Pleiadian Gift Economy – an Equal-Value System of Economics

The equal-value system transcends the dichotomy of wealth and poverty as well as alternative money systems. It is a system for truly advanced civilizations in which everyone is valued and able to freely do what they love to do without contorting or selling themselves in order to “make money”.

The following excerpt from Millennium — Tools For the Coming Changes (ISBN: 0-9631320-3-2) by Lyssa Royal, pp. 113-115, provides the seed idea of the equal-value economic system (EVES). It is cited with permission from the authors.

Most people have not yet learned how to step into this state and let it serve them. Let us say that you could have everything you wanted whenever you wanted it. How then is wealth defined? There can be no wealth because it is only measured against a state of lack. Wealth is a measure of what you have compared to what others have — lack.

Some extraterrestrial societies (such as on several Pleiadian planets) have a system called the equal value system, which is a reflection of their beliefs about abundance and the free state of their society.

The equal-value system might sound simplistic, but it actually requires tremendous spiritual and emotional evolution to master. As an analogy, if you need food in that society, you simply walk into the supermarket, get the food and leave without paying. When someone comes to you for your service, you provide it without charge. This system reflects a balance of wealth that has no arbitrary, constantly shifting values. The foundation of thier wealth is a deep sense of value for each member of society. Everyone is eager to keep their world evolving by constantly following their creative excitement. [Bold face added — editor]

This type of planetary economy is a holistic unit. In criticizing this type of society, one might ask obvious questions such as, “Who takes out the garbage or performs the unpleasant tasks?”¹ In a society where creative freedom is encouraged and not suppressed, there are many inventors who create technology to deal with every challenge, garbage included. Free-energy devices have been created to handle all of the planet’s energy demands.

Without a government or a corporation hoarding profits and controlling new discoveries, the best interests of the society as a whole or as individuals are never overlooked. The spirit of the society is expressed through constant achievement and creative freedom rather than constant profits. This is a symptom of a healthy holistic organism. Where there is a need there is someone to fill the need. This might sound alien to you, but look at the many enthusiastic inventors in your world who want to promote alternative fuel sources but who are stopped by big business.

Any planet can eventually develop this type of society. However, it cannot happen now on Earth while you are in the present level of fear. If one day all the world leaders said, “Okay, now on we have the Pleiadian equal-value system,” there would be chaos! There would be tremendous hoarding, because you would not believe you deserve it. You would feel as if you had to grab as much as you could before someone changed their mind. Your planet is simply not emotionally ready for this type of system. There is too much invested in lack and victimhood. There is too much invested in the polarized belief of the have and have-not mentality.

There must be a deep internal transformation before you can embrace the Pleiadian equal-value system or your own version of the equal distribution of wealth. Communism was an immature attempt at an equal-value system. So is capitalism. A true equal-value system that supports society will not have any oppressive control, rigidity or constraints attached to it. Because society is tiring of the old game of lack and wealth and you are moving toward ideas that reflect self-responsibility, a precursor to an equal-value system will appear when the time is right.

Freedom begins at the individual level. However, you must remember that freedom and equality are inherent properties of your spirit. Once recognized, you must then begin exercising your freedom, otherwise you will continue the cycle of dependence and corruption in a downward spiral.

If you become more self-responsible and affiliate yourself with others who are making the same choice, you will always have what you need when you need it. Always. It is a very different way to live. These words do not convey the true depth of the meaning of freedom of the spirit, because words always fall short in such matters. Be aware that bondage is a state of mind and a state of heart.

Choose freedom, live that freedom, and watch your lives and your planet transform before your eyes.

Editor’s comment: The issue of “who takes out the garbage” need not be dependent on having technology take care of it. The cultivation of a spirit of service or “karma yoga” goes a long way to handling unpleasant tasks and is inevitably necessary — in any society. To discover more about the authors of this book, go to

21 thoughts on “Pleiadian Gift Economy – an Equal-Value System of Economics

  1. I dont know about the book and author so take these with a big grain of salt;

    “Some extraterrestrial societies (such as on several Pleiadian planets) have”
    Citing a fictional society (ex:Star Trek) can provide ideas or help put things in a context like a simulation, its a tool which helps to imagine, think and conceptualize, forsee situations that would escape a superficial thought, and so on. If Pleiadian planets are part of a Sci-Fi novel I will not criticize the form.
    If, however, it claims that a real extraterrestial society does this or that (without a hint of proof), this would be similar to saying “an angel came down and told me we should do this”, imo it borders chalatanism and beleiving it is naive.

    “Wealth is a measure of what you have compared to what others have — lack.”
    Im probably missing the point by a mile, but Wealth is a word, a label, it is what we define it as. This definition is not particularily useful imo, and its circular because you could define lack as the abscence of wealth. ~You are about do die of starvation, but you have no lack, because look around, other people are also dying of hunger, so rejoice, lack is just relative~. Sure wealth can be relative, like anything, water, but imo it is more useful to say wealth is “access to services and production; which require human or non-human energy and transformation; that can be greatly increased by technology, specialization and coordination of activities.” Its a description thats more likely to lead you in the direction of having whatever you want, than just saying its a measure of what you have compared to what others have.

    “Without a government or a corporation hoarding profits and controlling new discoveries, the best interests of the society as a whole or as individuals are never overlooked.”
    Though governments as we know it (close opaque hierarchy with institutions and corporatism in a monetary system’s inherent conflicts of intersts) and corporations are problematic and I agree need to be replaced, their abscence, by itself, is not a panacea, they are bad forms of organization, but organizations nonetheless that need to be replaced by alternate models. Cholera in London a long time ago was not understood or solved from an individual perspective, statistics provided information that was not visible from any person’s 5 senses, even a doctor, these statistics showed that terrain elevation, and thus water/sewer distribution, was a key factor in the development of the disease and its eradication. The computer you use to read this, was made by a corporation, a group of people that have designed, organized the logistics for a planned production, and distribution, it was not made by various individuals doing whatever they wanted, production requires coodinated efforts, which means you need to take into account the whole or what others are doing or planning to do, and see how what you can contribute can fit in. It can be done without a monetary incentive, but not without an organized system to coordinate the activity.

    “Your planet is simply not emotionally ready for this type of system”
    Im not sure which planet the person is from, but though theres a lot of mindset challenges, imo its not a question of being emotionally/spiritually, its a question of having the relevant information (which includes the information to shape a reference from) and a functional prototype. The Wright brothers didnt say humans were not emotionally ready to fly.

    1. To what you say about corporations, I suspect that Sasha would reply, by stating that they have been a transitional form of unity. Corporations consist of groups of people, which as you say, have devoted their energies to a particular, single purpose; and you can see this as an illustration of the value of people doing so. As you say, people can achieve far more when there are more of them together of like mind, than when there are disparate, isolated individuals.

      As for the Pleiadians not existing, and Lyssa’s material being fiction, there is a very simple way for you to resolve that question conclusively.

      Ask them for contact.

    2. Thing is if I recall right the source doesn’t purport to be science finction, but some sort of spiritual chanelling practice. That could be dubious both from a scientific perspective )how are you supposed to “channel” aliens living light-years away without breaking the light-speed barrier for example) or from the perspective of something like my Christian beliefs (some of us would regard it as Satanic deception designed to lead us away from God to some nice-sounding but false belief system). Those beliefs of course not everyone would accept or want to use as a basis for how to live either, but it’s not exactly like the poster of this article seems to add any caveat that this is just an idea from one sort of belief which may not be true, or used as an analogy. We could just as well be expecting the truth that this system works to be based on fevered imagination or outright lies. Either way we are left with what? A nice idea, but that’s it.

  2. Thanks a lot for the article and the theme…
    in my opinion, such brilliant economics may be implemented in specific terms:
    The first, consciousness of humanity must be lacking in selfishness and the fear of death, so the wish to survive anyway. Until we got rid of the principle “provide self-surviving for the first, and other people can wait”, we couldn’t see the society, ready to this economics.

    Scientists had already proved that consciousness is the original cause for everything, so all we see around is the result of our mental-sensitive perception. Maybe, we need to revalue or goals and principles of lives and to turn thinkking in direction of the principle (for example) “society for personal development, a person for social development’. That’s the point of altruism, responsibility, awareness, creativity, positivism. And it’s the productive attitude instead of exploitative, predatory.

    So all the reasons for both our current condition and for possible happy future are in our minds. I suppose, the intensive increasing of intellectual and deep-sensitive potential can improve our economics etc.

  3. “Wealth is a measure of what you have compared to what others have — lack.” seems to be erroneous…

    Definition of wealth:
    1. An abundance of valuable possessions or money.
    2. The state of being rich; material prosperity.

    Contrary to the above, ”Wealth is a measure of what you have.” No mention of lack.

    “Lack” is an inference/ comparison the writer has created by positioning himself in a money based ideology. I agree in essence with the above, the similar idea is expressed better here:

    1. I don’t think there are any fundamental errors in the comment “Wealth is a measure of what you have compared to what others have – lack.”

      That makes perfect sense. Let’s look at two situations:

      1.) This is going to be our current situation. Some people have lots of money, possessions, property, etc. while many people have small amounts of money, possessions, property, etc. In this situation, the few with more are wealthy and rich, while the people with little “lack” wealth and possessions.

      2.) This situation is going to be under the equal-value system. We can automatically dump money out of the definition of value since there is no money. Everything is free. Nothing has a value attached to it. See it as everything being $0. There is no way to define wealth since everyone’s possessions are essentially $0. Technically speaking, everyone has access to the same amount of everything, it’s just whether or not they are using it or in possession of it at a certain time that could be used to define wealth. If you have access to everything just as much as the everyone else, you wouldn’t say “I’m wealthy,” because then everyone could say the same thing.

      What I am getting at, and I think the author as well, is that if everyone has access to everything, then if one person can say they are wealthy, so can everything, and thus the defining line between wealth vs. poverty is nullified, thus make those two words obsolete and unusable.

      1. In such an economy, wealth (or power) would be defined by your ability to take without giving back. Perhaps you are armed or just really good at convincing people of things.

        As soon as one other person agrees with your view your odds of getting another and another increase until you are resisted or everyone else just leaves.

        1. When people live with their families, do they bring weapons to the table to fend off fellow family members? Do they pay armed guards to protect their possessions in their bedroom, just in case someone leave the table early and tries to steal the other’s possessions? No. If humanity viewed all other people as family members, then, in all likelyhood, no one would need to be well armed to fend off anyone else. Everything would be shared.

          And that’s what this is about; sharing, not hoarding as we do now in our current money-based systems.

          1. I did have a breakfast with one of my sister’s previous husbands. He brought a rifle, but he used it to shoot at a black squirrel out the window. After our ears stopped ringing, he explained that he only shoots the black ones due to their taste for the things in his garden.

            So how does such a society as your propose deal with armed outsiders?

          2. In all seriousness, the likely result of such sharing might break the discipline of an armed band of outsiders. Assuming goods were plentiful enough not to be worth defending.

          3. In a family it’s instinctive to look out for one another and be concerned with the needs of each other. You don’t need to be told to trust your own “flesh and blood”, as it were.

            Outside of that setting and with relative strangers maybe it’s not so certain. I remember in my college days, our accomodation had shared kitchen facilities. We usually assumed what was ours was our, no equal sharing perhaps, though sometimes no-one minded if you used their stuff as long as you looked after it or cleared it down properly. But, I can’t take note of how many items of cutlery and crockery mysteriously disappeared without trace. (Of course, people couldn’t necessarily trust me either, at least when it came to washing up!)

            1. Sharing scarce resources will almost always lead to problems. For it to work in the long run, resources have to be made abundant. Then, you won’t have to worry about someone taking too much or stealing.

              1. Thing is how are you going to get to a post-scarcity situation? Even the whole idea of an RBE seems to be based upon managing resources more efficiently- it’s not really about removing scarcity in the strictest sense, because at the end of the day you only have one planet’s worth of resources to share amongst what now looks like seven billion people and counting. Of course we could exploit the rest of the solar system for its mineral resources, but the energies required and technical challenges are huge. But, ultimately it means our attitudes are going to have to change first, and I don’t think that will be easy. This means not taking more than our fair share because we can, and realising (in the context of the college halls example I mentioned) “what’s mine is also thine” does not mean “well then it doesn’t matter if what used to be thine is now MINE!” (only in not so many words).

                And unlike the RBE die-hards there are certain aspects of human nature I don’t see changing all that easily. It’s possible, but it means overcoming a lot of instinct (take what you can in order to better your chances of survival) and what Christians like me call sin- the inherent tendency towards a less-than-perfect nature.

                1. “And unlike the RBE die-hards there are certain aspects of human nature I don’t see changing all that easily. It’s possible, but it means overcoming a lot of instinct (take what you can in order to better your chances of survival) and what Christians like me call sin- the inherent tendency towards a less-than-perfect nature.”
                  You know what you mean by this general statement, but I would require a few specifics and examples to understand what you want to say.
                  What are these certain aspects of human nature?
                  What are these sins? And what is the need they are trying to address by committing the sin you refer to?

                  Personally I dont see the problem of resources as much as other people (given we are wasting resources for little to no added benefit and wasting human potential, we dont need to cut our standard of living but cut the waste and leverage human ability wasted on meaningless drudge), instead I see a problem of processing and of (coordinated voluntary) organization.

                  1. If you want specifics, I think there could be some survival mechanisms or othet in-built flaws in human nature which predispose some of us to want more than we need. As simple example is cravings for certain types of food or nuterient groups (such as things high in fat, sugar, salt etc., which were necessary when those types of food were scarce, but now they are abundant it can lead to cravings and dietary problems. Another problem is psychological- we might convince ourselves we need more than we actually do because it might seem to satisfy a need at a given time, might come in useful some day, etc.

                    Ultimately though a pure trust-based system can’t always be relied upon, as the people involved are not always reliable. So if for example the local “Books for Free” shop (one exists in my town and basically allows people to take books and magazines, music, videos etc. for no charge, or donate them) finds people help themselves to loads of stuff, pretty soon it will have to introduce limits (in the case of my local shop, three books per person at a time and they have to be stamped before they leave the shop). Or maybe like the Venus Project idea of cybernated management of resources, there will have to be times where the “computer says no” to what some people want from the system, perhaps.

  4. I think we are at the stage where we need to create a lot of buzz about the Gift Economy and all related concepts. Tell everyone and discuss with everyone willing to discuss it. Whether people support or disagree, the idea gets out there. The hypnotic money trance in which the world is in and doesn’t realize it will start to abate. People need to wake up from money. It will be a friendlier world when that happens.

Comments are closed.