I agree about the conceptual part but there is another part of the money hypnosis: That the bankers that run the central banks can and do give themselves and their corporations as much money as they want for anything. They have infinity money machines. They control the ups and downs of the stock market. Every major organization is corrupt, that was proven in the bust of 2009. Corruption is the MO of the bankers, they buy every govt official, or blackmail them, which was the role of Epstein. The global govt is corruption in action and always has been, in its various forms, whether the British empire or whatever earlier incarnation the overlords of money took. The reason the propaganda goes on so heavily is that they literally buy the reality we are immersed in in media every day. Videos, movies, books -- watch Derren Brown to see how they use subliminal ads to control our thoughts. And they do this all with a system of money that has nothing to do with scarcity or measurements of any kind, it's all controlled by a few families that control the banks and hand themselves whatever they want, while the rest of us are convinced it reflects our worthiness as human beings, if we work hard enough or whatnot. No. It merely reflects how the controllers want it allocated. Anyone living in a Commonwealth country and travelled around to the others will see that similar jobs pay similar wages across these countries. Because it's all controlled via bought govts. Govts are inherently corrupt and function on behalf of their owners.

Expand full comment

Great article! I would just like to add that the demented parrots claiming socialism has never worked are ignoring two basic facts. Socialism works in many small ways even in a capitalist system, and the capitalist war pigs have committed war crimes in the form of bombings, coups, and deadly economic sanctions on dozens of countries with special focus on crushing leftist movements and governments to keep communism and socialism at bay. THAT might have something to do with socialism not rising to the top, eh?

Expand full comment

I really thought we were going to be forced to change our economy and our government due to the pandemic; however, I hadn't (probably still don't) realized just how much suffering the system can ignore.

Expand full comment

Bravo! So glad this has been said! What you suggest is already happening, in a small way. This leftist loves it! The emperor's clothes are gone!

Expand full comment

As always, clearly laid out. Thank you.

As long as the egoic condition dominates our species then so will the impulses to dominate and accumulate.

Identifying with form (limitation) exclusively blocks awareness of our unlimited nature. The ego, because it cannot do otherwise, seeks the world of form in futility for objects and experiences in order to feel fulfilled and


So the “me” keeps acquiring and never feels satisfied. And the survival brain which gets activated by our mental/egoic dysfunction makes us perceive through a hierarchy/dominator lens.

When we move beyond the voice in our heads as an identity we access our unlimited nature which comes with a feeling of wholeness and completeness...and our incessant hoarding and acquiring stops. As do our tendencies to dominate and deceive ( both useful survival mechanisms that would rarely need to be used ).

We then realize that denying anyone their basic biological needs (food/water/shelter/education/healthcare/clean environment/love/creativity) is cruel madness.

Expand full comment

Haven't all human innovations been made up? A little respect for this ancient human innovation (money) please. Just because the monetary system has been captured by the imperialist usurers who issue money as credit for profit and are fucking up the whole world doesn't mean money as it should be (debt-free sovereign money) isn't a vital tool for democratic self-governance. Money is about governance, which is why the power to create it should NOT be in private sociopath's hands, as it has been for the last 500 years. An economy without money is a depression. We need a massive public investment in people and their place, getting people back in touch with the land and their source of sustenance so it can be cared for. Rebuilding the rural economies destroyed by capitalism and its debt-money system. Anyone who thinks this industrial Rube-Goldberg is going anywhere but down in flames isn't paying attention. As Brian Eno said, "We don't face an uncertain future, our future is certain unless we change direction." The current system has no reverse or steering wheel, its locked on a course to extinction. We need a new one going in the opposite direction that has more controls. Distributing wealth organically, not concentrating it artificially. Money should be a permanently circulating asset, not a stupid debt owed to bankers and their capital holders.

Expand full comment

As an alternative to money Copiosis is an extremely promising concept, there website is copiosis.com

Expand full comment

The rules of money and politics are man-made but not always arbitrary. Like everything else people do, it is done in a real physical universe, with better or worse results depending on the degree to which it is in harmony with the laws of the physical universe, which include the laws of biology and the law which governs humans who possess the power of reason, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. noted that humans alone, who possess the power of reason, are able to continually and willfully re-invent their species, and need to do so, or else their power of reason is a liability, not an asset. Why reason, or exercise free will, if your species is going to have fixed characteristics of behavior, as well as body? It would be more efficient, and give natural selective advantage, not to waste time and energy reasoning or willing, if fixed behavioral characteristics are all that are needed, or if the slow changes that occur via biological evolution are sufficient. The re-invention of the species is achieved through discovery of new universal physical principles, and their application in socialized activity, aka progress of science and technology, and progress in human relations that allows more people more freedom to use their power of reason in a beneficial way, while restraining or preventing sociopathic behavior.

By re-inventing our species, we overcome all limits to the growth of our population, our longevity, and our power over the universe, making our species potentially everlasting. For daring to say this, and leading a political movement to put this idea into practice, Lyndon LaRouche was given the Prometheus treatment: he and his associates were jailed and vilified like no other, after several failed assassination attempts.

As the Green New Deal/Great Reset tyranny closes down on us, intending to reduce our population and force us to live short, miserable, unsanitary lives to conserve resources limited by the perverted imaginations of the financial oligarchs pushing this bullshit, study LaRouche's economics. Read his collected works. larouchelegacyfoundation dot org. Or see what his private intelligence agency has produced at larouchepub dot com. Or join his organization at laroucheorganization dot com and get updates.

Expand full comment

Economics is a branch of political science. Politics controls economics (that's why we have left-wing and right-wing economists).

Expand full comment

There once was the study of Political Economy but in the late 19th century big money bought professors and institutions to divide it into Economics (the study of wealth while ignoring power) and Political Science (the study of power while ignoring wealth). Political Economy had been the study of the relationships between wealth and power...now left to independent researchers who are often called cranks or conspiracy theorists. I would say what Martin Van Buren called "the Money Power" (big banks and their capital holders) control both the economics and the politics. We have two parties to keep us sharply divided. Multiple parties would mean more issues brought up and coalitions against the money power could form.

Expand full comment

All we have to do is to decide collectively to change the rules about money? How long have you been trying to change people's minds to get them to agree on something? How well have you succeeded? How well do you think you will succeed in getting people to agree on new rules for money?

Taxes and police power is what gets agreement on the USA dollar in the USA. Then again there used to be a mania for pet rocks, and now crypto-currencies. I suppose anything is possible.

Expand full comment

Right Steve, there is no short-cut around the political issue and money is THE political issue as it is the tool of those who rule which is why it should be a public utility. We have the legislation already written, legally vetted and introduced to the 112th Congress by Dennis Kucinich as the NEED Act HR2990. Few have heard of it apparently but it is why he lost his seat in his next race as money's minions gerrymandered him out. Yes, the 'banks' needed to get control of governments to protect their privilege and it is extremely profitable as the Princeton Study indicates. (a 670% ROI) All revolutions are conflicts over an agreement about who rules, who issues the money, how and for what? The American and French revolutions were both funded by printing revolutionary money and both were attacked by the Bank of England who counterfeited billions of them to devalue them and to force them into debt. Right, they won. Now it is time they lose, can we get enough agreement to make that happen?

Expand full comment

Actually Caitland, there are many who can succinctly explain money and economy clearly without ambiguity. The problem is that the vast majority are not willing to take the effort to understand.

Money and ťhe economy are different things but understanding the economy requires the acceptance of a medium of exchange which humanity universally refers to as money.

The 'value' of any currency relative to any other currency is determined by those who wish to exchange one for the other.

Your basic premise is correct. Money is purely a mental exercise of value. Thus 3000 Indonesian Rupiah is worth 1 Australian dollar (to an Australian, for example). Pretty much arbitrarily. Unless you're the Australian wishing to vacation in Indonesia. If you don't accept the premise, don't go.

On the other hand 3 $U.S. will get you 10$AUS (roughly). Purely arbitrary. Sort of. The value is determined by the market place and the market place is the economy. Exchange of goods and services. If you don't like it, you are free to leave the market. At any time. If sufficient numbers of people quit the Market, the market fails. In that respect you are also correct. We are all free to 'quit the market at any time.

But, if you quit the market the next time you want Durham wheat for your pasta, you will only be able to get it if you are in a certain area of Canada. And, unless you grow it yourself, you will need something to trade for it.

That is the economy (or market).

The problem isn't money. It is politics. Humanity has surrendered their rights to self-determination to the politicians because of expediency and (honestly speaking) fundamental laziness.

And the fundamental problem with current politics and politicians (almost universally) is a complete lack of honesty ( or perhaps integrity). Our current (severely flawed) system has evolved over centuries (millenia?) with many digressions and wanderings. Is it broken? I think so. Can we fix it? I have little hope that we can. The solution? If you can get critical mass of people to set aside their fundamental laziness and arrive at and agree to a workable alternative, in an unreasonably short time frame, yes.... or move to New Zealand (if they would have you!!).

More likely... crash and burn. And a phoenix rising from the ashes.

Expand full comment

It is not arbitrary. There has to be an agreement between buyer and seller for a trade to be carried out. This is how markets work.

Expand full comment

Its so strange that people have been trained not to understand money. Aristotle explained it pretty well, it is a social power embodied in law as an unconditional payment system. For most of civilization’s history it has played two roles:

1. An exchange medium for facilitating economic activity (it is just money)

2. An instrument of power capable of dominating the market (the hidden hand)

Well today it dominates pretty much everything including public policy. See monetaryalliance.org. We are governed by unelected power.

Expand full comment

In this I use arbitrary as being governed by forces beyond my specific control. Unless I trade in significantly high volumes as a buyer, or seller, I accept the posted rate or I decline the trade.

Expand full comment

Caity, you're on fire. When people talk about money around me, I always begin with three words that define it: "Money is debt." Everything we need to know about money derives from that simple formula. So yes, debt is "made up" by and within our relationships, and we can change those relationships of debt at anytime we agree to do so.

Expand full comment

What a great essay, Caitlin. Thank you for writing it. I am someone who is actively working on changing minds about these topics, I started over a decade ago, written a few books, many essays, blogs, films, even music. I'm wondering if you would mind having a look at my work? I'll send you to two links, the first is my essay about "getting rid of money" https://www.hypermanipulation.com/2013/12/on-money.html

the second is my current philosophy Existential Intentionality in Society, which is a downloadable book and website, including podcasts. Access everything at www.exint.org

I am casually seeking like-minded individuals to talk to about these things, but also create content for each other, helping get the message out there. So far I have found Colin Turner and his work with freeworldeconomy and free access economy. And now you.

Perhaps if you think we are both on the same page we could have a chat, leading to publication, or maybe you could be a voice in my podcast, for an interview, or more.

I'll go befriend you on facebook now, name is Brian Taylor.

Regardless of any future communications, do please keep up the good work.

Expand full comment

Better to democratize money than to get rid of it. An economy without money is a depression. Money is an ancient human innovation that emerged with the division of labor.

Expand full comment

Future by Design (2006) Official Full Movie




The Choice is Ours (2016) Official Full Version


Introduction to a Resource Based Economy


Resource Based Economy vs. Today's Monetary System


Jacque Fresco - Introduction to Sociocyberneering - Larry King (1974)








Expand full comment

In the US system, as in ALL plutocratic systems, money is power and authority. Both money and power are enabled by fear -- fear of deprivation and disapproval, of people and pathogens. Through a number of decisions over the decades, SCOTUS has decreed that groups of people, like corporations, have all the same rights as individual human beings, and that spending money is a form of speech. Money as speech has closed a cycle by enabling people with obscene amounts of money to yell loud enough to dominate narratives that use fear to convince people to comply to authority. Authority then demands policies that allocate more money (power) to the people already in control. We must not allow fear to keep that cycle closed. Take off your masks. The first step is to declare yourself medically exempt, which is allowed by most state mandates, is very loosely defined and requires no documentation or response to questions by store employees. Such exemptions are required by the Americans with Disabilities Act and HIPAA.

The weak link in the cycle is that money is speech. That leak can be broken through a Constitutional Amendment declaring that spending money is not speech, but that isn't likely to happen. However, Power made a mistake by creating the internet and social media, giving individuals with limited amounts of money an opportunity to be heard widely, thus boosting the power of individuals toward a level rivaling that of corporations and obscenely wealthy individuals. People have shown a growing inclination to believe penniless individuals who have no obvious conflict of interest but a dedication to Truth as they see it, rather than corporate "voices," dedicated to the maintenance of their own power, which have been proven to be serial liars. It has reached the point where the "money is speech" link may be broken regardless of political power over law and precedent. That's why there is now so much emphasis being placed on censoring speech contrary to official narratives. We must not allow that to happen. We must wean ourselves from monopoly social media like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube and embrace platforms with a track record of openness and the websites of individuals. We must support those sources through financial contributions and by following and listening. We must fight all attempts to shut them down. We must eventually abandon all platforms that censor contributors and turn off corporate media.

Expand full comment

Ms. Johnstone! You are one of a literal handful of people who properly gets all of this! Thank you for this precise, beautiful analysis!

We need to strike at the core stories effectively. What I'm trying to do now is build an Universal Basic Income monetary system from scratch -- from human subjectivity itself.

In any case, there's a lot of people involved in a movement called Crypto UBI: http://cryptoubi.org

Expand full comment

You'd be better off campaigning for universal basic services. UBI schemes accept the power of money in a capitalist system.


Expand full comment

We don't want the Neoliberal UBI!

We are for the actually Universal, Unconditional Basic Income!


It is a huge mistake to just hand out the Basic Income story to the neoliberals on a platter and go away because we are too lazy to think about it properly.

Expand full comment

I'm not convinced by the arguments for a UBI. There are several problems from a socialist perspective:

- it entrenches capitalism even further. What will the UBI be spent on, if not goods and services in the private sector provided by capitalist corporations? "UBI is not just a left-wing idea, it has also long been advocated for by parts of the right-wing, such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. The goal is to use UBI to do away with the social welfare state. Instead of social programs citizens are given minimum cheques by the state and then purchase their social needs on the market. UBI will not be used to decommodify social relations, but used to desocialize state services."

- (from a US critique) A UBI that’s financed primarily by tax increases would require the American people to accept a level of taxation that vastly exceeds anything in U.S. history. It’s hard to imagine that such a UBI would advance very far, especially given the tax increases we’ll already need for Social Security, Medicare, infrastructure, and other needs.

- Inflation: If workers in large enough numbers are able to sit outside of the labour market and sustain their basic needs capitalism would cease to function. UBI naively assumes that capitalists and the state would not respond politically and economically to the changing market condition of labour. The logic of capitalism would push capitalists to at the very least raise wages and increase prices on goods and services. The ultimate goal would be to compel workers back into the labour market, and make them dependent on selling their labour power in order to live.

- Increasing relative poverty: If you take the money targeted on people in the bottom fifth or two-fifths of the population and convert it to universal payments to people all the way up the income scale, you’re redistributing income upward. That would increase poverty and inequality rather than reduce them.

- It's not been shown to work: "Research conducted for Public Services International, a global trade union federation, reviewed for the first time 16 practical projects that have tested different ways of distributing regular cash payments to individuals across a range of poor, middle-income and rich countries, as well as copious literature on the topic.

It could find no evidence to suggest that such a scheme could be sustained for all individuals in any country in the short, medium or longer term – or that this approach could achieve lasting improvements in wellbeing or equality. The report concludes that the money needed to pay for an adequate UBI scheme “would be better spent on reforming social protection systems, and building more and better-quality public services”. Redistributing the personal tax allowance and developing the idea of universal basic services (UBS) could offer a more promising alternative. This calls for more and better quality public services that are free to those who need them, regardless of ability to pay. Healthcare and education are obvious examples, and it is argued that a similar approach should be applied to areas such as transport, housing, social care and information – everyday essentials that should be available to all. Collective provision offers more cost-effective, socially just, redistributive and sustainable ways of meeting people’s needs than leaving individuals to buy what they can afford in the marketplace."

Expand full comment