Bitcoin Forum

For the last few years I have seen a lot of talk about how de-monetizing basic life requirements are trending to de-monetized model.

The premise is that things like entertainment are becoming cheaper and better.  People under 30 consume more youtube than cable TV and that number is only getting larger by the year.  Those users consume that entertainment virtually free.  In order to make videos, capture pictures, have an audio entertainment system and make phone calls all took an individual piece of hardware and costs thousands of dollars not so long ago.  Now all of those are integrated into a device you carry in your pocket and if you don't need the latest $1-2k model you can have it fairly cheap. 

It's been suggested that things like housing could also trend this way.  As automated cars and potential for 3D travel (above or below ground) and the increasing ability to work remotely its hypothesized people will be able to live farther and farther from city center's (great for places like USA and CAN which have plenty of rural land while still having overcrowded city centers).  This suggestion also helps to spread work out of the city centres as there is more need for spin off local business to support larger rural communities.

The auto industry could trend to de-monetization as well, polls show most millenials don't want to own a car (and for good fucking reason, motherfucking money pits!), community vehicle sharing could bring TCO for commuters down a lot.  Autonomous cars that sit in the parking lot all day and the driveway all night doing nothing could be efficiently put to use.

I'm curious about this trend in education, is it possible that education could follow this trend?  I wonder more about at the collegiate level could remote learning take over?  I don't think it makes sense for K through high school as socialization is far to important to get rid of physical schools.  There is a lot of talk about free college education in the US ATM perhaps the answer to this is to have an online government program that provided a college degree.  1 Professor could reach millions of students and the curriculum could be controlled. 

Cheating would be a problem (someone else doing your work) but having a camera recording a person at test time that are randomly verified could help and I'm sure some smart people could help work on rules to reduce cheating as much as possible.

It would certainly be a lot cheaper option than the ones being proposed by some 2020 candidates.

But their platforms, superficially about free stuff, are really about gaining power and control over the populations.

Education is long overdue for disruptive innovation. That's not going to come from ANY organized power structure or government entity.

We are already set up legally for just such a thing.  Happy days!

  https://youtu.be/jk8eKUvFxCM?t=992 (https://youtu.be/jk8eKUvFxCM?t=992)

The question was from a Norwagian guy who said that his government had finally gotten religion out of government, and how were they going to explain to the peeps to turn around and put it right back in?

But anyway, sure enough;  we in the U.S. have had 'education day' here in the United States for a long time.  All the way back to Regan, and every president since has reaffirmed it.  And our 'education day' specifically honors this guys 'plan' for everyone in the world, and the person who this guy's group (which includes Ivanka and Jarred Kushner) sometimes consider their messiah.


I'll reserve judgement on that until all the cards are played.

you will never achieve that the reason lies in the concentration of wealth, others that have more influence and more power will systematically try to change the social ressources that provide common security towards their private wealth gain. just look at bitcoin, it was privately created in a financial system that was forced to serve the population

Bitcoin and crypto are practically devaluating the means of production and productivity.

all factories, real estate that produce wealth become completely worthless due to bitcoin and crypto.

Basic needs will have to be provided soon or  society will be in chaos.

Young generations can't even afford homes and cars.  Wages have been dropping while productivity has been increasing.  The wealth is going right to the top, trickle down economics is a complete lie.

What constitutes basic life needs, and who get to decide?  Does a cell phone count as a basic life need?  Does a car count?  I live out in the boonies and have to commute 15 miles to work.  I need a phone and a car.  I don't want just any phone, or just any car.  I want an android smart phone with lots of memory, and a Mercedes.  Do those qualify as basic life needs?  I don't eat just any chicken, I want free range chicken, and grass-fed beef.  Does that count?

You don't understand the concept of de-monetization.  This isn't about someone choosing what is or isn't a basic life requirement.  This is about a market that will change due to supply and demand redistribution.

Go ahead and buy whatever car or phone you want, but 1 example is that as cars become more autonomous it will allow people to live further from their place of employment, if that person chooses to buy a Lambo or a Lada to make their commute is entirely up to them but because they can work for the entire commute they can live an extra half hour away from work and can afford a larger home because it is outside the more expensive city centre.  If that person can also work remote 2 or 3 days a week they can live even further from work.

As far as phones go if you want a 2k smart phone go ahead and get one but at some point a company like amazon is going to start giving out smart phones free if you just use their platform enough,  that doesn't mean awesome expensive cell phones are all of a sudden illegal it just means that most people wont want are give a fuck about a $2k smart phone and will take the free good phone all day long.

De-monetizing isn't some socialist or communist boogey man coming to take away your choices, it is in fact possible because of free market systems.  The market wants youtube which is the ultimate de-monetization model.  Youtube has accelerated the de-monetization of entertainment.  In the olden days you need thousands of dollars of equipment and millions of dollars to broadcast on the TV.  Now days anyone with a cell phone and internet connection can get millions of viewers.

Entertainment is a basic human need, and it is quickly becoming de-monetized for the viewers, as this trend continues and happens in other markets I am curious what affects it will have.  What the market chooses as "entertainment" well the people will ultimately decide by participation...

I agree you tube radically altered music.
Some what altered tv/cable viewing.

Netflix is monetized and altered movie viewing.
May I use your NF password has reduced the money angle.
Amazon prime has free viewing and is a way to make entertainment free.

But ultimately all the entertainment above is not really money free.
I pay to get the internet in my home. So I am paying for entertainment just a little bit more removed then buying a 45 single and playing it on a record player.
I pay for a quality pc to give me good internet streaming.
I pay for a big screen tv
I pay for a home theatre.


So the only part changed is not buying the cd or dvd or blue ray. But I pay cable to get a fast internet.
And I still steam video from Netflix amazon prime and rent a few blu rays from Netflix.

Even if i fully go to YouTube and Facebook.
While
Never watch cable tv
Never watch a dvd or blu Ray.
Never use Netflix.
Or amazon prime
Or Hulu

I still paid for internet.

So it is not quite demonitized

To me it sounds like you don't understand human nature.  Government cheese, is unsatisfactory.  People want more.  They are willing to work for more.  We all benefit, as a society, as a species when one of us achieves.  Without the motivation, (and freedom from over-taxation,) we wouldn't know who Karl Benz, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs are.



I will buy whatever car I want, and I can afford to as long as politicians stop thinking they know more than I how my money should be spent.



Yes, the proletariat can just have the Amazon phone, the google phone, or what ever corporate shaft they want to accept.  This is socialism, you are only substituting a corporation for a government.  Not very progressive of you to support a capitalist corporation.  



How can demonetizing anything not be socialist or communist?  Who's paying the wages of those providing health care, education, and happy endings?  They still need to earn enough for their basic life needs.  And if they are earning nothing but their basic life needs what motivates anybody to pursue careers in those services?



That's a ridiculous example, and I'm sorry but you're wrong.  Advertisement is not demonetized, and without it you would have nothing "free" to watch.

Look, there's no such thing as free.  We all need to work for what we need and want.  The entire human species benefits from our individual achievements, even when those achievements are motivated by greed.

Fully de-monetized no of course not, but the cost is trending down.  I wasn't trying to suggest it's done either. Having an expensive computer and entertainment system is great for home if you choose but what about the barn, office, shop, car, cottage, or any other place you go, audio entertainment is cheap as hell if you just use your phone and a speaker.  This kind of entertainment is the basics so to speak, anyone wanting or able to afford whatever they want is free to do so.  Those who can't afford it or don't care for quality or don't need quality in every situation will take the "basics" available and they will be the staple for the majority, Honda sells more cars than Rolls Royce!

You also can't deny that producing certain popular content is now virtually free by comparison to just a couple of decades ago. Producing TV content was/is expensive (hardware and airwaves) but producing content and accessing millions upon millions now is as easy as point a phone and press the screen a few times.

I am most curious about the trend, not the specific entertainment industry.  Can the trend apply to something like urban crowding?  What factors will allow people (US and CAN's in particular) to move out of the city centres but still allow them to engage the city centres for things like work and entertainment.  If I can live 150 miles out side the city centre but still have access to the city centre in less than 30 mins (by way of flying cars, transporter, tunnel, magic gorilla or whatever) imagine how many people have the option to live outside the downtown cores.  This would ultimately slow property demand in the downtown cores and distribute it to more rural area's.  How far can this go in the future as travel becomes easier and faster and remote work more prevalent will property value in the cores trend down while rural sections trend up.  I have to assume this isn't happening any time soon but the faster we can move bodies the more we can spread out!

You must be younger then me ;D

"magic gorilla" I like that

I am USA based in between NYC and Philadelphia.

Tech allows for some stuff to get to be cheap.
It also is used to do the opposite.  Apple  makes designer hi end  over priced gear and it sells like mad.

They will take the folding phone tech from samsung and put it on the iPhone 2020    charge 3 k  and get buyers.

I will stick with my tracfone  models always two years behind.


and other will be inbetween those choices.

Companies have sold hardware at a loss just to get it in the hands of the users.  One example that comes to mind is Sony and the playstation.  It makes perfect sense to hand out free Amazon tablets or google phones, the amount they will make from all that data will outweigh the costs.

This sounds like a nightmare to us environmentalists.  More sprawl means more habitat destruction, more fragmentation, and more unnecessary trips.
 Sure, that kind of travel can improve but the ideal situation is to not need the trips at all.  Even if people are working remotely, food and waste have to be shipped to and from these decentralized populations which is extremely inefficient.  We need to put boundaries up on all land that isn't already devleoped and encourage people to live in communities that are much more dense than the typical north american community.  An automated electriv vehicle is never going to be as efficient as electric public transportation or....walking.  I'm curious if this is your idea or it came from somewhere else.

I appreciate you thinking I would be smart enough to identify something like this but no it isn't my idea.  The de-monetization (from the consumers POV since one poster up thread doesn't understand what de-monetizing actually means) of the entertainment industry is very well documented and I have seen some people asking if this trend could be seen in markets like real estate when/if we are able to move humans at a much higher rate of speed and ease than we can now.

Walking, bike riding or public transit are all pipe dreams in north america, it's too fucking cold in the winter (in the north anyways) and too spread out for those to be the default forms of transportation but 2+ cars in every driveway that sit 90% of the time in a work parking lot or home driveway is grossly inefficient.  There is a spot in between those 2 that is much more efficient while still allowing people privacy and flexibility, the market will eventually determine where that spot is as more options become available.  The majority of millenials don't want to own a car but they want the advantages of having one, autonomous cars will allow things like that to be a reality, and it's only the beginning!

I'm curious about whether _your_ ideas came from somewhere else?  Actually, I'm pretty sure they did.

Seems to me increasingly clear that 'communism' is almost completely built and propped up by 'uber-capitalists' who already wrung out all of the wealth (meaning 'control') that that system can produce.  Or who saw it coming.  'Communism' is inevitably a tiny group of insiders who are completely unaccountable to the peeps and can (and do) do amazingly substantive things which spring from their minds be it building 'ghost cities' or implementing mass genocide.  China is the most modern example yet. It isn't difficult to understand the appeal to the totalitarian mind who have 'earned' their rights to the earth and it's wealth.

To the extent that there are non-elite people doing the bidding of the ruling elite, they are so gummed up with inefficiency and protocol that they could not really do anything independent (or threatening to the system) even if they took a mind to.

'Agenda 21' is a system where humans are confined to a small number of concentrated 'human habitats' and the 'wildlands' (pools of wealth) are occupied transiently only by well surveiled  harvesters working for the elite.  This seems to be exactly where your mind is at.  And you are certainly not alone.

It is a lot easier to "de-monetize" information which can be copied infinitely than it is to do so with real commodities and property. If people could download a house I am sure it would work just fine though. Also the point is to push everyone into the city centers so they can be continually monitored and robbed by land pirates. Living outside city centers means independence. Those who run things are intentionally creating systems of dependence. They love people like FlyingHellfish that can easily be steered into serving their goals in the name of the greater good never knowing they are building their own cage piece by piece.

People do forget that there is no real demonetization going on, it's a shifting of where the payment is coming from. As when you go on youtube and watch cute cat videos as part of your entertainment instead of watching a movie at a theater -- you're the person that is being monetized. Ads are being pushed on you to buy items, so people are still making money from you from your entertainment -- just in a different way than before. So now you're not directly paying for the item, though you are paying with the information about you which is being sold to marketers to sell to you.

There is without a doubt a lot of fat to be cut in certain industries -- such as in the auto industry. This is an industry which is plagued with middlemen which are just making the process more expensive when it doesn't need to be so. In a perfect world, you could buy directly from the manufacturer and save upwards of 15-20 percent on buying a new car (I'd have to look into the link for the study of this) Though car dealerships have long lobbied against this happening. People also fail to understand that there is LITTLE TO NO REASON TO EVER BUY A NEW CAR. Always buy used, and buy something that isn't going to be expensive to fix (Toyota)

Housing -- I can't think of any way to do this off the top of my head, I'd have to look into it further.

The current EDU system is the biggest scam in all of America (and the rest of the world for that matter) You go to class for years to get a piece of paper showing that you learned how to do x, but when you get a job you really have no real clue how to do that sort of work and you're going to be learning most if not everything on the job. I'm not saying higher education is useless, though there must be a better and cheaper way to do this.

That's my 2c.

^ Cars today aren't built to last, its planned obsolescence.  BMW, Mercedes, and other luxury cars are the biggest moneypits out there.  Old Toyotas and Hondas are two of the few cars that actually last a long time.

It won't be too long until we have automation that can pump out housing really quickly.  We still have a major crisis going on in America, there are 9 vacant homes for every homeless person.  It doesn't help society when ivnestors buy up houses just to leave them vacant.

Everything is going to sound economical but cost of living is killing people economically too aside from the areas you've mentioned above. Basic commodities are to high as well as the gadgets you've mentioned above like cellphones will need thousand dollar and more compared to the traditional ways of communications which will almost not cost you money for the device you are using but only for the minutes you spend. Like digital cameras will not cost you film to have pictures but the camera itself will cost you a lot of money. I don't know if we are indeed going cheap or we are just upgrading to a more easy and convenient lifestyle with no less cost.

the question will be as long as some create money and take what they want, why should others work at all and not join them creating money and take what they want.

the deegalitarinisation and privatisation of wealth, will destroy large portions of the worlds socioeconomic infrastructure and fabric.

bitcoin was the arrow into the achilese verse of the liberal american empire.

You mean we need to build walls?

Urban growth boundaries are imaginary boundaries meant to stop development but not stop people from moving through the planet.  They actually do the opposite.  Everyone and no one owns the rural land and anyone can walk wherever they please but cannot change the land.  The lack of such boundary allows people to "buy" the land and change it, hoard it, or destroy it completely. 

Why would anyone 'destroy completely' land which they own?  I don't destroy the rural land I own, and nobody else I know does either.  It makes no sense.

On the other hand, people use my land sometimes to access the river.  They overturn the rocks in the river looking for crayfish and leave trash all over the place.  I finally had enough of it and put up no-trespassing signs.  Since then the problems went away.

I do allow fishermen to access the river through my property.  Once in a while a fisherman will leave some trash, but the next fisherman will usually pick it up.

Completely unrelated to this entire thread, but #WallsWork?

Tvbcof, I'd ignore coins4commies if you want to try to keep some of your brain cells. There's no way that this person isn't just spewing shit that they know little to nothing about in an attempt to get people to think that he's intelligence -- though it's not working in the least.

Even better. Every word he speaks is a brick in his own ideological tomb. Some times it is not about convincing your debate partner but rather every one else reading.

Bingo!

The guy predictably spouts very standardized orthodox modern-day-liberal stuff which bounces around in that echo chamber.  Most of it is absurd and falls to logic easily.  When people do this I sometimes use it as an opportunity to provide counter-arguments.  Of course many of these counter-arguments are pretty standard and pretty worn out as well a lot of times.

In the Internet age, "intellectual property" of all kinds is an especially good fit for demonetization because if it's too difficult or expensive to get people will just "pirate" it, delivery is free/cheap anyway, and it's easy to attach ads to it. I'm not so sure that this trend extends to tangible property, at least not in the same way. I have heard that the younger generations are more inclined to live cheaply, rent instead of buy, etc., but I wonder whether this is an actual change in demand or just due to lack of opportunities / purchasing-power. To the extent that people actually are spending less money to achieve the same life-satisfaction, this is a very positive trend which will lead to increased overall productivity.


In my experience, most (not all) university classes are basically taught from the textbook. If you have the discipline to self-study a textbook, then it has roughly the same effectiveness in many cases. For courses which fall into this category, university is mostly a motivational tool to get you to really study the book so that you get decent grades and don't waste your tuition. Considering the high university drop-out rate and student loan debt in the US, better and less expensive motivational tools may exist...

Furthermore, I think that both high schools and universities aren't worthwhile for the vast majority of people who go to them. The exact path which each person would be best-off taking varies, but IMO the average person would be better-off dropping out of high school ASAP and then combining a part-time job with self-study, online courses, community college courses, etc. in their areas of interest. Education is important, but high school especially is 90% babysitting and only 10% education - a big waste of time.

People destroy the land they own for the same reason they do anything in a capitalist system.  

People like me do not see intelligence as virtue.  That position correlates with conservatism. Signaling intelligence would be of no benefit to someone with my worldview.  For someone like me, none of this is personal, and at end of the day, is all about he greater good.   I am in fact, doing the opposite of being a "know it all".  I am here to show I am ignorant to how this demographic views the world and how you hold on to your opinions despite what I, and the overwhelming majority of people I interact with view as undeniable facts.   I want to learn how you guys think and unpack all of the stereotypes elites in academia hold against you. I'm simply here to learn through discussion.

For example, tecshare thinks all of psychology is illegitimate and I have no idea how someone could arrive at that line of thinking and so far, despite a ton of interactions with him, I lack the social intelligence to understand his thought processes. Most of the people I deal with on a daily would immediately dismiss anyone who denies science as not worth having a discussion with.  Coming on the internet is the rare time I get to interact with people who think the earth is flat, vaccines cause autism, and climate change isn't real.  I know they exist around me but they wouldn't dare admit it in the world of academia.

It's not clear at all what you might be referring to as "destroying the land."

...Recalling fond memories of working in coal strip mining areas....

But if we place everyone in strait-jackets, all our problems will be solved.

 ;D

You know what really destroys lands? Communism. Take a walk around China and tell me what you see. In a place where the government runs everything, commonly owned wealth such as land is stripped of any value and abused maximally because that is literally one of the only opportunities they have to make their lives better. They see it and they take it. They waste it and abuse it because it is not their personal responsibility to maintain it. Much like a rental car you have it for a short time and people are free to beat on it and abuse it until it is returned. This is a well known pattern often referred to "the tragedy of the commons".

"People like me do not see intelligence as virtue."

We kind of figured that as much Captain Postmodern. It is just sad that you think logic and intelligence are only for conservatives, but who am I to argue. I never once said "All of psychology is illegitimate.", I said social sciences are BARELY within the realm of science, and Critical Theory is illegitimate being the lowest tier of this lowest form of "science", not actually being science at all but political ideology with a thin superficial veneer of science.

Academia can go fuck itself, they have shown themselves repeatedly to be infested with the enemies of the people and this nation. They will be lucky to be free and breathing in another 10 years once people realize what they have been doing to their children. No one would dare make any of those admissions in academia because they would instantly lose their careers and be blacklisted by the new brown shirts that call themselves academia. You live in an echo chamber. You poo poo at intelligence then proceed to claim to be on the side of science. You claim to want the betterment of the common good but you promote totalitarian policies. If a word challenges your world view, you invent a new definition for it. You don't need debate, you need a therapist.

forget what you are dreaming about, we have open financial market now, not constructive communism/socialism,

now the spammers rule it.

economic sabotage and destruction of structures will become the norm

Nothing that a nice wall won't solve nicely.

I think it's the opposite. It seems to me that 13-14 year old children in 2019 are no longer children, they have become consumers. Victims of marketing and social networks. I'm agree with you about "rent instead of buy", but I think it's not because of a lack of money, it's more like the next generation's priorities have changed. Most people do not think about the future, but about what they see in social networks, in the style of "Live fast, here and now!".

I think that today's young people have many more opportunities thanks to the Internet. For most of these young people, the Internet is just a part of life, they perceive it as a thing that should exist on its own.

If we look at the history of the creation of compulsory public schools, we find that the main motive was not abstract altruism, but a specific desire to give the masses of people the qualities that meet the ideas and desires of those in power. Disobedient minorities had to be part of the majority, and the entire population had to be instilled with civic virtues, the most important of which had always been obedience to the apparatus of power. If it is decided that the masses will be educated in public schools, how could these schools not be a powerful tool for building loyalty to public authorities?  :)

I studied at a bad school, then at a bad university (which then quit). And now I'm studying. I'm studying online, I'm only studying what I'm interested in. But not for the sake of a piece of paper (or plastic) which is called a diploma, but for myself.

With that in mind though, the only reason that education is really needed is because employers deem it necessary. As it's an easy way to be able to weed out employees that aren't qualified -- that's the same reason that colleges and universities make prospective students take the SAT/ACT, as it's an easy and cheap way for them to weed out students without having to develop a model to 'standardize' grade from around the entire country.

Education could be changed INSTANTLY and FOREVER, through the people in business saying the simple words of 'fuck that' lets just hire people based on character and whatever other criteria they deem appropriate compared to a degree on a piece of paper. Though -- I doubt that's going to change that quickly, unless the people in business start to notice a degradation in quality in the workforce of those that have degrees.

Those in all sectors benefit from the current bloated education system. Those in government are able to promise large amounts of benefits for those going to college, such as guaranteed loans from the federal government, TO EVEN A POTENTIAL FOR FREE COLLEGE (Bernie). Government officials are able to say that they're getting more and more people into college, the general population then keeps voting these people into power.

But wait, there's more people that are benefiting from the current (screwed up) system. Colleges! They've become more and more top-heavy in the past couple decades. In simple terms, this means that they've been increasing the amount of administrators at their schools  while barely increasing the amount of professors and other teaching staff. They've also been able to increase prices for education, as guaranteed loans from the federal government mean they're going to get paid no matter what.

But that's not all, the banks who are sending out these loans are also able to make a good amount of money on the interest payments on these kids that are going to colleges for absorbiant amounts of money. Don't forget, GUARANTEED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

People forget that in the real world, (most likely) those that are going into college with no income aren't going to be able to get a loan for 40k a year with no proof of future income -- though the Federal Government guarantees loans (which is popular with the voters, so EVERYONE can go to college) so the banks don't care about what they're signing off on as they know they're getting paid either way.

But who gets fucked in this situation, the taxpayer, and the kids that are left in gross amounts of debt. Taxpayers are paying for these people to go to college before they're able to pay (as you don't make one payment before you actually leave college) and the future grads (or maybe they won't even graduate) are stuck in an exorbitant amount of debt for an education that is necessary to get a job but probably wasn't 'worth it' if you look at the amount they paid. What a crazy world we live in.

Everyone makes money, and there's no reason to change. I think I may make a individual thread where we can talk about education and policy surrounding it, seems interesting.

OP started with concept of free entertainment (though I do not think it free when your habits and data getting collected and there is huge market of data) . Companies are willing to provide so many things for free  like Maps ( Google Maps) , email I'd, VoIP phones  etc.
If you look closely , whatever  you see free is generally digital goods or related to digital product.
I did not see anything physical that is free . Actually cost of physical good is increasing and cost of digital goods is decreasing.
I do not think you will be going to get free car or  house , although education can be cheaper in future.

No it's not "Free." So let's not call it "free," if it is actually more enslaving.

If it is free, you are the product.

Demonetizing education would be a disaster, in my opinion.  It's already been hijacked by leftest who use it as an opportunity to indoctrinate our youth.  There's little incentive for a success driven individual to pursue a career in education.  As it is it attracts the those we gen-Xers termed as "slackers."  Providing the best service, or good value is rarely within the capabilities of government agencies.  It's almost exclusively limited to private enterprise steeped in healthy competition.




Or they expect you to be the sucker.  Remember when they used to give away pneumatic nail guns?  They charged so much for the nail strips that the nails cost almost $0.25 each.

Actually I see some promising open source educational systems. I am going to wager a guess you are referring to state subsidized "free" education, not literal lesson plans available for use for all on the internet. Now as far as certifications go, I agree there needs to be some kind of standard setting authority to weed the incompetent people out. We should not however confuse free with government funded, and education with a certification or a degree. They are not always the same thing.

As for the de-monetization of basic life requirements--when we get to the point when actual labor is no longer required we'll be nearing the end of scarcity.

Free: The Future of a Radical Price by Chris Anderson <---one of the few relatively current authors who reference Adam Smith except that he get's him right.


Wish more people with "strong opinions" would read this book
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt



There is value in attending university beyond learning and degrees---you create a network, friends ect.

Udemy and Coursera offer online courses for free with the option to pay for course completion certificates.

why dont you first try to establish this "demonetisation of basic life requirement in venezuela or other poor countries?

the truth is that no one that runs the infrastructure that provide those goods, will continue to work.

You're suspicions are correct, I was indeed using the word "demonetization" as a socialist might; code for "taxing the shit out of you giving you very little in return."

I agree there are so many ways to educate one's self available for free on the internet these days, it's really a marvelous time if you are able to take advantage of it.  Coding, astronomy, science, mathematics, language, all can be learned for free.

Demonitization has occurred hugely; if you take the right time spans. A person used to have to travel hundreds of miles walking or on horse to get to a library. There might have been a few street performers playing music, but the fancy music was only for the wealthy.

Even in the 1990s, if you wanted to look up patents, you had to go to a library with the repository.

All of Wikipedia can be put on a computer or card < 100 gb, and freely given out.

That is actually a really good point. The quality of life has increased SO MUCH because of technological innovation brought about by free market competition. We have gone from struggling every day to do simple things like eat and travel, to making them so inexpensive, available, and taken for granted that the same effort needed to live now is demanded by some people to be completely free. Some times it amazes me how little people appreciate what they have. Unfortunately everyone is going to learn soon the hard way...