FAQ #4: Wouldn’t it be better to have no money at all?

No. For this simple reason: the goal is to establish equality on a basic physical level – equal housing and electricity, equal food and water, equal health care and equal education. This means one will work with an economy of goods and services. Now, practically speaking it will be far more effective to distribute one single resource to all – being Money – than to distribute all the different goods and services continuously to everyone. Because when each one has their own money that gives them access to what they require, each one can then go and get what they need, for instance in central stores and shops. To go to a situation of no money at this stage would lead to chaos and anarchy – because there would be no measure for anything – while equal money is a very specific measure, that will make sure each one has their necessary resources. So money is also a tool that allows for managing distribution in an orderly way.

Furthermore the only alternative to money is Barter, though to use barter at a world-wide scale as a replacement for money – is quite impractical. One merely need to consider that barter led to the creation of money in the first place, as human populations grew larger, because it is easier to express the value of all goods and services in one commodity – being money – that is most accessible to everyone. Thus if the money is sound, the principle of barter is actually contained within the use of money and there is no loss of value. Obviously this is not the case in the current system, where the value of money is based on debt.