I appreciate your viewpoint. I spent many decades believing similarly, that money isn't real and money has no inherent value or purpose, only muddying the water

I appreciate your viewpoint. I spent many decades believing similarly, that money isn't real and money has no inherent value or purpose, only muddying the waters of production. Over the years, however, I've developed a more nuanced take on the matter. (And on a personal note, in retrospect it was this belief that kept me in poverty, not the children of the wealthy.) I completely agree that we have "enough" for everyone at this point in time and many of our ills reduce to a distribution problem. I very much do not agree that just any other system could have brought us to this point. Intuitively if we could snap our fingers and make all money disappear tomorrow life would go on without a hiccup or any noticible change so long as everyone just keeps doing what they're doing now. But that's the rub, would everyone keep doing what they're doing? Our economic system is the system attempting to solve this distribution problem. The optimist in me still believes we can create a better system, but I have spent years trying to understand what that system looks like and I have yet to find it. (I am still eager to hear your proposal.) I am increasingly convinced the solution will ultimately need to leverage our modern and novel digital communications networks as well as other recent and perhaps future innovations, so I don't agree that such a system could have just arisen at any point in the past and carried us here. As an addendum, I believe any system that effectively solves this problem while delivering the same or higher level of resources for humanity will run into the issue of destroying the planet. This is an orthogonal problem that the optimist in me also believes we will eventually find a solution for, but if we don't the discussion will become somewhat moot.