There's an old saying: "Money is the root of all evil". There's a lot of evidence to support that statement but conversely it could also be said that "lack of money is the root of all evil".  So which one is right? In a sense, they both are.

​

Of all society's operating systems the money system is probably the least understood. For example, why do we even need money? It was originally created to replace "bartering" and it worked very well. But like all the other systems the Money System has reached its "used by date" - money has served its purpose and needs an upgrade - a better system is needed!

​

The question is what will the new system be? To find an answer to this question let's study some of the fundamentals about money and economics.

​

Money is used in a two-way exchange.

​

Money is just a "medium of exchange". It has no intrinsic value of its own.
 

The need for money is based on the belief "there's not enough to go around". In other words there is always scarcity... and ironically using money perpetuates that belief in scarcity. Actual scarcity is a lie. The universe is totally abundant! The truth is there is enough to go around for everyone but we have an uneven distribution system where some have more than they need so others have to go without. And because the scarcity belief is held to be true everyone tries to hoard as much as they can for a rainy day. And ironically, the more one hoards, the more they can hoard - so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer... and the rest we know.

​

Let's take the musical chairs analogy. As long as there are more people than chairs there is always going to be a fight or a struggle to see who can grab a chair. The less chairs there are the greater the struggle and conflict - the strongest win and dominate just as Darwin stated.

​

But what happens if there are the same number of chairs as there are people? Everyone gets a chair to sit on albeit one might have to look around to find one. But what if there are more chairs than people? Well, no more fighting or conflict.

​

But then again, why do we need money in the first placed? How about we just get what we need when we need it; no more and no less? Hmm, that poses an interesting situation. The operative word there is "need". In other words, a man and a woman who have two kids would get enough for all of them... no more. But if that man was developing a new technology that was going to benefit the world he would "need" more than a man digging ditches who just needs a pick and shovel. He would need material to build his device. He would need to get equipment to do tests, etc. So, as the need increases he would be supplied provided of course it was a genuine need and not a contrived need.

​

Nowhere here is there a need for money, he needs what money can buy, not the money itself.

​​