Six Philosophies Which Enable a Resource-Based Economy

The resource-based economy has become a popular topic of discussion, and this paper is the author’s inaugural foray into the field. Far from being an easy convert to social movements, I am inherently distrustful of them. However, a hard-won ally is a hard-lost one. Perhaps it is time for me to endorse the movement and attempt to illuminate some vital needs such a movement may need to embrace in order to succeed in implementing its views. This paper is intended to be an initial exploration of concepts for further definition. 

Discussion of the idea of a resource-based economy (RBE) is becoming increasingly popular, yet the exact technical specifications of such a society have remained somewhat elusive. This paper attempts to address certain fundamental concepts which may allow the idea of the RBE to solidify into a working piece of social technology. Six core philosophies are presented in no particular order to be explored, compared to existing social behaviors and evaluated for usefulness.


On the way towards a resource based economy, the philosophy of transparency calls for all economic transactions to be recorded and made public instantly. Thereby, the wealth and resource holdings of each individual and each company becomes completely visible to each other member of the society at all times. In this case, the philosophy of transparency applies to economic interactions exclusively. However, broader social implications are present in the philosophy.

Clearly, this transparency is a radical departure from the economic structure we are accustomed to using on this planet at this time. The idea of discussing one’s monetary holdings is considered rude by both the haves and the have-nots–for different reasons, of course. The poor would rather not discuss a sensitive topic which can create worry, while the rich don’t want the poor to realize just how much economic power they weld, for fear of losing it. The lack of transparency allows for untoward hoarding of resources. It allows companies to purchase less-than-ideal components for manufacture and it allows politicians to surreptitiously receive payment by lobbying councils.

In contrast, the benefits of applying the philosophy of transparency in a society are manifold. Theft of all types will become increasingly obsolete. Unusual hoarders of resources can be immediately identified (such as the gargantuan wealth of certain royal families or industrialists), and it is unlikely that such massive hoarding will be allowed to continue in the face of universal and exacting public scrutiny. In the RBE, transparency serves the further purpose of allowing an accurate accounting of which resources are available, and resolves concerns over an usurping force seizing the reigns of the society by undue accumulation.

The philosophy of transparency further answers the plaguing question of “who will decide who gets what” in the RBE. Based on limited research, it appears that most RBE supporters will say that “some kind of supercomputer” will make the calculations. However, as pointed out by Stefan Moleneux, computers merely run programs as defined by the programmer. Therefore, the question becomes “who will program the computer” and is equivalent to the first question–no answer has been presented. By applying transparency, the correct answer to our questions becomes “everybody”, which is a simplified way of saying that open-source communities can present calculations on which resources exist and how they can be utilized, and these calculations will be available for immediate scrutiny by all members of the RBE.


The philosophy of custodianship replaces the philosophy of ownership in the RBE. The difference is subtle, yet profound. Custodianship assures individual rights over items one has accumulated, yet impedes misuse or wanton destruction of those items. The underlying theme is that in order for most resources to have value, there is a transactional nature inherent in their use. Given that an item has entered one’s sphere of influence from elsewhere, and that that same item will eventually leave one’s sphere of influence, it becomes apparent that a person is, at best, temporarily in command of the item. Thus, the philosophy of custodianship recognizes the transient nature of “owning” a thing and prepares the individual adherent for that thing’s continued functioning after it has left the individual user’s sphere of influence.

This philosophy differs from our contemporary mode of thinking in that it does not respect the right of an individual to wantonly destroy that which he finds himself in command of. Thus, if one were custodian of a plot of land, that individual would be prevented from dumping toxic waste on the land on the simple authority that the land was “owned” by the individual; on the contrary, the individual would be required to understand that he is, at most, transient force upon a plot of land that has existed, and will continue to exist, for spans of time generally inconceivable to an individual. It becomes the duty of the transient custodian to prepare for the graceful transition of custodianship to the next user–a thought that seems to be lacking in a ownership based society.

The benefits of custodianship include an increased attention to preservation of land and resources, a reduction in waste of perishable products and provides a further impetus for the elimination of undue hoarding. Consider, for example, the story of the grocery store that went out of business. The previous owners wanted to simply give away the food that remained inside; however, the new owners saw no profit in doing that and instead ordered all the food to be disposed of by transporting it to a landfill. The new owners were enabled to undertake this incredible act of wastefulness because the food became “owned by them”, and therefore they were free to do whatever they wished with it, including simply destroying it. Under the philosophy of custodianship, the “new owners” would be aware that the food had only temporarily entered their sphere of influence, and their primary concern would be to facilitate the proper dispersal of it, not the wanton disposal of it. Only by streamlining the use of resources can the RBE become feasible, and by applying transparency this streamlining will be assured by an open-source accounting by multiple parties.


The philosophy of renewability addresses the continued survival and success of the RBE. Since resources are one of the definitions of wealth in the RBE (joy, fulfilment, happiness and creativity, for instance, are others), renewing, preserving, optimising and expanding those resources is the only way to achieve (resource based) economic stability or growth of abundance in society.

In comparison, the modern economic practice of creating “fiat currency”–a mathematical construct which has little, if any, relation to actually existing resources–does not require renewability. The illusion of stability or growth can be artificially introduced into the economy by simply adding numbers which, when not linked to actual resources, have no value yet give the illusion of value. The result is that practices which are inherently destructive to the actual wealth of a society, its resources, are routinely praised as valuable and continued even to the final depletion of a once abundant resource. Furthermore, re-use or recycling of useful resources is often ignored, allowing valuable resources to be discarded in favor of maximizing fiat currency holdings. Holdings which, as resources diminish, have an inherently decreasing value.

The benefits of renewability to the RBE are apparent on the surface: it allows the resource-wealth of a society to be preserved and expanded upon. Furthermore, the philosophy of renewability promotes creation of complex resource abundance over that of simplistic consumption or outright destruction. It does this by valuing the retention of available resources above all else in economic practice.

Local Production

The philosophy of local production has two main purposes. One is economic: to reduce the amount of resource-use during transportation. The other is social: to decentralise the method of resource-production to the maximum extent. While the economic purpose is straightforward, the social purpose is more complex. Taken generally, the social purpose of local production is a safeguard against various problems such as natural disasters, infrastructure disturbances or resource-domination by certain groups. At it’s most basic level, the idea that anyone can provide themselves with all of life’s necessities personally, unilaterally and sustainably will serve to free each individual to pursue more lofty ideals and complex undertakings.

Comparisons between the philosophy of local production and philosophy employed in contemporary modes of production are telling. Our planet currently discards millions of pounds of food yearly while at the same time allowing millions of people to starve daily. As with all famine, the problem is not with production but distribution. Quite simply, the food is too far away from the hungry people. There is further complication due to current economic system which considers the destruction of real resources to preserve the fictitious resource of fiat currency as reasonable. A parallel can be drawn between most, if not all, situations of human lack faced by modern society, and these situations are highly likely to be reduced substantially by the philosophy of local production.

Thus, the benefit to the philosophy of local production is first and foremost the elimination of lack of access to basic needs. However, the economic advantage to the RBE is unmistakable: it allows the conservation of resources and thus a decreased load upon producers, eventually leading to resource based economic growth.

Technological Advancement

The philosophy of technological advancement anticipates and celebrates the invention and implementation of new technology as rapidly as is safe and logical. The purpose of technological advancement is to increase both the economic production of the RBE as well as fostering social development.

While it may seem that contemporary society embraces the philosophy of technological advancement, in truth it does exactly the opposite. Take for example the historical evidence which was Nikola Tesla’s project to provide free wireless energy to the world. Although the technology was superior to that being used at the time and the technical application of the technology was well within the limits of human ability, the project was forced to be shut down. The reason was overtly stated: it would be impossible to meter out this energy for fiat currency and the technology was, for this reason alone, abandoned. It becomes obvious to even the casual observer that the failing and outmoded technology which IS fiat currency has become the only technology which truly is freely expanded, at the expense of all others. Furthermore, potentially dangerous technology, such as GMO crops or nuclear weaponry are quickly developed and deployed beyond the limits of what is safe–assuming, of course, that they are likely to advance the accumulation of fiat currency. Thus, according to the philosophy of technological advancement, fiat currency technology (along with other outdated technologies) should be abandoned in favor of a more advanced one.

Technological advancement offers a vast array of potential benefits. Advances in energy production, food production, communication and transportation are only the beginning of what is possible when the philosophy of technological advancement is applied.

Voluntary Participation 

The philosophy of voluntary participation respects the right of the individual to choose among varying forms of ‘work’ and social interaction. It announces that the only social structure that is appropriate for the thinking human is one in which all members have voluntarily agreed to the interaction. It rejects the outright annexation of huge masses of land and the idea of force-based compliance to subjective rules.

It is simple to see the fundamental contradictions between modern society and the philosophy of voluntary participation. In all countries, there is no option given to reject the benefits of the State, and therefore it’s requirements. All land on the continent is annexed by a government, including areas of land which have not been given any attention at all–no people are living thereupon and no resource management has been effectively introduced. By annexing all land, these governments seek to impose an involuntary participation in their social technology. The philosophy of voluntary participation respects the right of each individual to migrate away from the forms and structures of a certain society and encourages a free space for new social technologies to be experimented with.

The philosophy of voluntary interaction is vital to the birth of the RBE and to its continued development. Clearly, without a free space in which to design and experiment with the RBE, it is impossible to implement it. Yet even further, the continued success of the RBE will defined by its ability to metamorphose to suit different climates and social expectations. The philosophy of voluntary participation will streamline the social-evolutionary process by which the RBE will become useful and robust.


What has preceded has been an initial foray into concepts which may prove vital to the actual implementation of the RBE. The subjects discussed are by no means an exhaustive compilation. However, with further development it may be possible to come up with a “social platform” which is sufficiently robust to be applied yet flexible enough to meet the needs of the great majority of people. In this time of great social unrest, great solutions are emerging. It will be up to each of us, individually, to define where we would like to take our society.

The Occupy Movement is worthless, unless…

I just finished watching the documentary ‘Inside Job’. Recommended. It spurred me to write something. This. Yes, I chose a bit provocative title, but only to make you read the article.

Up through history, there have been several demonstrations and revolutions, small and big, in almost all countries around the world. We have the French revolution, the English revolution, the Moscow uprising, the Haitian revolution, the Greek war of independence, the October revolution, and now the Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Together. There have always been uprisings and demonstrations against ‘the ruling class’.

Still, not much have changed. Why? Because we, the people, have always gone back to the ‘monetary mindset’ ourselves. And, it is the monetary mindset that lies behind so to say all borders, which are economically drawn, all governments, all corporations, the Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, The Federal Reserve and all banks in the world. Thus, it is the monetary mindset that drives this world and will continue to drive it into bigger and bigger inequality and crisis, unless we, the people, abandon this mindset.


And what do I mean by ‘the monetary mindset’? Well, it is very simple. It is the mindset that says ‘we need money’. It says ‘we need money to exchange our goods and services with each other’, ‘we need money to make this world go round’. And on a personal scale, it says ‘I need money to pay my bills’, ‘to buy my food’, ‘to pay for my education’, ‘to pay for my car’, ‘to pay for my house’, and so on.

Of course, all these statements seem very obvious when you read them like that. Of course we need money. How can we live without it??? Money has ‘always’ been around. Money is like air…and water…we can’t live without that!?!

Well, money isn’t actually like air and water. In case you didn’t know, ‘money’ hasn’t always been around. In ancient cultures, a resource based economy was much more prevalent. Human resources was used to do the planting, or rather ‘aiding’ of nature in a permaculture way, the natural resources of food was harvested and distributed to those who needed it.

What I am referring to when I say this, is the Vedruss people described in the books of Vladimir Megre about the russian recluse, Anastasia. Anastasia claim do be the direct decedent of an ancient group of people, called the Vedruss, living over 10.000 years ago.

In contrary to ‘common history’ when trying to describe ancient history more than a few thousand years ago, they were not hunter gatherers only, but also ‘helped’ the earth produce what they needed from it and created beautiful gardens for themselves. Gardens that also provided food, much like what we today would call ‘permaculture food forests’.

They lived in highly developed societies with lots of celebrations and festivities, sharing of all of the natural abundance around them. And if a traveller came along, it would be considered an honor to take care of that person. A great generosity and hospitality was the norm.

They were also highly skilled craftspeople living in wooden timber houses with detailed ornamentations and decorations. They also made clothes both of natural fibers from plants and from animal skins. Though, only from naturally dead animals. They were mostly vegetarians and meat was eaten only in small amounts.

All handicraft that they produced was mostly given away. Sometimes they got something back for what they gave, as a natural reciprocity. The bonds between people was strong and gifts were given frequently in joy.

All of the above can be confirmed from studies of ancient Russian history, while seeing it in a different light.

This history has be very distorted, though, by the ‘men behind the curtain’, making the ‘stone age man’ seem like a savage barbarian, which couldn’t be further from the truth. The term ‘stone age’ is blurring the values and social systems that really existed in those times, making people believe that we actually have experienced ‘progress’ in today’s world, and that what we have today is much better than the awful ‘stone age’.

My source is basically from the The Ringing Cedars Series, but the information can be confirmed when reading ordinary historic documents, like the Bible’s Old Testament, in this light. And that’s the whole point of ‘historic research’, trying to see history in different types of ‘light’ and perspective, thus taking on a whole new meaning. What you are left with is what perspective feels right in your heart.

All societies might well have been like these Vedruss societies before religion, kings and kingdoms, borders and money came around and claimed the land for themselves and started taxing the ones who had lived there for millennia before. These were gift economies. What was needed of food and such was distributed freely, and handicrafts was used to make things that enhanced their lives, and these products were always given away.

And when everybody gave, they also got from each other, which of course sometimes for an outsider could be seen as trade. Still, it was no more trade than when someone brings a bottle of wine and a box of chocolates when invited to dinner by some friends. In that light, we still have a gift economy in parts of our society. We still give each other things and services a lot of  the time, even today.

So, you see, it is possible to have societies without money. Now, do we have to go back to these old times to do that? No, we don’t. And actually, we can’t. We’ve come too far in terms of development. We can of course take on elements of those societies, but that doesn’t mean we have to abandon everything we use today. Today we have the ingenuity, knowhow and technology to build a 100% sustainable and abundant society for everyone, with no one left out. Of course, everyone can not have 5 mansions, 3 islands, 10 SUVs, 6 jets and 2 helicopters each. Neither can everyone have gold plated toilets.

BUT, we can all have very high standard roof over our heads. We can all have unlimited transportation to wherever we want to go. And we can go wherever we want to go when all borders are wiped out. Borders that was economically drawn in the first place. We can all eat healthy, nutritious and good food, and so on and so on.

It becomes clearer and clearer to me. Unless this world shall revert back to the same old ‘financial crisis’ and inequality, pollution, over exploitation, etc. etc. we can not go on with any kind of monetary system. Of course, we can try. We can try and regulate more. We can try interest free economy. We can try all kinds of monetary systems. But unless we, the people, realize that money doesn’t matter, and realize this in our hearts, we will revert, revert, revert, and we will see no major change. We will still have those borders and passport controls. We will still have military and police. We will still have corruption and crime.

So, to everyone who is a part of the Occupy Wall Street movement, Occupy Together, or any other movement in that regards; Think about it.

Simply think.

Can we have a property- and moneyless society? How will it work?

But more importantly, think about you. Your self. Ask yourself this:

Will I be doing what I do today if I didn’t earn any money on it? 

What will I be doing if I didn’t have any monetary incentive? 

What would my incentive be? 

What is my life’s purpose? 

And then go on and try to think about the consequences of a society where buying and selling is abandoned, where we simply don’t trade anymore, but distribute the goods and services to each other for free, and do what we do for reasons of joy and companionship (which of course can include doing what ‘has to be done’).

A society where we can change the place of living as easy as the rich people today move from their condo in NYC to their house in Paris. It is mind-blowing. Our possibilities would be limitless when we abandon property and money and simply share and develop what we have in this world.

Would all the ‘needed tasks’ be done in a moneyless society? Quite clearly, the answer is NO. But, only when you look at the ‘needed tasks’ from a monetary perspective, from the perspective of today’s society.

All of what is needed today will clearly not be needed in a moneyless society. For example, today, 50% of all food is thrown away, and new food is shipped in every day from all around the world. Thus, when we really look at that particular area, it should be quite obvious that we can half the amount of trips the trucks take to the stores, as long as we actually eat all the food that is driven there, instead of throwing half of it away.

Voila, we’ve halved the need for transportation in one field in one swipe.

Even though this is but one small example, can you see how the ‘needed tasks’ would be much fewer and less frequent in a moneyless society? In one swoop, I think we could easily half or more all needed tasks that are performed in the world today. And then I’m not even counting in all the un needed tasks, such as all bank, insurance, financial, stock brokers, accountants and other ‘money related’ people, who would have to find new interests and would make up a huge new pool of people that can actually contribute to society.

Ok, but what about other jobs, like plumbers, dentists, doctors, etc. etc. Would they still do their ‘jobs’? I see only one answer to that; Ask them. Ask yourself. Are you a plumber? Or what are you? Would you still do what you do? Or what would you do?

If I was a dentist or a doctor and I liked what I was doing, I can’t see any reason why I would suddenly stop doing that, as long as there still was a need for my services. Personally, I would feel an obligation to help the ones in need. I think many doctors feel that as they work today as well. Still, again, in a moneyless society where we wouldn’t need half the people to do half the jobs (and that’s without changing anything, only abandoning money and property), there would be much more time to actually take care of each other.

Much more people could actually take time to help each other in all kinds of matters. Be it health, plumbing, teaching, massaging or what have you. And instead of ‘serving the system’, we would serve each other and society. No money filter between us. All tasks would be meaningful since they would actually be needed.

Possession vs. Property

I think many people start to shiver when they really go into the thought of not owning anything, and I understand them, as this thought has for millennia been equivalent with poverty and destitution.

That is when it is time to sense the distinction between property and possession. Property is, and has been the most important tool for the capitalistic socio-economic system to build itself up to what it is today. And today, the term property is almost synonymous with possession. Still, they are not one and the same. Far from it.

Even today, something that you don’t own can be in your possession. If you borrow a car, it is in your possession the time you use it. And you are not feeling any fear about loosing that possession, are you? No, you know you have borrowed that car for a certain amount of time, and as long as you have it, you have it. And when you’re done with it, you turn it back. The car was never your property, even though it was in your possession the whole time you were using it.

No insecurity there. Borrowing a car. The same, of course, goes for everything else in your life that you use and have use for. If you own an apartment today, and you live in that apartment, you obviously have use for that apartment, since you live there and possess it. It doesn’t really matter if the apartment is yours or not. You live there, thus it is your apartment. But again, it being your apartment, doesn’t have to mean that you need to own it.

So, in a property- and moneyless society, what would happen to everything that we today own? This is very easy to answer, when considering the above; If we possess it and have use for it, we would simply keep using it, and no one else could claim it (unless, maybe if you unrightfully stole it in the first place) until you leave it.

In a property- and moneyless society (maybe we shall start to call it PAMS…?) possession and usership would replace property and ownership. If you have use for something and need it, you can use it for as long as you need it, as long as it exists and is accessable.

It is actually how this work today as well, except that the terms ‘property’ and ‘ownership’ came in some millennia ago and changed the whole game. We can’t really own anything. We can only use it and possess it for a certain time. When that time is over, it is and can not be ours anymore. It is only the system that lives in our minds that grants anyone the right to ‘own’ anything.

It is only the MONETARY MINDSET that has prevailed for so long that has indoctrinated us into believing that we actually can own something.

And of course, this is very good for those who want to control the world.

So, as an end note, the secret….(whispered)…:

When we realize that we can’t own anything, not us, not the rich, not anyone, well then, the system that is in place today will simply seize to exist. It will vanish like the apparition it has always been. It can not control us anymore. Because, the only means it has ever had to control us, has all this time been our mindset.


Peter Joseph is articulating my point very well:

YouTube Preview Image


A Desert Island

This article is extracts from a longer discussion on The World Freedom Demo group on Facebook.

You might also want to read the post ‘Will a Resource Based Economy Work?‘, for a more in depth look at RBE.

Picture a group of 100 people on a desert island. They only have what nature provides. There are no banks and no money.

What will be most efficient and meaningful to do?

1. To establish a ‘monetary system’ where everyone gets ‘points’ or ‘promissory obligations’ based on how much they contribute, and have one part of the population manage this system. Still, they would get in trouble when one person says, ‘I spent all day fishing! I deserve a full day’s wage!’, while the other one say’s ‘But you didn’t catch any fish! I, on the contrary spent all day building bungalows, I deserve a full day’s wage, not him!’, while the third person say’s ‘I’ve been sitting and thinking all day, coming up with much better solutions on both building bungalows AND catching fish! I deserve 3 day’s of wages!’, while the 4th person say’s ‘I have been working my ass of managing our monetary system! I deserve a weeks wages!’. No matter if there is interest or not interest on the money, one would have to establish the worth of all the different activities and ‘products’. How to one really do that? Of course, supply and demand, which really is totally manipulatable. One day one guy picks all the bananas and say’s ‘I picked all the bananas, now you have to buy them from me’. And of course, in a matter of days, they rot, the others get’s pissed, war is inevitable.


2. Skip the whole monetary system, get out of their egos and simply contribute where it is needed. And of course, not everyone will be fit to do everything, so the ones who WANT’S to fish and are good at it, they fish. Those who WANT’S to cook and are good at it, they cook. Those who WANT’S to sit and think out better solutions to stuff and share that with the other, do that. And everyone needs places to sleep, so everyone contributes to building bungalows. And yes, there might be discussions and arguments about what works best, who did what and how much. But then again, we are talking about THE EGO’s here, the ones ALL OF US have to get out of. In any case, they won’t have to toil with a monetary system on top of it. It is much much easier for them to simply be humble, helpful and creative and cooperate in building the best world they can for each other there on the island. In fact, they are already living in a paradise with free bananas and coconuts, fish and more. And interacting with this wonderful world and each other gives them tremendous joy. Non of them would ever think of hoarding bananas or fish, to sell to each other later. This would be meaningless. And of course, non of them would claim any of the others beds as ‘theirs’. They would live in a gift economy where no accounts are made on ‘who did what’. Everyone has a conscience that feels if one has been lazy for too long, others will start to grumble and say ‘get of your ass’!

The monetary system is BASED on egoism and indoctrination to a scarcity mindset. It is based on greed. It is based on an illusion. It is based on keeping the population brainwashed as to what is really relevant and necessary in the world. We live in a paradise. But the paradise has been corrupted by money and property.

People DO contribute as needed in many many many many many cases without monetary reward every single day on this planet. The family is one example, where one might cook dinner, while the other is washing clothes. There’s no money or ‘promissory obligations’ involved. Another example would be volunteers on a project, where some might plant trees, while others spread mulch. And true friends help friends every day for free. is a good example of where doctors and nurses contribute as needed without any monetary incentive. A lot of software we have today has been made free of charge. Wikipedia is another example of people who do contribute as needed, where thousands of article writers all over the world share their knowledge for free. And these examples are only a tiny fraction of the millions of people volunteering every day all over the planet in countless projects and fields. If you don’t call that ‘contribute as needed’, I don’t know what is. To me this is outstanding proof that a resource based economy not only will work, but actually is working as we speak.

When it comes to tools and property, I think you misunderstand, Mike. No property doesn’t mean no tools. Why should it mean that? Let’s go back to the desert island again. Every tool they make and use there is of course shared with the ones who need them. The guy who made an axe from a rock, a stick and some straw of course lends his axe to the next person when needed. Why wouldn’t he? And of course, he also teaches others to make the same type of axe. The same goes for the fishing rod, the trunk canoe, the fibre rope, the ladder, the cutting tools and the paddle.

Now, sharing tools is a highly relevant topic in regards to RBE, and to make our world much more efficient and sustainable. If we all had shared a lot of our ‘tools’ (cars, boats, power drills, golf equipment, skis, etc.) instead of each one owning them, we could have managed with a lot less ‘tools’, and thus with a lot less production and strain on the environment. Not to speak of that we would ALL HAVE AN ABUNDANCE OF TOOLS. Instead of one measly drill or an old car we would instead share top super quality items. So, ‘no property’ doesn’t mean ‘no tools’. Quite the contrary. It means much more efficient use of tools. Also, instead of trying to minimize the cost of producing super cheap tools like power drills and such that have a short life span, we could have made only the best possible tools in all areas, lasting many many times longer, since we now would only need a fraction of them. But of course, our monetary system is based on continuous consumption, so to optimize production like this would mean the loss of too many jobs. This might be a bit better with MPE, but a certain amount of continuous consumption must always be there with a monetary system.

You’re right about EGO, though. Ego is not the only reason people do or don’t contribute. Their upbringing and environment is another, just as important, reason. What one is taught to do from childhood is paramount in this regard. And yes, this has nothing to do with ego, but simply how one is ‘programmed’ to think from day one in one’s life. MPE might be a brilliant ‘first step’ to alleviate us all from the devastating banking system and introduce a more human and actually functioning economic system. And we might stick with the ‘MPE’ system for several decades. Still, in the end, a moneyless system is not only possible, but it is the most stress free, natural, uncomplicated and most desirable system we can implement on the planet. When you think about it.