scarcity" is a necessary assumption here is that the elimination of any reason to trade is the only reason that there would no longer be any need to assign value to anything.
• If you are going to argue that "smart people will just figure out stuff" without describing how this magically happens just when we need it--a breakthrough in solar power generation occurs just before oil runs out so that there's no scarcity of energy--you're invoking an incredible deus ex machina that would be require some sort of miracle if it were going to work *every time* we needed it. Arguing that this is just "old thinking" and that we "just have to believe" makes this sound like some sort of weird religious cult's manifesto, not a practical sociological map for reorganizing society.
• Infinite resources is the real source of "lack of motivation": yes there will be many people (me!) who will work hard at something for the sheer enjoyment of it. Others would much prefer to sip margaritas on the beach, or spend full time playing Quake or Doom. There are elements of the plan that point to *punitive* measures against those who don't contribute, although the main assumption is that the "change in thinking" will somehow cause everyone to "want" to work even if their "role" in society is something even Mike Rowe would refuse to do on "Dirty Jobs." At one point it was proposed that everyone be forced to do these "dirty jobs," but even if there were some sort of "enforcement mechanism" that people still "felt good about" so that it would not cause conflict and dissension (a further requirement of this society), this would still be horridly inefficient, leading once again back to the "infinite resource requirement."
• The only way to deal with these issues of not having infinite resources and lack of motivation is the elimination of all desire for the self and the complete devotion to working for the good of the community. This is a good thing, but it has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with deeply ingrained *instincts* that are common to *all higher animals*. If there is an argument that these instincts are mere illusions and only humans "desire" things and that desire is *solely* due to money, it has not been articulated anywhere in this thread, nor in the document.
• How is the transition to everyone thinking differently effected? The main concepts in the paper have been around for hundreds, arguably thousands of years. We are simply waiting for Godot unless there's truly a different approach to getting people to change their minds.

I could go on, but I'm trying to keep this to a high level summary.

The point here is that the arguments "against" this "plan" have more to do with its lack of specificity in dealing with known sociological problems as if they can simply be "wished" away through "right thinking."

Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum

The problems that are being suggested are hypothetical, and do not necessarily convey what will truly occur. It could be worse, it could be better. But we find the solutions. Every problem has a solution, just as every solution has a problem. The only difference is that some of us are willing to make sacrifices to begin the change.

"The only obstacle is unwillingness to follow" is appeal via accusation of shame, and is one of the oldest and most vacuous methods of supporting unsupportable hypotheses: it seeks to brand all objections as "unwillingness" and therefore unworthy of refutation. Such arguments not only cause frustration, but actually draw attention to weaknesses in the argument. You go further here by trying to argue that for some reason we *can't know* what would happen, therefore we should all just try. This argument is both self-serving and denies everything that *science* is all about. And scientific inquiry and critique is what we're all about here at Hypography!

I and many others in this thread have said repeatedly that "doing the right thing" as outlined by *many* of the points in the document is a *good thing*, but being browbeaten with the implication that finding weaknesses as to why the *entire plan* is not feasible is tantamount to being against what is good for man is just plain offensive. Its the same argument the extreme right-wing in the US makes in saying that those who do not blindly back the administration are "aiding the terrorists."

And you guys wonder why there is resistance to the "plan"....

If it weren’t for the people, the god-damn people, always getting tangled up in the machinery. If it weren’t for them, the world would be an engineer’s paradise,
Buffy

note: if you are really interested in this topic, search for this quote and read the book!

[HydrogenBond]

The ideal is possible at the family level, where parents will work hard and sacrifice for their families. The children will help each other. One may even extrapolate this all the way to a tribe. But beyond the tribe, there is not enough personal attachment for most people to sacrifice. At that point, many people will leave the ideal and take care of their family-tribe.

What money does is indirectly cause people to share outside the tribe. If I start a business, I need to employ people. Even if I have no personal attachment, I will still extend this job benefit to anyone and not just members of my tribe or family, although this still occurs. But the net affect, is the need requires one share out of personal self interest.

One of the problems with the money standard, is that not all people are cut out for this. Some people are not able to maximize themselves within this social environment. As an analogy, say sports was the measure of worth in culture, where the top athletes are the shakers and movers. This criteria would may cause business people to sit the bench. They may be good at making money but this skill would have little worth. Their push would be to create a culture where they can use their skills. They would have the utopian vision where people's worth are measured by money and not some arbitrary athletic standard, where they can not be fully functional.

If thinking is one's natural state, in a society where money is the athletic standard, their ideas will have little value out of the context of money. The only "good" ideas have to make money, which can mean any ideas that can make money is a good ideas, since the criteria is not the actual idea but only those ideas that can make money. A sports analogy is hockey. One doesn't have to have the best skills if they can fight. This allows fighting to give one the prestige of being a top athlete, without requiring the best skills. This is more of a weed than a food plant, that is watered by money.

People who analyze culture, can see the need for improvement. But since the standard is money and any idea that can maximize money is the goal, culture has flowers and food plants, but also a lot of weeds. But since the weeds also create jobs, they are not entirely useless. They sort of looks like a food plant or flower. When we make a salad, one also eats weeds. Or when we make a bouquet of flowers, it also have some weeds. Most people chow down but some are suspicious that something is wrong.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

I don't need to be quoted to know what I wrote. By placing a quote, YOU assume to know what I mean by what I say. I'm sorry I am not as articulate as soem of you.

I can not speak for Peace, but this is my response:

I do not think money is the only factor in this discussion, but it is a factor. I encourage Peace because he is thinking. I personally believe a universal credit system would be easier, but this is not this is his thread.

I do not see his model as assuming a limitless supply of resources. It controls what we use the resources on, and attempts to prevent as much waste as possible. Of course our resources will run out. But what are we using those resources for now as compared to Peace's model?

Again, "value that provides liquidity for trade" allows for security. If there were no reason for trade, what would we value? That is a good question and I'm going to let you answer that one.

If we had no distractions, and the only motivation for the species was future survival, the "smart people would figure stuff out" well before it was needed. By the time the problems occured, we would be ten steps ahead. And cost efficiency wouldn't be an issue, as it is now...

I can fully agree with you comment on whether all people will want to work for the sheer enjoyment of it. That is a question that many are still throwing around. I have my ideas. If you don't care, then you don't matter. And no matter how evil that sounds, the species will have come to that conclusion on its own eventually anyways. I'm sure you'll have many questions and comments about that statement, but remember, I mean it in the most logical and sensitive sense possible.

A person's surrender to the whole may not necessarily be all about money, but it is a factor. Inequality will always create contempt.

The point here is that I am not as optimistic about the path as Peace, and it seems that everyone is trying push him into a corner. In one hand he isn't being realistic. In the other, the logical and EASY solutions are too cold blooded. But he isn't trying to go the easy path. He is trying to remain righteous in his ideas, and I admire that.

Why can't you, just for the sake of fun, try, just try, to throw around positive ideas about the very questions you are asking? Lets just assume that you are right, and it will never happen. It will never happen. Now can you feel comfortable trying to make suggestions, not questions, but suggestions to those questions?

What good does it do to argue an idea that you don't believe will ever occur? Does it feel that good to destroy someone's dream?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum

I don't need to be quoted to know what I wrote. By placing a quote, YOU assume to know what I mean by what I say. I'm sorry I am not as articulate as soem of you.

Quoting someone aids in a rebuttal. People can only "assume" so much based upon what you write (in casual forum-speak at least).

I do not see his model as assuming a limitless supply of resources. It controls what we use the resources on, and attempts to prevent as much waste as possible. Of course our resources will run out. But what are we using those resources for now as compared to Peace's model?

I'll let "Peace" answer your question, but I think your statements about reducing waste are spot-on. Still, without a methodology for enacting such a quick and involved change, the probability of success is greatly diminished.

If there were no reason for trade, what would we value? That is a good question and I'm going to let you answer that one.

"Value" is independent of trade, or any currency exchange/trade. What is the value of life? What is the value of...?
What do you value most?
I doubt the answer to any of those questions is monetarily linked.

If we had no distractions, and the only motivation for the species was future survival, the "smart people would figure stuff out" well before it was needed. By the time the problems occured, we would be ten steps ahead. And cost efficiency wouldn't be an issue, as it is now...

"No distractions"?? How's that?
"Smart people" do tend to "figure stuff out", but it's not a crutch with a warranty. I agree though that we need to concentrate on our survival as a species, as well as playing the part of Biblical Noah, figuratively/ecologically speaking of course.

I can fully agree with you comment on whether all people will want to work for the sheer enjoyment of it. That is a question that many are still throwing around. I have my ideas.

Why stop there? What are your ideas?

If you don't care, then you don't matter.

Well, that rules out a large number of people. What should we do with them?
Hmmm.....

And no matter how evil that sounds, the species will have come to that conclusion on its own eventually anyways.

So what's the rush?

I'm sure you'll have many questions and comments about that statement, but remember, I mean it in the most logical and sensitive sense possible.

Don't be so sure...lots of people don't care.

Inequality will always create contempt.

Although I'm *always* reluctant to accept absolute statements, I find your generalization to be correct most of the time. In order to have a Global society that was based upon Peacemaker's ideas, we would have to.....well....just read the thread, as it's been said.

The point here is that I am not as optimistic about the path as Peace, and it seems that everyone is trying push him into a corner.

Why do you think that people are pushing him into a corner? People are challenging his ideas. That is healthy for growth. I seriously doubt that Peacemaker would agree with your sentiment, but who am I to say.

In one hand he isn't being realistic. In the other, the logical and EASY solutions are too cold blooded. But he isn't trying to go the easy path. He is trying to remain righteous in his ideas, and I admire that.

Peacemaker's proposition is beautiful. I am ready to embrace it right now. The problem is: it is unrealistic. 6Bil people = 6Bil viewpoints.

What good does it do to argue an idea that you don't believe will ever occur?

Scientific rigor requires this.

Originally Posted by Scielo.cl

Rigor is an attitude that contrasts with the weaknesses of human nature, does not allow laziness, the lack of attention, the acceptance of inexact methods, the adoption of groundless conclusions, accepting the predominant opinion despite the lack of data which sustain it. A famous biochemist, Dr. Efraim Racker, once said “there’s nothing sadder that an ugly fact destroying a beautiful idea”. Rigor demands us to accept the destruction of that beautiful idea by facts. _*

Does it feel that good to destroy someone's dream?

This shame-ridden rhetorical question is directed directly at Buffy, so I'll await her poignant response with zipped lips.

_{* SciELO}

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum

I don't need to be quoted to know what I wrote. By placing a quote, YOU assume to know what I mean by what I say. I'm sorry I am not as articulate as soem of you.

To be clear, quoting makes it easier for everyone to follow what posters are referring to and its actually encouraged. Quoting someone does not imply anything about the thing being quoted. In many cases its used specifically to request clarification. If I misconstrued what you were saying--and although I wasn't clear about it, I was not able to tell exactly what you were arguing, only calling attention to an apparent similarity in your argument to Peacemaker's--I certainly apologize, and you're encouraged to respond with any clarification.

Many of our members--probably a near majority--learned English as a second language and we're all sensitive around here to misunderstandings. I often have to apologize for my "American!" Although it does not seem like it at times, this forum actually tends to discourage "intellectualism" and plain-speaking and honest logic is valued far more highly than being "articulate."

Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum

I do not see his model as assuming a limitless supply of resources. It controls what we use the resources on, and attempts to prevent as much waste as possible.

The need for limitless resources is an implication of eliminating any need for trade: if you're going to justify the elimination of money, there has to be no reason to figure out a "fair value" in exchanging goods: if you *do* need value goods, then money as a mechanism for liquidity becomes justified. If you propose a system of "credit," that provides a mechanism is far superior to pure barter because barter makes trade virtually impossible! On the other hand the premise of the proposal is that money *causes* problems and has to be eliminated, and that's what the argument is about.

Now what we end up with if there is no barter at all is the old socialist "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The result in so many command economies like the old Soviet Union is *less* supply not *more*:

Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum

Again, "value that provides liquidity for trade" allows for security. If there were no reason for trade, what would we value? That is a good question and I'm going to let you answer that one.

This is actually one of the key points above: "money" itself is not value, its simply a number for trying to create some equivalence between what people have or produce. If I have one cow, I can feed my family for a month, and I would not trade it to you in exchange for one chicken, which would only feed my family for one day.

That's *all* that money does: its not the "cause" of "greed" or any other vice. Its certainly a medium for denominating things that people *want* but do not *have*, but *removing* money does not eliminate *needs* and *wants* and it only solves the disparity between what one *wants* and what one *can have* if there is *no scarcity* which basically means if you want it it simply appears, OR you have been trained to *not want* when millions of years of scarcity have made "wanting what you don't need" an *instinct* rather than a *logical thought process*.

Thus there is a combination of both drastic change in human (indeed animal) behavior as well as elimination of scarcity that's required to eliminate the need for *trade*.

What *is* the cause of these vices is *scarcity*, and the seemingly impossible idea to get across here is that "eliminating value" actually *creates* scarcity! If there's no value for my cow and society sets up punishment for me not giving it up because others need it, but I can only get one chicken in return, my family will *starve*, *unless* there is no scarcity!

Now your question in this last quote is obviously rhetorical, but I will indulge you. In a society where there is more scarcity, we certainly would have more *time* to value things such as relationships, love, charity, beauty, etc. But when you think about it, these things have value because we need them to survive! We need relationships because they provide sources of things we want/need: in many societies, having children is primarily a means for generating indentured servants (at least that's what my kid thinks when I make her clean her room!).

I would sure hope that it would simply mean that I could spend more time with my boyfriend sipping Mai Tais on the beach in Kauai and working on my screenplay than fixing bugs generated by three incompatible web browsers competing furiously for dominance. Of course, although I have not heard a reason why, I suppose its possible that somehow my priorities could be reconfigured so that the goal that I would value most would be to be the worlds best bovine waste effluent engineer. Far be it from me to say that that would be impossible: I just don't understand *how* that might happen!

Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum

If we had no distractions, and the only motivation for the species was future survival, the "smart people would figure stuff out" well before it was needed.

The question becomes, we've had smart people throughout human history, and getting the answers before they're needed has never happened: what is different about this plan that makes them so much more timely? Many of us read the proposal and don't see anything that would make this happen. This means that scarcity is unavoidable!

Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum

The point here is that I am not as optimistic about the path as Peace, and it seems that everyone is trying push him into a corner. In one hand he isn't being realistic. In the other, the logical and EASY solutions are too cold blooded. But he isn't trying to go the easy path. He is trying to remain righteous in his ideas, and I admire that.

Heck, if I have to say it again: "we all do!"

But this is where the mechanism of argumentation is really infuriating: Peace is proposing a solution that he's billed as "easy": all we have to do is believe, follow the ten rules and eliminate money, and we will have heaven on earth. Well, as pointed out, the devil is in the details and its *not* that easy when you start looking at them: no they're not realistic, and that's the *only* thing that is being argued. However this is billed as "picking on him for remaining righteous" and proves that we want to, as you put it, "destroy someone's dream."

Hey, he's welcome to post his plan anywhere he wants: we're happy to have him do it here. But this place is a *discussion* forum, and the *whole point* is to figure out where such proposals work *and* where they don't!

Originally Posted by Inter.spem.et.metum

Why can't you, just for the sake of fun, try, just try, to throw around positive ideas about the very questions you are asking? Lets just assume that you are right, and it will never happen. It will never happen. Now can you feel comfortable trying to make suggestions, not questions, but suggestions to those questions?

That would be great if it weren't for the fact that there's a dogma that won't go away in the plan:

Money itself is evil and must be eliminated, and if we eliminate it everything will be perfect.

If you look at the posts, you'd see a lot of "I agree with what you say we need to do about the way people think." To use your same argument, "why can't Peacemaker, just for the sake of fun try, just try, to throw some positive ideas around the *benefits* of money?"

That's the crux of the impasse here, and its actually gotten a bit tiresome, especially when disagreeing with this one very contentious and ill-supported premise is used as a brickbat for claiming anyone who disagrees must like to "destroy people's dreams."

I completely respect Peacemaker's opinions and I agree with many of them, but in the interests of promoting critical thinking, I think its a good idea to point out where the weaknesses are--yes--so they can be improved. As I said, this place is about discussion, not uncritically accepting every view no matter how little some of it makes sense. Having the courage of ones convictions is not just about repeating them endlessly, but being able to both convincingly defend them as well as recognize which parts of them should be modified when they prove to be impractical or misplaced.

I know that there are people who do not love their fellow man, and I hate people like that,
Buffy