Money alone does not work - why not change it?


It is seldomly mentioned that money is a human creation, and yet somehow, we are all slaves to it, scrambling desperately for more, forsaking others; and all too often simply trying to get enough to maintain a simple existence in a cut-throat world based on neoliberal mass consumption. Capitalism (making money) does not distinguish between labourers where for example one may extract oil from the earth, where another may pick up plastic waste (an end product) plastic from the environment and try to recycle it. And we all know who gets paid more. We have an extremely powerful story here I believe, where being good is not self serving. A story people can connect with, which states how money is made, not political frameworks or necessarily the economy need to change, to make our lives better. So our environment revolves around money and associated consumption which creates the GDP growth rat race we live in today.
I am a firm believer in Dilt’s logical levels of change which states our immediate environment ought to change to promote a greater vision. And by this, I mean money itself. I put to you some power point diagrams that illustrate how we can maybe think differently about the way we use money in our lives. It has an association with doughnut economics but perhaps represents a more fundamental change which would allow design by priority to play a greater part than simple taxation. It would require substantial cooperation and management but nevertheless I think it could work. Please take a look and post your thoughts comments back to site. Thank you for reading.!


Logical levels of change diagram, I could not fit in the first post Logical%20levels%20of%20change|690x469


You mention “…should benefit individuals & businesses overall wealth”. I think this thinking, that a “business” is entitled to create wealth, is exactly what has lead to amoral handling in businesses. A business in itself is nothing, it’s just a social construct. People in businesses are individuals, they are entitled to wealth. So the phrase would become “…should benefit individuals, regardless what role they place in society) overall wealth”. This way we alleviate the polarisation between individuals and “clans” of individuals we call businesses.
Then the next remark I have is: why would you want to create wealth? Isn’t it much more effective if we focused on a model that creates wellbeing?


If only goods values were as simple as what is implied here. The value of a goods item covers the 3 Smithian returns for its production (returns of rent, wages and dividends respectively on the use of land, labor and durable capital goods) too. But it also has to satisfy the asking price of the seller and meet the acceptance sum the purchaser can willingly pay. When the last two are different, no business exchange occurs. The cost of the item of goods also depends on its transport, advertising and delivery charges, so these must not exceed the asking price. My point is that there are different values attached to each goods item, which depend on where the purchase takes place.


Perhaps it would be better to change the basic nature of the money that nations have been using for all of recorded history. Perhaps we need a better medium of exchange, standard unit of account, and store of value. To understand what’s wrong with the “root of all evil” we have been using for these thousands of years please visit and read the novel “Invisible Hand” or at least read some of the essays there. There really is a better king of money, we just never thought it was possible so it never occurred to us.


HI ,
I’d just like to extend and affirm the construct that Loius touched on above about wellbeing about the shift away from creating wealth and toward creating wellbeing - nothing new and is in a sense at the essence of the doughnut ( planetary and humankinds wellbeing) from what I have read so far and see on the video’s the doughnut can boiled down to this common good or common goal and the natural balance of all those related variables to achieve that.

Also I would just like to note that this concept seems to be getting traction downunder too
in the NZ BUDGET 2019 :

This is quite a turnaround that they have seen since the past NZ conservative govt it seems.

Could this be an appropriate testing ground for shift away from GDP measures ??
Could this be an awfully good case precedent on a national scale to start to get people thinking more and sitting up to listen to the alternatives?

Clearly as this thread has discussed thus far - wealth and money does not = wellbeing so
lets get to work drilling into numbers that we need and the tech and structures to create the new economy with new values shall we ?


Perhaps my description of this concept was not stated clearly. The whole idea is to promote overall well being through monetary transactions being indexed by their net contribution to human society and global sustainability. Like a bank balance. For example an airline pilot (who is paid well but flies a gas guzzling vehicle) wage could be indexed at 0.8 and risks losing wealth over time if compounded. But he could redeem some of his index score by buying sustainable foods, using a green energy supply and helping others in the community. Or on the contrary a social worker who works hard to help disadvantaged people has a low wage but it is indexed at 1.5 so he/she could gain wealth over time with this activity that benefits peoples well being. However, this could easily be blown by profligate behaviour flying on holiday regularly, driving a diesel car and eating steaks.
By following a democratically agreed index system where behaviours influence wealth you could promote a large shift in society and social mobility. And influence capitalism in a positive way. Good people would accumulate wealth and could spend it by receiving kind in return.