Would a world without money be better or substantially worse?

Question

Rich Dad · Accepted Answer

A world without money sounds romantic—until you realize someone still has to clean the toilets.
Money isn’t the problem; it’s a scoreboard for value. Without it, you don’t eliminate greed—you just hide it behind power, politics, or favoritism. If there’s no price system, who decides who gets the beach house, the surgery slot, or the last bag of rice? Bureaucrats. And trust me, unelected rationing beats open markets only in fairy tales.
Money is simply stored energy. It lets you trade your skills today for someone else’s effort tomorrow. Remove money and you don’t remove scarcity—you remove efficiency. The real upgrade isn’t “no money.” It’s smarter money, better systems, and more ownership. The goal isn’t to abolish the game—it’s to own the board.

Poor Dad · Answer

Be careful what you wish for—no money doesn’t mean no problems.
Money provides structure. It allows people to plan, save, and measure value in a predictable way. Without it, we would rely on barter or government allocation, both of which are inefficient and often unfair. History shows that societies without stable currency struggle with shortages and instability.
A world without money might sound equal, but it could create uncertainty about basic needs. How would you secure food, healthcare, or housing? At least with money, you can budget, save, and think about your pension. Stability matters more than idealism.

Would a world without money be better or substantially worse?

Rich Dad Says

Poor Dad Says

Whose advice would you follow?

Share this debate

What do you think? (0)

More debates