Before currency was invented might be a stretch— back then, which was a long long long, time ago we likely didn’t even have professions in the same sense. Albeit Dave might have had a knack for fishing, Kendra for making canoes etc.
There was plenty of space in the wilderness you could just go live for free. Now we have a lot of people, we need agriculture to support that population; there isn’t enough land for hunter gatherer societies to exist without a large population collapse first.
Now to your point I suppose we could have a society without money; yet I think there is some freedom in currency even if everyone gets a UBI. It allows two random strangers to come together and have one person buy something without having to trade an item that the other person wants, then the seller can go buy something they want.
Without currency we would have to have a somewhat complex trading system, which inevitably would see certain items of rarity never traded, or traded for so much surplus goods that a new ironically materialistic moneyed class would develop. It would make for an interesting book, but I think so long as people have varied interests and desires, and create creative works, money is a useful thing.
Without money, money is reinvented. For practicality reasons you want a fungible means of exchange that also lasts. Being small, portable, and not spoiling is also desirable.
That means precious metals or vouchers for something. If you standardize these, you end up with money again.
Without a standardized currency, you end up with a bunch of parallel currencies. That means there will be businesses, who only deal with exchanging one form of currency for another. They could even give out their own vouchers.
Now, the state also wants to collect taxes. Collecting a bunch of different vouchers and coins is a headache. So the state issues their own vouchers, which you have to use to pay taxes. Then we are back where we started.
An interesting approach to money would be, if money had an expiration date. So you have to spend it, or lose it. That keeps it in circulation, leading to more economic activity. Inflation serves this purpose as well.
That’d just lead into investment into non-monetary things. For example, buying precious metals or bonds or stocks or property and selling them as needed.
To actually fix problems with wealth disparity, you need a wealth or property tax.
How did anyone do anything before currency was invented?
Your comment implies that what you describe is a requirement for a functioning society
It isn’t.
Before currency was invented might be a stretch— back then, which was a long long long, time ago we likely didn’t even have professions in the same sense. Albeit Dave might have had a knack for fishing, Kendra for making canoes etc.
There was plenty of space in the wilderness you could just go live for free. Now we have a lot of people, we need agriculture to support that population; there isn’t enough land for hunter gatherer societies to exist without a large population collapse first.
Now to your point I suppose we could have a society without money; yet I think there is some freedom in currency even if everyone gets a UBI. It allows two random strangers to come together and have one person buy something without having to trade an item that the other person wants, then the seller can go buy something they want.
Without currency we would have to have a somewhat complex trading system, which inevitably would see certain items of rarity never traded, or traded for so much surplus goods that a new ironically materialistic moneyed class would develop. It would make for an interesting book, but I think so long as people have varied interests and desires, and create creative works, money is a useful thing.
Overall I agree with you but I was more focused currency in regards to lending money… not a lack of currency as a whole.
You don’t have to go far back in history to find interest rates on lending money regarded as criminal behaviour.
Without money, money is reinvented. For practicality reasons you want a fungible means of exchange that also lasts. Being small, portable, and not spoiling is also desirable.
That means precious metals or vouchers for something. If you standardize these, you end up with money again.
Without a standardized currency, you end up with a bunch of parallel currencies. That means there will be businesses, who only deal with exchanging one form of currency for another. They could even give out their own vouchers.
Now, the state also wants to collect taxes. Collecting a bunch of different vouchers and coins is a headache. So the state issues their own vouchers, which you have to use to pay taxes. Then we are back where we started.
An interesting approach to money would be, if money had an expiration date. So you have to spend it, or lose it. That keeps it in circulation, leading to more economic activity. Inflation serves this purpose as well.
That’d just lead into investment into non-monetary things. For example, buying precious metals or bonds or stocks or property and selling them as needed.
To actually fix problems with wealth disparity, you need a wealth or property tax.