I agree that money is a proxy for value. That still does not justify the unsupported claim that it "encourages all negative externalities", and causes "deep ri

I agree that money is a proxy for value. That still does not justify the unsupported claim that it "encourages all negative externalities", and causes "deep rifts and strife." I agree that economic activity can have negative consequences - but how is this caused by the mere existence of money? Being rewarded with the value is not more helpful than being rewarded with the marker - most people appreciate using their paycheck at their choice of restaurants, rather than simply trading code for hogs at the local bazaar. If nobody owns anything, trade is nonsense. Barring slavery, nearly everyone owns their time. Thus people own something. Until a startup solves death, that remains a scarce resource. The existence of scarce resources with ownership is thus fundamental to the human condition. Much (most?) trade involves the exchange of labor for "markers." Any time you do a favor for anyone, it's trade. Sometimes, they do you a return favor by giving markers. We can rename money to markers and trade to favors, but that's what it is. As for physical resources - their "ownership" is basically just a way of prioritizing access. So - you might prefer other ways, like waiting in line, or lotteries. When people have tried those ways, they've found that letting the guy with the most markers have the resource works out for the best. Obviously, you know this - so what do you think works better as a means of resource allocation? Third, the Eisenstein thesis doesn't mention interest He mentions several times (I'm referring primarily to his videos) an enthusiasm for instituting money that "decays," like bread, so that we are tempted to spend it more quickly rather than attempting to save it. I can't describe this idea as anything other than crazy, so I'm glad that you reject it as well. Monetizing efficiencies....that one seems a bit faulty It's true - I expressed myself poorly, and indeed the idea was unclear in my mind at the time. I think neither of us was right in our characterization of this so far. Technology and markets are, to me, each the seed of the other. Yes, technology creates new markets - but markets capitalize new (usable) technologies. You don't have to call them markets - you can call them patrons, such as those that financed da Vinci. Once again, however, markets appear to do a better job than feudal patrons. Increasingly, groups of patrons acting with good information can do a good job as well - but it remains a market, just a better-informed one. Our current revolution (/me degrades into general rant:) ... is not a revolution at all. The "Web2.0" line of innovation seems quite trivial - office online instead of offline, social voting - these are simply efficiency improvements on existing organizational memes. It's probably impolite to post such a comment on a YC board, but nonetheless - does anybody seriously think that this stuff is earth-shaking? Culturally, it might be; but technologically, it's just variations on a theme. Go check out the stem cell labs in Singapore; they're innovating.