Abolishing and Eliminating Currency is a viable proposal.

Logistics is not important. Whether it can be done has nothing to do with whether it should be done. I'd like to point out that in order for my opponent to win this debate, he must now prove that there will be specialists in his new economy. He grants that in order for an economy to thrive specialists are necessary. If he fails to do that, he deserves to lose. Now I must discuss why people won't desire specialty. This is probably going to take up all my space...if not you may see more arguments. I'm going to be very clear in how economies work. In order to start a small business, I must invest my own money into it. Whether this be in the form of a loan to be repaid or money I've saved is irrelevant. That business then competes with others like it with the consumers that deem my service or goods necessary or desirable. Note, my business is responding to the consumer, not the other way around. There are many reasons why a consumer might choose my business over another. The first of which is cost. If I'm a lower price than my competition, I'll get more business. The second reason is quality. If my product is better than my competition's, I'll get more business. The third is location. If I'm closer and easier to access than my competition, I'll get more business. The final reason I will succeed over my competition is customer service. If I value my customers and treat them how they desire, then I'll get more business. Those are the four reasons why businesses succeed. There is a fifth, but it's luck, so...whatever. Typically, in order for me to do any of those four things, I have to invest more money. If I want a cheaper product, I must produce more of them in order to keep up with costs. If I want a higher quality product then I must invest more money into production. If I want a better locale, then I must buy up a high traffic area, and those are expensive. If I want great customer service, then I must pay my employees at a level where they're happy to come to work, while keeping those same people around. That involves raises and high pay. All things require more money. So to start a successful business I need a lot of money. This is a very big risk. In order to determine whether I should even start a company in the first place, I need to know that the reward will be better than the risk I'm investing. Because even if I invest money into doing the things that will make my company better, the fifth element can come back and bite me, ruining everything. Now let's discuss why your economy eliminates risk vs. reward. And I'm not just going to talk about the business owner. Firstly, I can start as many failing businesses as I want. I'm not required to focus on how cheap I make my product, or how high of quality, or how I treat people, or where I'm located. As long as I'm working, I'm getting the exact same thing as if I were succeeding. And there's a significant difference between working and succeeding. So as soon as my business fails, I just start another one, rinse and repeat. You're eliminating the reward factor by eliminating the risk factor. Failing doesn't hurt you anymore. You just start over again, because the government is the one giving you the resources to start the company in the first place. So there is no reward for succeeding, and there is no risk to make you want to succeed. Now let's talk about the specialists. People want to be rocket scientists, doctors, lawyers, and other white collar workers because of the money and the prestige. But in this country, money buys you prestige. Nothing says prestigious like a lamborghini. Guys only use the "I'm a doctor...I save lives" line to get women. Secretly they love the money and the prestige. You're eliminating the reason they went to school in the first place. Yes, there will be some people who want to be a doctor for the noblest of reasons, but those people aren't populating our country to the extent you're hoping. So we're gonna get a lot of ditch diggers and a lot of people answering phone calls. And just to be blunt here...people don't want those jobs...period. They want the money that they can get, but they don't want those jobs. They'd rather be doing something where they're making more money and working a lot less. Because money drives the economy, well...the things you can buy drive the economy. You see, people won't have to worry about "costs or making a profit..." because those things don't exist. But I've just shown how they're essential to business. You absolutely cannot separate the two. So why will this still not be the case anymore? Because people don't need to shop anywhere in your scenario. In your scenario, the government is GIVING everyone everything they need. Which means that there are no more luxury items being produced or bought. The government isn't going to give everyone a yacht, personal jet, private chef, and $6 million home. It's just not feasible. Like I said earlier, companies can't compete with free. So even if you somehow answer the risk vs. reward game (which isn't possible because my argument is based off of fact and not well-wishing), you're stuck with how there is going to be competition at all. You say that businesses will need to reach certain milestones like having so many subscribers or customers, but they're not going to have any. Firstly, how are they going to buy these products? How are they going to subscribe to these things? They'd have to do it through the government. Because the government is the one in charge of exchanging their hours for goods. So the consumer says that they need product x, and the government goes and gets it for them in exchange for y hours. The government isn't going to compete with themselves. It doesn't make sense. So instead of the government going to some store or business...they're just going to make that good themselves. It eliminates the middle man. So now every good and service is run by the government. That's the elimination of competition I was talking about. Now why is the elimination of competition bad? Because if there is no competition, the five things I started with don't matter. But instead of this just creating a bunch of failing businesses, it creates a monopoly that is a failing business. The only place to get goods, no longer needs to worry about how they treat people, everyone is going to go there regardless. That's not gonna be enjoyable. They don't need to worry about how hard it is to reach because you have to go there anyway. They don't care about how high of quality things are, nobody is there to make a better product. Even if they did, the government is going to use their own version, and cut out the middle man. They don't need to worry about cost. If they want to charge you 7 hours of work for a banana, they can do that. There are no cheaper bananas out there. And if someone starts to produce bananas for cheaper, they undercut it so drastically that the cheaper banana goes out of business. Then they raise prices again. And finally, they've eliminated the luck factor. They have 100% of the market share, so they have no way of failing. Now I'll wrap up by thanking you for bringing up Bill and Melinda. Because you clearly don't understand what they were saying. He says that all lives have equal value, but this doesn't mean of outcome...it means of opportunity. He says that all people should be able to succeed just as they were able to. This doesn't come about through your system, but rather the one in place. And finally, he says that because of the money they were able to give, which they earned a lot of through a market system, the infants will be able to receive that which others are able to. It's because he was REWARDED for his RISKS that this is possible. Your own example is a bad one for you. He's arguing for a free market system that produces benefits in everyone's lives. Because you get benevolence out of your wealth. Third world countries don't have anthropologists...