What is it that makes it possible for us to sit here and have this debate? Isn’t it the countless generations of entrepreneurs, engineers, etc. striving after the almighty dollar that brings progress?

Look at the things you have and value in your life: books, computers, desks, beds, toilets, trained doctors, whatever. Virtually all of it was produced, invented, or created by someone who did so to make a buck. (The rest, of course, was financed by someone.)
Capitalist competition makes more and better products and makes them cheaper. (In so doing it also provides the means to support non-profit-driven science and art – which is a tiny fraction of the all the art and science done, btw.)
Competition for money is the engine of all types of innovation.
Money is the root of all…progress.

Since this is clearly the forum for engaging you in straw man arguments, I would like to take this opportunity to challenge your implicit prejudice against puppies and kitties.

Please address my imaginary concerns as soon as possible — I await your admission of guilt!

– MrJM

The percentage of workers in manufacturing and agricultural jobs has been falling since the late 19th century. The problem we have is to find an excuse for providing everyone with enough money to live comfortably and securely given this transition. In some societies the excuse is the military, in some the aristocracy, and in ours it is the financial sector. None of these satisfactory, but we don’t know the answer yet.

“Maybe not the best comparison for your purposes.
Biologists almost universally accept the theory of evolution. Economists almost universally *reject* the nonsense in your post.”

Maybe not the best comparison for your purposes. Biologists are scientists. Economists are pretend scientists.

I don’t have as big a problem with capitalism or the dollar as perhaps you think I do. I use money and will continue to do so as long as people accept it. I have scruples, but they don’t keep me awake at night.

And I agree too that striving after the mighty dollar brings progress. But it’s for sure not the only thing that brings progress, and it’s for sure not the only motivator. Look at Linux. The point is that people do things for lots of reasons, not just money. And often, even when people think they’re doing something for money, most of the time they’re probably doing it for rather more complicated reasons — social/peer pressure, self-esteem, self-expression, habit…. You think Einstein was motivated primarily by money? Or Feynman? I mean, sure I’ll bet they were glad to get paid and all, but you really think money was what got those guys out of bed in the morning?

(Incidentally, I can’t speak for art, but I’m pretty sure that most science is actually funded, directly or indirectly, by government.)

1. During this economic collapse we didn’t run out of any raw material or labor.

2. Everything was going fine as long as investor confidence remained.

3. If confidence had remained, would we still be in our bull market?

It seems very tempting to blame our economic woes on some kind of jury-rigged money-based system while pointing out that there doesn’t seem to have been any fundamental reason why everything fell apart. It then seems logical that a smarter system (ie, not based on scarcity) could replace things and eliminate the (artificial) scarcity.

And this may be true.

However, as DAMV points out, the current system does indeed work on some levels. And I would argue that it “works” (albeit far from optimally) precisely because it has evolved over many centuries.

The communists, of course, tried to install a new system that had been “designed” to solve the problems of scarcity, but suprise surprise, it didn’t actually solve much. And the reason communism failed was precisely because it hadn’t spent the long centuries evolving in response to the vast complexities of the real world.

Thus, any system that could replace “Money” would have to start off in some small, obscure corner of the ecnonomy and then grow organically, slowly eating the current system. It won’t really occur as some new, top-down imposition of someone’s bright ideas.

I’m going to defend Rushkoff here, because I think he’s challenging the concept of valuing money as an end within itself, instead of means to different ends. He’s arguing, perhaps, that an economy based largely on shuffling money around for a profit is a bad thing. His suggestion is to decentralize currency and look to alternate means of currency beyond credit better controlled by individual people or groups of people. The real question isn’t “Do we get rid of money” but “how do we rest control of money from to those who currently manage it?”

To go back to the original quotation, it isn’t money that is the root of all evil; LOVE of money is the root of all evil. Money can certainly be a motivating factor for progress, however it is not necessary in all cases. If it were, we’d all still be living in caves. Progress occurs because somebody gets an idea of how to do something new or improve something that already exists. It is true that technological progress requires money in order to be tested. Money itself is not evil and anybody who thinks it is probably lives in a cabin in the woods and scratches out unread manifestos on a daily basis. However, when money exists as the sole desired result, then many times real innovation is slowed-down and, at times, smothered. People who are obsessed with the acquisition of wealth will do anything in their power to grow and maintain it. If a particular object or service is consistently making money, then what motivation is there for companies to spend on improving it or replacing it with something new that does the job better? The ideas and knowledge behind innovations exist sometimes decades before those in control of the purse strings are willing to support them. Who knows how much knowledge has been lost to obscurity because nobody was willing to fund its research? In order to truly foster scientific and technological innovation, the government must have a well-managed, well-funded program in place to subsidize it. I realize that this would be difficult, if not impossible, given the way that the government is currently run; but I feel it’s the only way that the U.S. can maintain its position as one of the world’s greatest fonts of scientific progress.

MisterF,
Maybe we don’t disagree, but that’s no reason not to argue!

“(Incidentally, I can’t speak for art, but I’m pretty sure that most science is actually funded, directly or indirectly, by government.)”

I’m no more inclined to look it up than you are. :) But while I’m sure most non-profit research and almost all so-called ‘pure’ research (or research into basic principles without any use in mind) is government funded, I would think most research is R&D by the private sector. As for that government (or non-profit) funded research, a) we can only afford it because we have a robust private sector economy, b) most of that research is heavily reliant on private sector innovation. Virtually everything a scientist (like anyone else) uses is available in the quality and quantity it is because of people pursuing cash. Some of it, much of the engineering and IT tech for example, was created by those same people.

“And I agree too that striving after the mighty dollar brings progress. But it’s for sure not the only thing that brings progress, and it’s for sure not the only motivator.”

Of course not.

What is it that makes it possible for us to sit here and have this debate? Isn’t it the countless generations of entrepreneurs, engineers, etc. striving after the almighty dollar that brings progress?

Money certainly is at the heart of most material things we take for granted.

How does the Sagan quote go? “If you want to make an apple pie from scratch you first need to create the universe?” That sums up capitalism. Capitalism sets up a system of “natural laws” that mostly work to build the economic universe from scratch. You can tweak the laws to try and prevent bad things or encourage good things, but when it comes down to it, the only way to make a simple little computer chip is to close your eyes and let a capitalistic system organize the unfathomable billions in capital, life times of knowledge, and cooperation across millions of people it takes to build such things. Only capitalism, money, and AI singularities can organize such things.

Now, that said, I think you are wasting your life if you pursue the all mighty dollar with a single minded zeal. Capitalism might be the only way to organize the unfathomably complex process of turning raw materials and expertise into the computer sitting beside me, but that doesn’t mean you should buy into it more than you need. I have met a lot of supremely miserable quadruple divorcee rich people in time. I personally think that life is best when materialism is a low priority. People are far more interesting and likely to leave you fulfilled than mere things.

God (or FSM) bless the people who waste their lives away doing something they hate while working like dogs because they think they need an income with six figures, but there is no need to join them. You can enjoy the fruits of their labor all the while focusing your life on finding stuff that is truly fulfilling. I say the general capitalist system is a good one for organizing resources. You should buy into it only as much as you need to for the materialistic things that you truly need (food and shelter) or truly enrich your life (my computer, bike, a pint or two, and my soldering kit). Outside of that though? You will find a lot more personal happiness living as far outside of the system as you can and plucking its fruit only when you need them than becoming its slave. When it comes to not being a slave to the system, I suggest letting other people worry about themselves and save yourself.

Capitalism and money is awesome and producing things. It sucks at bringing happiness and fulfillment with life. Look to capitalism for stuff, and look elsewhere for happiness.

Actually, this is all a matter of interpretation–however, some interpretations are better than others, and what we want as reader is to get the best, strongest interpretations, the ones that produce the most predictive results of what will happen in the future. Saying that one side of an argument is necessarily “true” and the other simply faith-based nonsense doesn’t resolve the problem, it reinforces the resolve of the faith-based’s claims.

Instead, it is better to acknowledge the contingency of both arguments, and make it clear why the faith-based (for example) doesn’t produce anything like the predictive results that decoupling the argument from faith will create: i.e. take away the faith from a faith-based argument (such as creationism) and there is nothing left.

OTMFM. Half the reason why this situation is the way it is is the consumer mindset. Government has been bought and paid for by the corporate machine (protected by the Bill of Rights, natch) with the money we give them. This society is pretty damn affluent but we are all trained to ‘think big’ and ‘want more’ so it’s never enough. Weaning ourselves off consuming will not only make us less dependent on the system, it’ll also give them less ammunition to use.

This is really the only way out.

Some people are motivated by doing something that others will find Useful, and money is just a means to that end.

Others are motivated by philosophical or religious principles. [Do I really need to name examples?]

Then there are universities. You’ll find many people there doing work for the sheer love of knowledge, not because it will make money for them.

What we’ve been brainwashed into believing is, “Capitalism,” has gone up a blind alley. Nobody invented computers or lasers because they would make money. In reality, people made money because computers or lasers had been invented.
The main goal of any business shouldn’t be, “to make money,” but to make the Best Damn Product in that industry, which will generate revenue as a byproduct of that main goal.

In a few years, provided that the system doesn’t collapse entirely, the finance sector is going to be larger than the manufacturing economy.

This couldn’t have anything to do with mechanization reducing the number of people that actually have to make things. I bet that the financial industry has made serious gains over farmers as well over the past 100 years. Does that mean we need more farmers and that that ratio shift is bad, and/or driven by greed? It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with tractors and higher yields.

Maybe not the best comparison for your purposes.
Biologists almost universally accept the theory of evolution. Economists almost universally *reject* the nonsense in your post.

Eh, don’t be fooled by the slight of hand. There is actually no claim in the first paragraph in the post beyond “money has changed in in the past few centuries” and “central banks some times make decisions based upon political considerations”, which are of course true. None of that of course leads to the agreeing that money is screwed, that we need a new system, and anyone knows what that system is.

Rushkoff, what exactly is it you are advocating? Does your alternate system have a name? If there is an actual alternate proposal buried in that post, I can’t find it. If the only way to understand the alternative is to read that book, well, this is going to be a dull conversation. I am a quick reader, but not that quick. Saying that the current central banking system some times breaks and it sure would be nice to have one that doesn’t isn’t terribly profound.

“The Singularity is Near.” – Ray Kurzweil.

Anyway, Danmv’s post notwithstanding, I think you’re mostly preaching to the choir here about the corrupting effects of the love of money. The real question is whether any policy or system can be evolved or designed and implemented that will wean people off of it. And in the extremely unlikely event that a grassroots effort (as opposed to a corporate-driven, top-down campaign eg toward a ‘cashless society’) produces a viable, self-sustaining alternative currency (or a cashless credit system), how do you stop the government, the credit card companies, the banks, and all the usual suspects from piling in and taking it over?

Personally I advocate the Forbidden Planet approach: I think it’s a mistake to fight the beast; that only makes it stronger. What people need to do is to choose for themselves to walk away. That is, just use less. Less money, less stuff. It’s not easy — even though our lives are chock full of crap we don’t need. I recommend baby steps.