Does capitalism work?

[Billy T]

How does one exactly establish the value of work? ... If a person agrees to whatever compensation is offered, hasn't the person accepted it as fair?

Agreed it is not easy to establish the value of work but certainly the share of the value produced by it included in the worker's salaries paid is normally based on the competition of workers (needing to eat etc.) with each other for the job than by the value the worker adds to the products sold. The value a worker making shoes or wheat in Indonesia adds to the shoe or wheat sold is the same as that in a country with a shortage of lower skilled workers, yet there the workers are more highly paid.

The real problem is the old one of how to divide the rewards between owners of the factory (or wheat field) and the workers in it. One solution to this problem, not uncommon in Nordic countries, is to make these two conflicting interest groups the same - I.e. worker cooperatives. These however, tend to be impractical for large production units - like a mass production of cars etc. and even small firms in mobile societies (When worker retires, his grandson does not replace him and he wants his "share" of the capital out.)

I do not know a good solution to this old problem, but do not think that just because the hungry worker must accept the wage offered that that is always "fair" or even "desirable." Many give Henry Ford credit for introduction of the assemble line (which he did not - it was used more than 100 years earlier to make block and tackle for sailing ships, or even 300 years earlier in Adam Smith’s famous “pin factory” etc.) but he was the first capitalist to realized that he would make more money by paying his workers much more than they could get elsewhere - so they could afford to buy the cars they were making (and forcing wage levels offered by other employers up so their workers could too) etc.

Thus the best solution, which I do not know how to implement, is not near "starvation wages" (just sufficient to produce a surpluss of workers in the next generation) but the Henry Ford solution: Pay the workers enough to maximize the TOTAL wealth of the society. The heart of the current economic mess is that under GWB the objective was to increase the wealth of the already rich even at the expense of reducing the purchasing power of Joe American worker - real stupidity in a society that 70% consumer based. In addition to many other destructive things GWB achieved for the USA, he was also an "anti-Henry Ford."

 

[matthew809]

How does one exactly establish the value of work?

That's a very good question to which I don't know the answer. But don't mistake my lack of knowledge as proof of it's impossibility.

If you are offered a wage and you accept it, you get what it's worth to the employer in exchange. That means that all work inherently falls into category 2 of your list.

I'm am talking about a higher measure of value, beyond that of an employer's frame of understanding or consideration. A measure which considers all people within the economic system, not just a specific company's system.

By stating it as you have, you project your opinion of value onto interactions between others as a form of moral imperative or mandate. I think that's unfair. What you have decided is 'fair' isn't necessarily relevant to them.

Yet they wish to reap the benefits of this collective agreement for the representation of worth- money. This is a prime example of the duality of capitalism. To reap the benefits of the system, but to deny any obligation to the system.

It seems as if you've mistaken what you think is value for value in the general case. In the case of exchanging work for compensation, isn't the value established by the person offering work? If a person agrees to whatever compensation is offered, hasn't the person accepted it as fair?

Here's a cut-and-paste from something I wrote in another thread which I think would work just as well as a response to your last question:

"You're thinking in terms of the current American system, in which I would basically agree with your statement. But in my proposed system, the government(for lack of a better word) is the only establishment able to decide "worth", and therefore the only one able to give [money]. In this new system, individuals are not paid according to their standing within a certain company with limited assets, but rather in respect to the country as a whole. In this system, it is understood that any one man(or business)- no matter how knowledgeable, skilled, ambitious, or hard-working- is nothing without the system, and all the people in it. While some people certainly deserve higher compensation compared to others, it is this careful relative consideration of monetary disbursement which enables all to equally benefit from a country's economic prosperity(ie. surplus wealth). This sort of collective reasoning can not be accomplished in a free-market system, where surplus wealth is kept from the workers and snatched up by the owners."

 

[USS Athens]

YES.. but only capitalism, allows the poor.. to become rich.

socialism.. does not.
communism does not.
monarchys.. can.. if the king wants to.

fascism... might.. but who wants to find out?

-MT

So, you measure economies based on how much wealth an individual can accumulate because of it?

In a socialism no one is truly poor, because there is equality. Everyone receives no different from one another.

 

[Read-Only]

"You're thinking in terms of the current American system, in which I would basically agree with your statement. But in my proposed system, the government(for lack of a better word) is the only establishment able to decide "worth", and therefore the only one able to give [money]. In this new system, individuals are not paid according to their standing within a certain company with limited assets, but rather in respect to the country as a whole. In this system, it is understood that any one man(or business)- no matter how knowledgeable, skilled, ambitious, or hard-working- is nothing without the system, and all the people in it. While some people certainly deserve higher compensation compared to others, it is this careful relative consideration of monetary disbursement which enables all to equally benefit from a country's economic prosperity(ie. surplus wealth). This sort of collective reasoning can not be accomplished in a free-market system, where surplus wealth is kept from the workers and snatched up by the owners."

That paragraph clearly shows the degree of faulty logic you are applying. There are several weak points evident but I'll only mention two of them.

One is that you've completely eliminated the need for personal drive and ambition. The second is that you've also eliminated competitiveness.

And while you may believe (and seem to think those are good accomplishments on your part) they are actually what would grind your 'system' to a complete halt. Without them AND a profit motive (which you've also pretty well eliminated), such a system is destined to fail because individuals would have no motive at all to produce anything.

 

[matthew809]

That paragraph clearly shows the degree of faulty logic you are applying. There are several weak points evident but I'll only mention two of them.

One is that you've completely eliminated the need for personal drive and ambition. The second is that you've also eliminated competitiveness.

And while you may believe (and seem to think those are good accomplishments on your part) they are actually what would grind your 'system' to a complete halt. Without them AND a profit motive (which you've also pretty well eliminated), such a system is destined to fail because individuals would have no motive at all to produce anything.

Actually- drive, ambition, greed, competition- these are all present and accounted for in my system. My system does not ignore the human factor, in fact the human factor is what makes the system work. The only faulty logic is your assumption that capitalism can be the only system capable of utilizing these human motives. The only difference between the uncontrolled method of capitalism and the refined method of my system, is that my system will strategically channel these forces for the overall good of everyone, while at the same time satisfying the selfish individual. My idea is derived from capitalism believe it or not. I propose a community-driven incentive system which would emulate the progressive aspects of capitalism, while adhering to the goals and values of the community. In other areas, my system would eliminate the extraneous pitfalls of capitalism. The net effect is a fairer, more efficient, humane system which would satisfy everyone but the insane.

So I challenge anyone to state a reason why this proposed system (as broadly as I explained it) would not work- not for the sake of my ego, but for the sake of refining humanity.

 

[Read-Only]

Actually- drive, ambition, greed, competition- these are all present and accounted for in my system. My system does not ignore the human factor, in fact the human factor is what makes the system work. The only faulty logic is your assumption that capitalism can be the only system capable of utilizing these human motives. The only difference between the uncontrolled method of capitalism and the refined method of my system, is that my system will strategically channel these forces for the overall good of everyone, while at the same time satisfying the selfish individual. My idea is derived from capitalism believe it or not. I propose a community-driven incentive system which would emulate the progressive aspects of capitalism, while adhering to the goals and values of the community. In other areas, my system would eliminate the extraneous pitfalls of capitalism. The net effect is a fairer, more efficient, humane system which would satisfy everyone but the insane.

So I challenge anyone to state a reason why this proposed system (as broadly as I explained it) would not work- not for the sake of my ego, but for the sake of refining humanity.

Please demonstate exactly where all those things are "present and accounted for in your 'system.' I don't see them at work anywhere in it.

 

[matthew809]

Please demonstrate exactly where all those things are "present and accounted for in your 'system.' I don't see them at work anywhere in it.

OK here's one scenario. Joe the plumber wants to start his own plumbing business. In capitalism, this can be very tricky and risky. He has to invest his own money. He has to consider taxes. He has to create a business model and find employees, and set up payroll and benefits. He has to advertise and set prices for his service. And hopefully, in the end, he will come out with more money than he would have otherwise made working for his last boss. In capitalism, Joe's business would be a gamble.

In my system, Joe the plumber would not have to worry about taxes because there is no such thing as taxes. Also, Joe would not have to invest his own money to start a business because the business would be owned by everyone- so the system would foot the bill. Joe would be free to design and run the business himself, but he would own none of it. Prices for his plumbing service would not be determined by Joe, but by the same consumer-oriented system which sets the prices for all goods and services rationally, in order to sustain national resources. Joe, and all of his employees, would be paid from the national centralized crediting system just like everyone else in the country. In addition to the standardized criteria the system uses to determine different pay for different jobs, the system will also consider company efficiency, customer and employee ratings of the company, employee productivity and job performance, and overall company success in order to determine Joe's paycheck and his employees' paychecks. In other words, anything that has to do with payment or prices would not be under Joe's direct control. This leaves Joe to turn his attention to the more important aspects of running a business. And Joe will be rewarded generously for his trouble and his good business sense. And if the business turns out to use up too much resources with too little gain, paychecks will reflect this inefficiency and/or the business will be terminated.

 

[Read-Only]

OK here's one scenario. Joe the plumber wants to start his own plumbing business. In capitalism, this can be very tricky and risky. He has to invest his own money. He has to consider taxes. He has to create a business model and find employees, and set up payroll and benefits. He has to advertise and set prices for his service. And hopefully, in the end, he will come out with more money than he would have otherwise made working for his last boss. In capitalism, Joe's business would be a gamble.

In my system, Joe the plumber would not have to worry about taxes because there is no such thing as taxes. Also, Joe would not have to invest his own money to start a business because the business would be owned by everyone- so the system would foot the bill. Joe would be free to design and run the business himself, but he would own none of it. Prices for his plumbing service would not be determined by Joe, but by the same consumer-oriented system which sets the prices for all goods and services rationally, in order to sustain national resources. Joe, and all of his employees, would be paid from the national centralized crediting system just like everyone else in the country. In addition to the standardized criteria the system uses to determine different pay for different jobs, the system will also consider company efficiency, customer and employee ratings of the company, employee productivity and job performance, and overall company success in order to determine Joe's paycheck and his employees' paychecks. In other words, anything that has to do with payment or prices would not be under Joe's direct control. This leaves Joe to turn his attention to the more important aspects of running a business. And Joe will be rewarded generously for his trouble and his good business sense. And if the business turns out to use up too much resources with too little gain, paychecks will reflect this inefficiency and/or the business will be terminated.

I would want NO part of such a system!!!! And I doubt many others would either. You've placed the government in DIRECT control of every single aspect of business and I maintain it's both foolish AND dangerous to do so.

Why don't you post that paragraph as the opening to a poll and see just how many thinking people will buy into it??? It's my opinion that only the young and naive will buy into it because very, very few mature minds would ever trust a government with such power!!!!!

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Here's one, Joe the plumber wants to start a business. He's told no. He will be given his allotment for doing manual trained labor for an appropriate time. He will live in the alloted housing for his level of citizenship. His child will be removed from him and placed into a state creche until it is properly trained. His efforts will all go towards furthering the state/fatherland, and he might be allowed to mate again.

 

[Read-Only]

Here's one, Joe the plumber wants to start a business. He's told no. He will be given his allotment for doing manual trained labor for an appropriate time. He will live in the alloted housing for his level of citizenship. His child will be removed from him and placed into a state creche until it is properly trained. His efforts will all go towards furthering the state/fatherland, and he might be allowed to mate again.

That's precisely where his system would eventually lead. He hasn't thought it through well enough to realize that the system he wants to create would creep into every single aspect of personal life - to the point that there would no longer BE any "personal life." That's why I said it was dangerous.

 

[Billy T]

...because the business would be owned by everyone- so the system would foot the bill. Joe would be free to design and run the business himself...

And Tom wants to start the same business, also located on the NW corner of 4th Street and Main. How does your system choose between them? The allocations of scares or limited resources to their "highest economical value" WITHOUT relying on humans who can be bribed or have natural prejudices is one of the main advantages of capitalism. Damn if I want you (or any set of your "think a likes,” who like GWB simply "know" what is best for the USA) telling Joe: "No, choose some other corner as Tom gets 4th & Main."

Fact that Tom's sister is pretty and asked you to let Tom have that corner never entered into your decision did it.

SUMMARY
When you tell your mechanism for the allocation of limited resources, then I might bother to read more.

How do you decide who eats the pig's ears and who eats the pork chops? Adam Smythe's invisible hand in a capitalistic system adjusts the price of pigs ears and pork chops so that none of the pig is wasted. How can your committee (or other system) improve on that? Or do the pork chops always* go to Tom's sister and I get hamburger made from the ears?
------------------
*If any remain when the commitee's standard quota has been filled. - They are "more equal" than others and have a very responsible job to do. - They must be well feed.

 

[Diode-Man]

Capitalism tends to work best when Alan Greenspan is at the helm of things.

 

[Billy T]

Capitalism tends to work best when Alan Greenspan is at the helm of things.

You can ask a mod to move this post - There is a thread for jokes.

 

[matthew809]

I would want NO part of such a system!!!! And I doubt many others would either. You've placed the government in DIRECT control of every single aspect of business and I maintain it's both foolish AND dangerous to do so.

Why don't you post that paragraph as the opening to a poll and see just how many thinking people will buy into it??? It's my opinion that only the young and naive will buy into it because very, very few mature minds would ever trust a government with such power!!!!!

I'm sure the basic concepts of capitalism would be just as scary and unrealistic when introduced to a non-indoctrinated group of people. Your immediate bias of such a different system is no surprise to me at all.

But to clarify my idea... the government, of which you are currently basing all direction of thought, would not exist anymore. I distrust this government more than anyone here, I'm sure. In my previous posts I only used the word "government" as a temporary place holder for a bigger idea. I'm not just thinking about replacing capitalism. All related systems would be effected, and eventually changed as well, although I haven't given as much thought to those areas yet. So I'm not exactly sure what will replace the government. I imagine that the government would be dissolved into the system in such a way that all people would have power, but no one person would have any more power than another. Sort of like controlled anarchy, with leaders and direction, and more localized authority.

Here's one, Joe the plumber wants to start a business. He's told no. He will be given his allotment for doing manual trained labor for an appropriate time. He will live in the alloted housing for his level of citizenship. His child will be removed from him and placed into a state creche until it is properly trained. His efforts will all go towards furthering the state/fatherland, and he might be allowed to mate again.

That's precisely where his system would eventually lead. He hasn't thought it through well enough to realize that the system he wants to create would creep into every single aspect of personal life - to the point that there would no longer BE any "personal life." That's why I said it was dangerous.

Yea, I've seen that movie too- not the sort of place I would want to live either, and certainly not a place that I see my system leading towards. Then again, some might describe our current society in the exact same way that Mr. Hamtastic described it. The only difference being the illusion of freedom and individual will that our government works so hard to portray. As least in the blatantly government-controlled system that Mr. Hamtastic described, the people actually are aware of their dismal situation.

And Tom wants to start the same business, also located on the NW corner of 4th Street and Main. How does your system choose between them? ... When you tell your mechanism for the allocation of limited resources, then I might bother to read more ... How do you decide who eats the pig's ears and who eats the pork chops?

Good questions. But I don't think that will be any more of a problem in my system, than in capitalism. In the 2 situations that you described, the method of first come first serve would seem to work just fine. At least for now.

But I don't think I really answered the root issue of your question. There's a larger issue of ownership which would be dramatically different in my system. For example, I don't think that the means of production should be owned or profited from. I also don't think that land should be owned, at least not in the sense that the word is understood to mean now. The idea of ownership and entitlement must be purified of it's egocentric attitude.

Also, there's the question of controlling limited resources which, in capitalism, is equated with controlling money and creating scarcity of money which stimulates production. But since money won't exist in my system, resources must be controlled in a different way- a more rational, fair way. The system will know it's limits. In the act of distributing wealth and deciding pay structures, this limit will be continually measured to achieve a sort of equilibrium between production and pay; input and output. The crediting system will be largely automated, but smart. It will understand that if you pay Joe or Tom too much they will, in turn, use up more resources. It will understand that paying Jill too much to cut hair will also slow up her production. There's science behind the economy, and my system will understand this science and put it to good use for the common good.

 

[Billy T]

...money won't exist in my system, resources must be controlled in a different way...The system will know it's limits. In the act of distributing wealth and deciding pay structures, this limit will be continually measured to achieve a sort of equilibrium between production and pay; input and output. The crediting system will be largely automated, but smart. It will understand that if you pay Joe or Tom too much they will, in turn, use up more resources. It will understand that paying Jill too much to cut hair will also slow up her production. There's science behind the economy, and my system will understand this science and put it to good use for the common good.

ok, NO MONEY - is the "pay structure" coupons for x hours in bed with Tom's sister? How will Jill be paid or is she a lesbian?

You are talking around the question rather than answering it. And exhibiting very confused and fuzzy thoughts while doing so. Yes, I want to know how (the implementation proceedure) the "smart system" will make its decision about both the allocations of limited resources* AND salaries if they exist (You seem very confused on this last point does or does not money exist? If it does how are salaries set? Can money, if it exist, buy things even when the smart system has a better use for them? I.e does every purchase require your "approval"?)

I was assuming the smart system just assigned every one their job to do for the "greater good" and assigned them where to live, provided their standard ration of food, etc. (You and your decision makers of course get the houses with the ocean view, steak dinners and French wine.)

If that is not your fuzzy idea, tell how jobs are paired with people to do them; how their rewards for doing them are set, (where they live) etc. If I get to choose, I want to be an art critic and spend my days going to broadway shows and live on my yacht in NYC harbor (actually in the lower part of the Hudson river - near the theater district). Assigning Tom's good looking sister to be my house clearner would be OK with me too, especially if she can not swim. The yacht is heated - she will not need clothes assigned.

PS if you think I am mocking you - at least you understand one thing.

----
*Are you saying that who ever get there first gets to keep a limited resources? Without money in your system, he can not sell it. Does the state just take it if the "smart system" has a better use for it? Can the state just take his wife or child too? Tell some details of how your system would actually make decisions. Not just claim "it would be smart and better."

 

[matthew809]

You are talking around the question rather than answering it. And exhibiting very confused and fuzzy thoughts while doing so. Yes, I want to know how (the implementation proceedure) the "smart system" will make its decision about both the allocations of limited resources* AND salaries if they exist (You seem very confused on this last point does or does not money exist? If it does how are salaries set? Can money, if it exist, buy things even when the smart system has a better use for them? I.e does every purchase require your "approval"?)

The reason I may be talking around the question is because I don't have all the answers. I do not know the specifics about how to make the system smart. I only have general ideas(ie. that it should be smart; that it should be fair) and hopefully people a lot smarter than me could make it work. I do recognize the leap of faith on my part. But, for example, even though I am not a computer programmer, that does not stop me from envisioning great software applications.

Here is what I can tell you about the new money, or as I like to call it, credit. Credit can only be electronically transferred from the central crediting system into a personal account. It can not be transferred from person to person, from business to business, from business to person, or from person to business. When somebody makes a purchase, credit is debited from this person's account. This money does not go to the business, although the smart system does keep track of these purchases for other uses- such as being one of the factors determining salaries of the employees at the business in question. So where does this credit go if not to the business? Nowhere. It ceases to exist. Although the redemption of credit by the consumer does effect calculations within the smart system.

I was assuming the smart system just assigned every one their job to do for the "greater good" and assigned them where to live, provided their standard ration of food, etc. (You and your decision makers of course get the houses with the ocean view, steak dinners and French wine.)

No. There would be no job assignment. People would be free to do whatever they want. In fact, as a basic right of citizenship, all residents would receive a minimum salary, or base pay, regardless of work status. The very basic cost of living will be provided automatically- one of the many benefits of such a productive and efficient system.

People in positions of leadership would probably not get paid nearly as much as they do now, or maybe not at all, or maybe they would get payment incentives based on positive public opinion of their performance. But I'm not so sure about that area so I'll leave it at that for now.

... tell how jobs are paired with people to do them; how their rewards for doing them are set, (where they live) etc. If I get to choose, I want to be an art critic...

Sure you can choose to be an art critic. And you can live wherever you can afford to on that salary. The new system is much like capitalism, only better...

But I admittedly don't understand the mechanics of my smart system- I just have some basic ideas so far. Credit incentives will be placed where needed in order to stimulate positive growth. For example, if the world needs sanitation workers to clean toilets, and not enough people are willing to do the job for such pay, that pay will go up to encourage the necessary quota. Flat wages and salaries will be augmented or replaced by a more dynamic, performance-oriented, incentive system in many cases.

The end result is that workers will not be exploited, and others will not be able to take advantage of the system by getting more money than their work is worth. The time of kings among men will be over.

Are you saying that who ever get there first gets to keep a limited resources? Without money in your system, he can not sell it. Does the state just take it if the "smart system" has a better use for it? Can the state just take his wife or child too? Tell some details of how your system would actually make decisions. Not just claim "it would be smart and better."

A person can not sell his property, but he can redeem his property back into the system for credit. As I wrote in another thread: "For example, one would not be able to sell his car directly to another citizen, but instead would have to go through the [system] which would determine the car's value, oversee the exchange, and give you credit directly." In the case of home ownership, the "homeowner" would never really own the home. It will be more like leasing, where you would continuously make payments to stay in the house. I think this sort of leasing idea is more appropriate for homes since they truly are a more limited and valuable resource. Basically, homes just permanently take up too much limited space to be considered private property, and should be considered common domain to be leased.

Unlike today's system, which tricks consumers into buying houses they can't afford, and then takes people's home from them when they can not make the payments(and screws up the whole economy in the process)- my system would have no desire to be so underhanded. In my system, the state is not a separate entity from the people, with a hidden agenda and profit motives. The government and the people are one and the same. The rules of the game will be straightforward and simple- if someone can not afford the payments on their home, then they must find a cheaper home.

Additionally, all children will be taken from their homes by the state. The fit ones will be used as slaves, and the rest will be destroyed or sacrificed to me.

 

[Billy T]

...Sure you can choose to be an art critic....Flat wages and salaries will be augmented or replaced by a more dynamic, performance-oriented, incentive system in many cases. ...

I assume the STATE will evaluate my "performance" as an art critic. State certainly does not want the public doing so as the public likes political satire, but I will be careful to only praise the state as it employees me and what the public thinks of my reviews (indicated by their either buying or not my reviews in the old evil capitalistic system) is on no consequence in your new non-capitalistic system.

Here is what I can tell you about the new money, or as I like to call it, credit. Credit can only be electronically transferred from the central crediting system into a personal account. It can not be transferred from person to person, from business to business, from business to person, or from person to business. When somebody makes a purchase, credit is debited from this person's account. ...

OK I understand from this that you think placing the state (or what ever you want to call the central authority) in total control of everything is an improvement. (The state uses modern scientific understanding of the economy to be maximally efficient.) You want to make it impossible for me to put up a "garage for rent" sign (no one can rent it as no one has any money and "credits" can not be transferred to me.)* - the STATE will assign who uses the garage (it is not even mine)** and make it impossible for me to buy a newspaper on the street***, etc. Everything I get comes from, and everything I produce belongs to, THE STATE. Buying, selling and renting of things by mere people the old way has been abolished- the efficient state knows what is best for them.

I did not think it possible to design a government worse than North Korea has, but you have succeeded in doing so. At least in North Korea it is still possible for a small farmer to trade an extra chicken plus a coin or two for a baby pig with his neighbor.

----------------
*Also mere humans should not be allowed to interfer with the efficient state decisons. - People independently deciding if they want to rent it or not and who is willing to give up the most "credits" to rent it is much too much like capitalism.

**If the house the STATE allows me to occupy (not own of course) has 2 bedrooms, when my son goes off to school (wife and I sleep in one) the freed up bedroom will get a new occupant, assigned by the "maximally efficient scientific computer" of the state, I assume.

***Newspapers are sold at the STATE information agency. The state needs to know what I read - I may need some psychological counciling (if I have been picking up and reading any of the free, subversive illegal Xeroxed "opinion sheets" on the street) or if that fails a few weeks at the re-education center.

 

[matthew809]

I assume the STATE will evaluate my "performance" as an art critic.

First of all, I assume you would be an art critic because you enjoy critiquing art, and not for the money. In the new system, people would have a lot more personal time for themselves because they will be freed up from the slavery-like work schedules and the fight-for-survival work ethic that everybody accepts as normal right now(in my system, the system will pay you a minimum salary to do nothing if that's your choice). This would give creative types a lot more creation time. BTW, is someone paying you a salary to post here on sciforums? How necessary is it to provide monetary incentive for such an endeavor? Art critiquing is an extracurricular activity for the most part. I imagine that some of the better art critics might receive good salaries, while most would probably do it for fun.

But assuming you could be a salaried art critic, no, the "state" would not evaluate your performance. Customers, bosses, and other relevant people would judge your work, while the system might possibly use this information for deciding your pay.

You want to make it impossible for me to put up a "garage for rent" sign (no one can rent it as no one has any money and "credits" can not be transferred to me.)*

Correct.

- the STATE will assign who uses the garage (it is not even mine)** and make it impossible for me to buy a newspaper on the street***, etc.

Wrong and wrong.

Everything I get comes from, and everything I produce belongs to, THE STATE. Buying, selling and renting of things by mere people the old way has been abolished- the efficient state knows what is best for them.

Sort of. If you wish to use state credits in the process of any of these things, then yes, you must abide by the rules.

So... you do have freedom to produce something and it will belong to you. You can sell it also, and set your own prices. Or you can rent it to somebody. And despite what I wrote before, you can even rent out your garage to anyone you want. The only catch is that you can not use state-issued credits.

I did not think it possible to design a government worse than North Korea has, but you have succeeded in doing so. At least in North Korea it is still possible for a small farmer to trade an extra chicken plus a coin or two for a baby pig with his neighbor.

You can trade items in my system too. And yes, you can even trade coins for nostalgic purposes I guess. Or if credit is what you want, why not just redeem unwanted items back into the system and the system will decide an appropriate credit value to give you... like an incentive-based recycling program.



So how do you feel about free health care and free schooling?

Or a single state-issued ID card for every citizen, which would also act as a debit card for your state-issued credits?

Or the fact that the market place would change dramatically in the new system? For example: Less product competition and more product cooperation. Fewer product choices, but better quality, longer-lasting, consumer-oriented product choices.

 

[Billy T]

...And despite what I wrote before, you can even rent out your garage to anyone you want. The only catch is that you can not use state-issued credits. ...

You are not even self consisten inside this one post. How is one to know which of your conflicting claims is correct? If there is no money (or are you changing on that too?) how do I rent and sell things? (you said no one can transfer their state credits to some one else as that was too much like capitalism.

It seems that when I point out simple problems, like buying a newspaper on the street from a boy selling them, the necessary money comes back. When I ask about how your system will evaluate if I am a good critic, or not, you bring the people back to judge and then have the state conslult them to determine if I am serivng them well and pay me me accordingly. Would it not be more efficent for them to either buy or not my reviews? Rather than have the state poll them to find how to set my salary. If I can use some coins when trading unequal value items (a chicken plus some coins for a baby pig) and the state des not make the coins, does everyone make their own coins?

I.e. you keep constantly falling back on the current capitalistic system when it is obvous your system is not only less efficient but not even functional. It is just some ill defined vague dreaming.

 

[matthew809]

You are not even self consistent inside this one post. How is one to know which of your conflicting claims is correct? If there is no money (or are you changing on that too?) how do I rent and sell things? (you said no one can transfer their state credits to some one else as that was too much like capitalism).

I'm sorry, sometimes subtle sarcasm does not register through my posts. I wrote:
"So... you do have freedom to produce something and it will belong to you. You can sell it also, and set your own prices. Or you can rent it to somebody. And despite what I wrote before, you can even rent out your garage to anyone you want. The only catch is that you can not use state-issued credits."

What I meant by that was- I hope you accept monopoly money.

It seems that when I point out simple problems, like buying a newspaper on the street from a boy selling them, the necessary money comes back.

Oh sorry- again you are mistaken. The money did not come back. I only meant that all transactions, even the small ones street-side, would be done electronically via those all-purpose ID cards that I mentioned. But you only just now specified the seller of the newspaper as a boy- thereby suggesting that the seller is under-age in some way, and not old enough to electronically process the debit card- therefore the boy must only accept cash right? Wrong. Even little boys will be able to swipe cards. But that's beside the point because in my system, little boys will not need to sell newspapers to bring in a little extra money for the family. My system takes care of all it's citizens. Little boys will be in school, or out having fun- not selling newspapers as in your vision of utopia.

When I ask about how your system will evaluate if I am a good critic, or not, you bring the people back to judge and then have the state conslult them to determine if I am serivng them well and pay me me accordingly. Would it not be more efficent for them to either buy or not my reviews? Rather than have the state poll them to find how to set my salary.

Whichever way is fairest, most efficient, and in tune with the system would definitely be the way to go. Although I think we are ahead of ourselves, and greatly over-simplifying the process, making more confusing an already gray area. Are your art reviews part of a larger magazine or stand-alone? Are you freelance or do you have a boss? In this new system, would it even be necessary to pay an art critic? Would making all school free have an indirect effect on an art critic's pay in the long run? These questions, among others, are unanswered for now.

Look it doesn't really matter. I don't claim to know the best way to pay an art critic in my new system, or whether they would even be paid at all. These shady details are not vital in the broader sense, and in no way does it disprove my bigger ideas, such as paying everybody fairly according to their relative value to society.

If I can use some coins when trading unequal value items (a chicken plus some coins for a baby pig) and the state does not make the coins, does everyone make their own coins?

This is what I wrote : you can even trade coins for nostalgic purposes...

you keep constantly falling back on the current capitalistic system when it is obvious your system is not only less efficient but not even functional. It is just some ill defined vague dreaming.

So would that make your opposition to my ideas ill-defined and vague as well?

I would love to have my ideas disproved, so that I can refine them and make them better. Please keep trying.