What’s Wrong With Money?

BY SOFO ARCHON

“Only when the last tree has been cut down, the last fish has been caught, and the last stream has been poisoned, will we realize that we cannot eat money.” ~Cree Indian proverb

“Spiritual” teachers and self-help coaches often say that money is “just neutral energy,” whose effects—positive or negative—depend on how we use it. According to them, money is not inherently evil, but it can be used for evil purposes if it falls into the hands of malicious people. When used by good people, however, it becomes a powerful vehicle for making the world a better place.

My view is different. While I agree that money is not inherently evil, I don’t see it as neutral energy—at least not in its current form. Yes, money can carry positive or negative energy depending on how it is used, but this is largely shaped by the monetary system that creates it and the broader economic system in which it operates. In today’s economy, money primarily functions as a vehicle of destruction and suffering—not simply because some “evil” people misuse it, but because the system’s very design generates conditions and incentives that perpetuate harm.

To understand what I mean, let’s consider how money is created: as interest-bearing debt. If you didn’t know already, money is generated through loans, with interest attached, which borrowers must repay—or risk losing their homes or other assets. As a result, the total debt in the world exceeds the money in circulation, since the interest doesn’t exist in the money supply—which creates a condition in which people must compete for never enough money simply to survive.

In this fiercely competitive game, some people inevitably win while others lose—in fact, most fall on the losing side. Hence, the top 1% own more wealth than 95 per cent of humanity. Hence, 1 billion people go hungry. Hence, 40 million people live as modern-day slaves. Hence, humans constantly exploit one another, perpetuating violence and warfare.

Another major reason our monetary system is destructive is that it depends on endless growth and consumption to sustain high levels of employment. People need jobs to earn money—and thus a living—and to do that, they must constantly sell goods and services. The more products and services sold, the more money circulates, and the more people remain employed. Conversely, if consumption declines, fewer people are employed, and fewer can make a living. In this system, it becomes an economic necessity for the sacred and beautiful Earth to be continually converted into commodities for profit. Hence, rainforests are cut down. Hence, billions of land animals are abused and killed each year. Hence, oceans are overfished, fossil fuels and minerals are depleted, and topsoil is eroded.

Now, you might say: “You’re right, Sofo, money has caused tremendous destruction and suffering in society and on the planet. But it has also brought prosperity, healing, and happiness.” You might point to companies investing in eco-friendly products or renewable energy, philanthropists spending billions to feed the poor or build schools and hospitals, or money spent on great works of art in theater and cinema.

Yes, some money is used for positive purposes, but most is used for negative ones. Consider the trillions spent annually by the advertising industry persuading people to buy things they don’t need, or the trillions spent by armies preparing for war. Efforts in eco-friendly products and technologies are limited in a fundamentally anti-environmental system. Philanthropists address the symptoms of a sick society, not the root causes of poverty and inequality. And how do billionaires earn their wealth in the first place? By exploiting the poor, only to return a tiny fraction of their fortunes—often for publicity. Even when money is invested in creating great art, exponentially more is spent on low-quality “art” produced solely for profit.

If money truly achieves anything in this system, it is to provide incentives that coordinate human activity in service of endless economic growth and so-called development. Through the ever-present threat of poverty, homelessness, starvation, and even death, our monetary system coerces people into work they dislike—work they would never choose under different circumstances.

So, what could solve this problem—and the others described above? How could people live differently, engaging in work they love without struggling for survival, competing against one another, or contributing to the destruction of the planet they share with countless non-human beings?

Most activists, scholars, economists, and politicians advocate reforming the system—seeking ways to “improve” it—primarily through stronger regulations, such as taxing the rich, raising the minimum wage, restricting fossil fuel consumption, and reducing plastic production. What they often fail to recognize is that in a system where money rules the world, it also rules the government. Unsurprisingly, most regulatory attempts to curb the system’s destructive tendencies have largely failed.

The change needed must go much deeper, down to the very foundations of the economic system. Specifically, we need to structurally redesign the economy so that it operates as far as possible from money, trade, and markets.

After all, almost nobody truly wants money itself—they want what money can buy. Money has no intrinsic value: you can’t eat it or use it for anything practical, except perhaps as a fire starter (and even then, only with paper bills, not the bits on computers that constitutes most of today’s supply). Similarly, almost nobody enjoys competing in the market—they are forced to. The real question, then, becomes: how can people satisfy their needs without engaging in trade?

Before answering, it’s important to recognize that we already possess the technical means to meet everyone’s needs. Contrary to popular belief, the planet has enough resources to go around, if used wisely. For example, there is enough food to feed every hungry person, yet about half of global production is wasted. Likewise, there is enough water, housing, and energy. Humanity’s problem, therefore, is not technical but economic: the issue is how resources are distributed. With that established, let’s see what a truly efficient, fair, and non-destructive economy would look like.

The first and most important step in designing such an economy is to create what we might call an “access” society—a society in which people have free access to what they need, beginning with their most fundamental necessities: nutritious food, clean water, shelter, and sufficient energy. For example, imagine each area of a city having enough organic community gardens (supplemented with vertical farms where necessary) to provide ample food for everyone. No one would starve or have to trade for food, because it would be freely available.

Once basic needs are covered, the concept of access can expand to other aspects of the economy, such as product usage. People do not necessarily want to own most of the products they use—they just want access to them. Take power drills as an example: the average drill is used for just 15 minutes in its lifetime, yet the average household owns at least one. How unnecessary and wasteful! Instead, people could have free access to drills through shared tool libraries. If this seems far-fetched, consider book libraries, which have existed for millennia: anyone can borrow a book for free, then return it for others. By sharing rather than owning, people gain access to almost everything they need while drastically reducing resource extraction and waste.

During the transition, certain economic policies could help. One is Universal Basic Income (UBI)—a guaranteed payment to everyone, regardless of personal economic situation. UBI helps in two ways: first, it provides people with a stable income as jobs are lost during the implementation of an access society (since people won’t be buying as much, less money circulates); second, it frees people from the need to engage in tedious, degrading, competitive labor. With income decoupled from work, people can focus on meaningful, fulfilling labor in service to society and the planet.

Once economic growth becomes obsolete, other policies could follow, such as eco-friendly product design, localization of production and distribution, and surveying and tracking Earth’s resources. In the meantime, stronger regulations on the current system could include heavy taxation of the rich, improved working conditions, and reductions in plastic production and fossil fuel use. Businesses could also be held accountable for the environmental and social damage they cause. However, as noted, these regulations cannot fully contain the ferocious beast that is our economic system—they are temporary fixes, not the ultimate solution. The true goal is a system that that doesn’t need external, forced regulation, but which regulates itself internally. Until then, however, such measures would still be greatly beneficial.

***

This article was written to give you a basic understanding of what is wrong with our monetary—and, by extension, economic—system, as well as some initial steps toward a healthier economy. In the future, I intend to write a longer piece (or maybe a book?) with more detailed analysis and an expanded guide on how we might escape the current system. For now, this offers the general idea.