Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
Manufacturing would be handled by machines.
This is already happening gradually thanks to the free markets because a machine can do manual labor with far greater efficiency and for far less money. With a manufacturing base rooted in automation, things like shoes would be abundant. This is going to happen whether or not society changes in the way I propose. The manufacturers themselves won't mind because they'll be able to turn the machines on and off at will, instead of risking trouble with a union for firing workers, to keep the prices of their products from becoming less expensive to the consumer than it is to manufacture, and because it'll reduce their manufacturing costs to the point that they'll drop their prices to compete better.How does a free market solve that issue? The free market only casts out those without money, keeping them from those resources irrespective of how they got in that situation. That's not good policy. There must be a better way to do it. In the goal of this idea for society, resources wouldn't be scarce because technology and effective management keeps them from becoming scarce. However, it's a long and slow road to reach that. Then why not work-in the ability to allow for people to act out of self-interest, as long as it doesn't harm the society? There's no such thing as perfection, so the idea that the system we have now is the best way to balance the society's and the individual's interests is laughable. I'm not saying this idea is perfect, either, but the best of my reason believes it's a step in the right direction.Once again, technology. Technology could make something like surgery idiot-proof over time, something any punter who's good with his hands could do after learning basic anatomy and getting over the fear of cutting into another human.
You missed my point entirely. How is it possible to facilitate trade in an efficient manner without an objective value measurement? How will producers know how much to produce? More importantly, how will goods be exchanged?
Besides, manufacturing is only a aspect of our economy, as we are primarily service based. Without currency, how will you obtain food, clothing, entertainment, etc... without actively locating the producers? Once you locate the producers, what will motivate them to trade you their goods unless they receive something of value, that they view necessary in order to want to trade?
Say for example i am a teacher, how do i go about obtaining my wants and desires without being compensated for my services with currency? The only way to do so, without complete welfare, is to only teach students who can provide me with the goods and services i need to survive. That would be absolutely horrible!
Quote:
Also, people raised in this society would know that acting for the benefit of the society is the most honorable thing a person could do, while making it a realistic goal unlike it is today.
That is a rather ambitious assumption. People raised in the current society know that committing a crime, preferably consuming cannabis, is against our societal norms yet is still done. In a utopia, yes, in reality this would not play out as you would want it to.
The better question is, how would we end up there?
Quote:
Thus, people would be motivated to increase their abilities because they want to help the society.
In a utopia maybe.
Quote:
The desire would be a desire to create something. The other prominent desire in this society would be to keep moving the standard of living upward for everyone in the society.
Creating something is not the same as creating something good. I mean, i can create a nice toe nail collection, and spend lots of time doing so.
Quote:
Thus, since technology is what improves our standard of living, the majority would find a desire to maintain existing technology or research new ones.
A system where open competition exists will out produce, out design, and live better than a society that does not employ a system of open competition. The more competitive the economic system the higher the standard of living.
Quote:
If even a fraction of a percent devote even an hour a day to research, there would be more people working on research and development an hour than there is now.
You still have yet to identify logical motivating factors that would push people to do so.
Quote:
Thus, tech would move forward at a pace that vastly overshadows current speeds.
Nope! People who innovate now are those who are either the most productive/ qualified in doing so, or are those who are inherently brilliant. Innovation does not happen for the sake of innovation, instead there has to be a reason to innovate.
Quote:
The incentive is to feed the people. Managers are trained to teach their employees to understand what their services mean to both the business and the consumer, that way they can take pride in their work and find an intrinsic motivation to work harder. Those driven by intrinsic motivation, something inside the person such as "I am a doctor because I feel it is my duty to help my fellow man retain his or her health", instead of extrinsic motivation (money, a reward outside of the person), are much more productive at anything.
Yet real world examples prove quite the opposite. Look at Cuba and the former USSR as good examples. In both cases, you have rather large differential rate of defection to free countries in highly skilled sectors such as engineering and medicine.
Quote:
Instead of saying government is broken and inefficient, and thus should scale back its power, why not work on making it better? That's not too naive, is it?
Yes it is. As the current financial crisis proves, free market innovation moves and innovates exponentially faster than systems bogged down in bureaucracy. Firms were coming up with more advanced ways of investing, at a much greater pace than government could regulate. This is known as time lag.
Quote:
I said the price should reflect the costs incurred to provide the goods, with only a modest gain to go to a fund in case of unforseen circumstances.
When grain runs a shortage, there is a short run finite limit of how many people will be able to obtain it. What are the people who desire grain to do, eat the "fund"?
Quote:
That way, if a drought affects the availability of water, there is a fund (perhaps gaining interest in a bank account) to cover the costs so the consumer doesn't see a massive price jump overnight, allowing prices to slowly increase over time.
I thought your Utopian society does not have currency? Why would there be prices and bank accounts?
Quote:
It could work, if it was done intelligently.
Not if there are other countries that still employ open competition. It would have to be implemented on a global scale, and with a revocation of private property rights.
Quote:
Our government should be able to handle anything a business can and then some. Why would you ask for less from those that supposedly protect you from harm?
I am not sure what you are getting at. Government is inneficient because even though the people elected are at the mercy of the voters, there is no competition that will actually motivate bureaucracies to become more efficient. It just does not happen.
Quote:
Depends on the available resources. Technology creates more efficient uses of existing resources and also creates new ones. That's why I stressed the idea of transition. I know it's not something that could happen overnight.
How are you going to sell the idea? Better yet, how are you going to get people who are extremely talented/ productive and well compensated for it to give up their prosperity? It sounds really nice, as well as really unrealistic...
Quote:
I understand how inflation works. I just don't see how competition affects it.
Did the open competition between phone companies undoubtedly bring down the price with the use of innovation? This is what your scenario lacks. Competitive firms are those that are able to innovate the fastest, not because they desire to do so, but because they desire to produce more profit. Look at the cost of cars, computers, communication etc..., that have reduced primarily due to a competitive market. If there is no competition, what is the incentive to reduce prices?
Quote:
It's not hard to figure out why the money supply moves independent of goods and services. The inflation is mathematically determined under fractional reserve practice, and also sped up by large loans such as the Bailout. This calls for intelligent expansion, not a mathematical equation that doesn't change with the times (except for speeding up because it grows exponentially)Through a government-backed, government-controlled currency that is free from unwise inflation or unfair interest. Benjamin Franklin cited King George's ban on a free currency as a prime cause of the revolution.
We have a government backed, government controlled currency. What you are advocating is not free currency, but more of the same. Right now, we are experiencing a period of deflation, even though there have been hundreds of billions of dollars pumped into the financial industry. Care to explain that?
Although your concept is a noble push for equality, it is very unrealistic. I advise you to read Adlous Huxley's Brave New World. The totalitarian, utilitarian utopia he creates in that novel seem to fit the "caste" (pun intended) of your thinking.
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
You've missed a few key points, GoldenBoy.
There are 3 I'm pushing right now. They are Intrinsic v Extrinsic motivation, the failure of the free market system, and the emergent nature of the free market. I'm sorry but I ranted off a bit too much on my idea for a society, while ignoring the important issues. Keep in mind that I'm only 18. I have plenty of time to keep evolving this idea and making it better. However, for this argument, I'm going to put that to the side for a minute.
First off, if you read up on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, you'll find that intrinsic, though harder to create in somebody, greatly improves the productivity of a person. Extrinsic is cheap, quick, and dirty. For example, if I have a daughter and I want her to play the violin, I could go about it one of two ways. One, I could offer her rewards for regular practice and admirable performances by A) Telling her I'll give her a healthy allowance if I hear her practice an hour every day B) Telling her that I'll strip her privileges if she doesn't practice at least twice a week C) Tell her that if she ends up "grounded", she'll have to practice an hour a day for x number of days.
That little girl will practice her ass off. Literally. She'll play until her fingers are bleeding and she can't straighten her neck. But, she won't practice wisely, she'll learn slowly because she hates it, and she'll stop playing altogether once she's out of the house, which defeats the purpose of trying to motivate her to play the violin.
Option B is to teach her to the best of my abilities to appreciate classical music styles, along with other violin-heavy genres of music, and show her how rewarding it can be to do so. If I'm not too pushy, and RANDOMLY reward her without her prior knowledge for good performances and diligent practice, with such rewards becoming less and less frequent over time, she will learn to always challenge herself to play better than she is now without any sort of reward except the one she gets from playing the music. And, perhaps more importantly, she'll be delighted for the chance to play.
Do you understand what I'm getting at here?
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeMartinez
You've missed a few key points, GoldenBoy.
There are 3 I'm pushing right now. They are Intrinsic v Extrinsic motivation, the failure of the free market system, and the emergent nature of the free market. I'm sorry but I ranted off a bit too much on my idea for a society, while ignoring the important issues. Keep in mind that I'm only 18. I have plenty of time to keep evolving this idea and making it better. However, for this argument, I'm going to put that to the side for a minute.
First off, if you read up on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, you'll find that intrinsic, though harder to create in somebody, greatly improves the productivity of a person. Extrinsic is cheap, quick, and dirty. For example, if I have a daughter and I want her to play the violin, I could go about it one of two ways. One, I could offer her rewards for regular practice and admirable performances by A) Telling her I'll give her a healthy allowance if I hear her practice an hour every day B) Telling her that I'll strip her privileges if she doesn't practice at least twice a week C) Tell her that if she ends up "grounded", she'll have to practice an hour a day for x number of days.
That little girl will practice her ass off. Literally. She'll play until her fingers are bleeding and she can't straighten her neck. But, she won't practice wisely, she'll learn slowly because she hates it, and she'll stop playing altogether once she's out of the house, which defeats the purpose of trying to motivate her to play the violin.
Option B is to teach her to the best of my abilities to appreciate classical music styles, along with other violin-heavy genres of music, and show her how rewarding it can be to do so. If I'm not too pushy, and RANDOMLY reward her without her prior knowledge for good performances and diligent practice, with such rewards becoming less and less frequent over time, she will learn to always challenge herself to play better than she is now without any sort of reward except the one she gets from playing the music. And, perhaps more importantly, she'll be delighted for the chance to play.
Do you understand what I'm getting at here?
I like what you have to say, but option b is a form of cohesion if it is your goal to get someone else to subscribe/accept to a particular belief, activity, ideology. Unless the desire comes from within to play violin, any attempt to persuade, reward, or teach is extrinsically motivating the individual. Basically it has to be a spontanious desire that motivates someone to do something to truly be intrinsic.
I do understand where your getting at, that it is possible to instill intrinsic motivation into not only one person, but all of society around the world. This is something i do not believe possible without chemical and psychological modification/manipulation. Which is why it would be great for you to read Brave New World.
Now, about the failure of free market society. I suppose from a Marxist POV, it has failed.
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
I like what you have to say, too. We should carry this conversation on elsewhere, though. If you want to, go on to my profile and find my email.
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
what if we literally used time as money? that way DOING things would result in earning things, instead of BUYING things.
time is a commodity that takes effort, whereas cash is a commodity that fuels greed.
time works better, the time it takes to collect the materials to build a house is the only real cost to building the house!!
and before you ask me to pay you for your efforts, your efforts are HOW you SPEND time!
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
I like what you have to say, but option b is a form of cohesion if it is your goal to get someone else to subscribe/accept to a particular belief, activity, ideology. Unless the desire comes from within to play violin, any attempt to persuade, reward, or teach is extrinsically motivating the individual. Basically it has to be a spontanious desire that motivates someone to do something to truly be intrinsic.
I do understand where your getting at, that it is possible to instill intrinsic motivation into not only one person, but all of society around the world. This is something i do not believe possible without chemical and psychological modification/manipulation. Which is why it would be great for you to read Brave New World.
Now, about the failure of free market society. I suppose from a Marxist POV, it has failed.
The problem i see arising with that idea is the lack of an objective measurement of value. For example, if i believe my time is worth something, and i desire to gain from "spending my time", i might even be inclined to sell a portion of my time for X amount of dollars. An hour to me might be worth more or less than an hour for somebody else. For that reason alone, currency is irreplaceable. What else provides such an objective measure of value?
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
The measurement of value is in the resources, Goldenboy. You don't need money for that.
We could at least try it out. Besides, a lot of things I'm asking for will happen on their own, unless we kill each other first.
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
what if you live in a country that doesn't have enough resources, and has to import more stuff than it exports? a country like that wouldn't last very long without currency:
warren buffet simplifies the trade deficit into a children's fairy tale:
Wall $treet Week with FORTUNE . In the News | PBS
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
The only way this could work is if it's a global effort. Besides, the idea of having countries is another outdated mode anyway. We're one world, one species, one people. Why seperate ourselves with lines on maps?
Updated bailout price tag: 840 Billion?
you might appreciate having those lines and laws protecting those lines if a country that doesn't have enough resources decides to send a couple hundred thousand troops and mercenaries over to take control of your resources
but that would be extremely unlikely in this modern civilized world...
