Feb 13, 17 / Pis 16, 01 00:34 UTC
Re: Eliminate the monetary system and here's why. ¶
I'm not aware of anything in international law that specifically mandates we must have a monetary system.
We require money now by virtue of this is the model we are imersed inside, this is not disputed. What is disputed is a requirement to adopt this system for ourselves. We need Earth currency, for dealing with Earth's nations up until the point they no longer have anything we can't supply ourselves with. We shouldn't actually require it for ourselves. But certainly, anything we want from Earth they will be wanting money in exchange, typically. The thing is, they want their money.
Consider, we actually have no physical territory. We have no banks. Any "Asgardian money" would be kept in another nations bank. Possibly a security fail right there. Unless you'd possibly talk about some "cryptocurrency" that utilises entropy in the blockchain then it's not long before entropy eats more watts at resdiential rates to process it than is delivered in return for it's processing whilst at the same time technology is specifically generated and optimised to mine faster - as everyone wants free money, increasing this entropy faster. Then to actually spend this anywhere, then it would need to be converted into the local currency, more than likely at a cost, reducing it's actual value even further. There's no reason anyone anywhere would accept our currency realistically, so purchasing local currency with this should be interesting and considering we have no borders then trade between Asgardians is likely to take place in the local currency, or something pre-existing, also for the significant future so the recipient can actually spend it, without having to pay to do so.
For trade with Earth, as of current, we have little but dreams, ideas, and knowlege. "A free base of scientific knowlege in space" sincerly suggests "open source" so it's not likely any of these are to fetch a particularly high price.
As previously mentioned, it's significantly unlikely to have the capacity to account for our population without first solving several issues, one of which is the resources actually required to do so. At which point we ourselves will have little to no requirement for money. By just giving Earth everything it wants/needs(as we will have more than we can use) then soon they'll likely decide it's futile, too.
And certainly, automation is A answer. Machines can fix machines - not like people but it's getting better. It can solve a lot of problems, it already has. It's already creating an environment where there's insufficient jobs to support populations, and this isn't a trend expected to change as "AI" and robotics are continually improving and the population is constantly growing.
An excellent case in point here is self-drive vehicles. Already this is common "home" technology, to one extent or another, and becoming more common. Companies like google and uber are poised ready to roll out entire fleets to replace the likes of taxi, companies like renault, mercedes frieghtliner etc are rolling out selfdriving heavy goods vehicles to actually move product distances. In five, ten years time manual control won't even be an option. This will "kill" an entire industry of "employment". Drivers of all sorts of road vehivles will be put into supervisory positions then inevitably removed entirely from the loop. Just that one thing removes a lot of "human work", small percentages overall I'lll grant but as a raw number it'd probably take some time to make them all a cup of tea. It's also likely to kill things like private car ownership - who wants to pay for fueling/maintainence on a car, and worry about storage when not in use when one can turn up to take you where you'd like to go, when you'd like to get there and then dissapear afterwards. New car sales are already dwindling for most manufacturers - this is also a trend not predicted to adjust very much, especially once most vehicles on the road are part of commercial fleets that are self-driven and tend not to smash themselves doing stupid things, like driving whilst drunk, not paying attention to the lights, paying more attention to the makeup in the mirror, texting etc - meaning less replacements required. Combined with the automation in the auto industry there's a whole wealth of employment requirement just absented right there - full cars and parts production requirement reduce simply due to lack of accidents - as this effect trickles into other industries connected and impact them additionally.
Much of the "service industries" shall remain un-impacted for some time, but advancments in "AI" and automation will reach here eventually too. It'll likely never eliminate the requirement for "human labor" but with the presented variables it's not unwise to suggest that the probability lattices are more likely than not to convene into a potential future where within two decades two thirds of the population quite literally have no job. This is why a lot of places are entertaining notions like UBI, basically if 2/3 of the population stops buying things then the companies - including those pure human labour - go busted and other 1/3 then suffer too. Such a concept will actually make it possible for those that deeply entrenched into the current system they cannot envision another possibilty the time for reflection upon the matter and once the physical resource issue gets tidied up it should be a lot easier to drop the futility. Already there is recognition that the current disposable model of operations currently vastly deployed isn't long term viable, and are already switching scope to engineer with generational lifecycles. As opposed to the current avg 3-5yr lifecycle on parts.