At what point do we recognize our economic system as absurd?

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

After watching Lockup on MSNBC, a show called Your Business came on that highlights entrepreneurial success.

But all it did was show how absurd it is to continue our 300 year old economic system in the year 2010.

The first segment showed the success of a woman who launched a local wine retail store in a once depressed Harlem. Do we really believe that Harlem would not get access to wine if it wasn't for this woman's business? If we didn't have a private, for-profit distribution system where entrepreneurs open retail stores, people would be unable to get access to products?

Without our current economic system, Harlem would not have access to wine!? Doesn't the internet make retail obsolete?

In the second segment of the show it highlighted a man who was a pharmacist and had a daughter who was disabled. She was unable to take one of her medications because it was bitter and would always throw it up, so he developed a way to change the flavor of medicine. He worked late nights in the pharmacy figuring out a solution. He now runs a successful business selling that product he developed that changes the flavor of medicine.

We are told our system is necessary because it creates incentive.

Are we really to believe that the incentive was for him to make millions and not the well being of his daughter!?! Do people really believe that he would not have dedicated the same effort for his daughter if there wasn't a million dollar pay day for him?

The Federal Reserve, as shown in Dan Pink's TED talk, proved that people are not motivated by money to do cognitive tasks like invention. So is a system that pays private profits really necessary to have a innovative, dynamic economy?

The third segment showed a dispatcher who ran a hair care products business in his hours after work. He worked out of his home. He would pour shampoo into bottles in his basement. Is what he is doing a completely and totally ridiculous response to our outdated economic system or do we really have a shampoo shortage in this country that requires him to manufacture shampoo in his basement?

The fourth segment showed a female who ran a very large and successful rodeo business. The business was handed down to her from her Dad. Are we really to believe that the best way to get people to operate businesses is to have families hand them down from one generation to the next?

The last segment showed how a convict was able to turn his life around: his family made him rich by giving him partnership in their successful bread business.

Wouldn't a system that gave that same opportunity to all convicts work a little better than the current system which gives them a bus ticket and $25?


So at what point do we say that the tail is now officially wagging the dog? This system may have worked well in the past but in the year 2010, it is just plain idiotic.

Jeff
↓ Read my sig. We can turn the world into a paradise. ↓

[sendero]

1. Depends on what you mean by "we"...

.. I recognized it was a decade ago. I'm just waiting for enough people to catch up.

[handmade34]

2. figured it out

about 30+ years ago... now about the rest of us??

[sendero]

4. If 75% of Americans got it..

.. we could fix it. I'm clearly not talking about you.

Most Americans have totally bought in to the ridiculous tax-cut/deregulate theory of economics (supply side) even in the face of its abject failure.

But just like all booms sow the seeds for a coming bust, and vice versa, hungry people eventually figure out they have been had.

[Cosmocat]

22. Well said ...

"Most Americans have totally bought in to the ridiculous tax-cut/deregulate theory of economics (supply side) even in the face of its abject failure."

I fear we are not going to see a great awakening of this in our lifetime ... I mean, the Rs were out of power for TWO friggen years, and that was all it took to shift the blame to Rs and the electorate voted in MASS to put Rs back into control of the levers of government ...

Just a heartbreaking turn, with BO straddling the friggen middle, not even a hard left guy ...

They control the media, and there is little we can do ... I mean, when reality gets totally recast the way it does now ...

Wow ...

[TBF]

82. I recognized it in high school (30 yrs ago) -

it's a crappy system - inherently unequal - and it always has been. The only time there was even a reprieve for workers would be the period from WWI until the Viet Nam war. During the 50's Eisenhower, a republican, taxed the highest brackets of wage earners at up to 90% and increased the number of folks eligible for social security.

[Cutatious]

3. When we discover or create one that is better

Until then we will make the best of what we have.

[sendero]

5. Here's your..

.. sign.

[handmade34]

7. complacency is dangerous

"apathy is deadly"

we know better ways, but the fight is difficult

[Statistical]

13. What better ways, and better according to who?

[Cutatious]

17. I'm interested in hearing about some of those better ways

Maybe a rough draft or description of these better ways?

[handmade34]

28. many ideas and theories

a few writings:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/26/david_korten_agenda_for_a_new
http://www.ingenesist.com/introduction
http://www.socialeconomy.eu.org/spip.php?article278
http://www.moral-capitalism.com/
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/John_Maurice_Clark
http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/pdf/174/17412442001.pdf

a "social-economy" is the gist of most newer ideas... with focus on actually contribution to a society/community based on real worth related to the populous, not artificial criteria

[bluestate10]

50. Those that claim to

know better ways, yet don't disclose them for open review and debate are at the minimum, coy. Republicans got elected in large numbers by criticizing what existed, but offered nothing as an alternative.

Progressives can be capitalists. I am of the opinion that progressives that remain true to their core principles as their businesses grow are the best capitalists. The progressive mindset that success and money making are contrary to progressive values is just plain wrong, IMO, and to a large extent explains why progressivism seem to be in decline.

[katnapped]

6. Once it's too late.... n/t

[HughBeaumont]

8. All I know is . . .

. . . we definitely have no future in the set up we're forced with now.

[Ichingcarpenter]

9. Reagan's Election

I thought we had a chance before that..
but that wakeup call from those times
took me 15 years to wake up to what spin I was being told.

You know that pony at the bottom of the room of shit?
I almost believed Reagan when he told that story
and I never voted for him...

Savings and Loans.... remember those?
Many don't...

But I was young then and struggling to raise a family
and build my own home in the country for $20,000
which I did.

[snappyturtle]

10. Small business isn't absurd! I had a small business for over thirty

years. It morphed several times during that period but I survived and was extremely happy working like a dog for myself rather than a big corp.

It isn't small business that is absurd but rather Wall Street, the dubious banking sector monsters and the defense industry, et. al. After all, don't large businesses look for ways to market themselves into our lives to create that personal feeling that innately belongs to small business? People will turn to themselves to create the 'missing' jobs. Matter-of-fact, I'm involved today in forming another small business with my daughter and son....they've come to a point that I came to years ago: I'd rather depend on myself than on the whims of big business. imho

edit: What's your solution? I'm not trying to be snarky. I just wonder what would be better.

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

21. some solutions...

"I'd rather depend on myself than on the whims of big business"

Why have a system that requires you to choose between depending on a big business or the operation of a small business at all? Why not just have a system where you are guaranteed a high income as a right of citizenship and then you can spend your time doing work that you are interested in instead of work that you think will best take care of your financial interests?

I offer solutions that can be done within our current system at DemandTheGoodLife.com. But it doesn't get into questions about whether the entire system needs to be changed. I do think it is time for a change and the solution I would offer builds on what I talk about in that site.

I think you should have a non-profit, open-source system where everyone who participates is paid enough to live a wealthy lifestyle. Everyone is paid well regardless of the profitability of any one organization. A system where the ultimate incentive is maximizing profits and shareholder wealth goes against what the purpose of an economy is.

The purpose of the economy is not to dictate what people are allowed to have but rather to show people what is possible, then to discover what people want, then to develop the technical solution to meet that demand, then to provide a forum that allows anyone to improve on those solutions.

The goal of the economy is to determine what people would want if money was no object and they didn't have a budget to work with and then strive to produce enough to meet that demand without damaging the environment.

And we all agree that everything we produce should be of the finest design and style, of the highest 5 star standards, state-of-the-art, and meet the expectations of the most discriminating of consumers.

We have hundreds of years of experience in accomplishing that. So just create a transparent, open-source system that establishes the protocols, standards and best practices that everyone follows in running the economy so that we meet our economic goal.

For example, we already know how to launch successful products. So we create a protocol based on that for launching new products. Now, if anyone has an idea for a new product they just have to follow the protocol for a new product launch. So long as it meets the guidelines within the protocol, that new idea is put into production.

So the system manages the economy. We just plug into the system and constantly update the system with best practices. This way the goal is always to create the best economy, the goal is no longer to get rich.

[snappyturtle]

23. Thanks for your reply. You're assuming that I wasn't doing work

that interested me. My work was my passion....over grown hobby!

I think your ideas are utopian. Nice but...........whose going to pay for this "system" or fund it to begin?

I haven't checked out your website but I will today. I agree with the goal...."...to create the best economy, the goal is to no longer get rich." Trust me my goal was never to get rich but to enjoy what I was doing, to enjoy watching the business grow, and to find new ways to manage-ably expand while earning enough to meet my needs and a few wants. That's about as simple as it gets imho. I feel, from what you wrote above, that the openess of solutions, etc. would kill diversity. Why would one want to openly discuss,e.g., a trade 'secret'?

Maybe I ought to just go to your website. I'm always interested in new ideas!

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

29. public, non profit is the answer

"I think your ideas are utopian."

I wouldn't propose a utopia. There are no final destinations or final frontiers. Instead, we should use the methods of science to continually improve the economy. What we have now is a utopia. People think our current system should never be changed, we should never intervene in the market process even though the world is littered with its failures and drawbacks.


"whose going to pay for this "system" or fund it to begin?"

At my website, I propose that everyone should always have access to a job by volunteering at an approved civic or charitable organization. Those jobs would be paid for by making our current tax rate flat. But those organizations would be non profit, open source groups that could do anything a for profit company could do. So you could start with that and build from there.

I think that there are an enormous amount of artists, scientists, doctors, dentists, engineers, programmers, machinists, etc that if they were just paid well they would choose to work for a non profit group than for a private company whose goal is to make some private individual as wealthy as possible.

But at the end of the day, if people vote for a better system, we will get a better system. Our current system benefits a small minority at the top. If the majority was educated on a system that would work a lot better for them, we would be able to make big changes.


"the openess of solutions, etc. would kill diversity. Why would one want to openly discuss,e.g., a trade 'secret'?"

There are no longer profits to be made, so there is no reason to keep anything secret. There would be no reason for copyrights or patents. Everyone would collaborate in an open-source environment. Everyone would be on the same team.

But that does not mean you can't have choice and competition. We know that monopolies are bad because they can stifle innovation and suffer from group think. So you design that into the system. You deliberately have separate teams work on the same solutions. Experimenting and trying new ideas is the hallmark of science.

But our best technologies came from the kinds of non profit groups that I am talking about. Defense utilizes the most cutting edge technology. Defense invented the internet, they developed the automated car, they are doing the most advanced research in medical regeneration and spinal cord repair and they have the most advanced robotics. NASA gave us satellites, cell phones and GPS. NSI funds basic research in physics which gave us the laser, semiconductors and computers. The Dept of Energy gave us nuclear power and can certainly generate the technology to power us into the future in a clean, safe way.

A deliberate, collaborative effort by people who never earn a single dime in profit will outperform private, for-profit companies in delivering solutions and technologies that increase our standard of living.

[snappyturtle]

56. I went to your website and read the plan as far as I could.

Toward the end, the page wouldn't load, that night or the next day!

It's delightful and dreamy to look at but how many decades would it take to get a program like that up and running? I believe most of your problem would lie in convincing others that the plan is the right approach. imho

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

59. it takes awareness

"It's delightful and dreamy to look at but how many decades would it take to get a program like that up and running? I believe most of your problem would lie in convincing others that the plan is the right approach. imho"

All it takes is awareness. Unlike most government programs, it is something that people can easily see a benefit from. Getting paid an extra $50k and eliminating interest is as straight-forward as you can get. But it is also practical. It simplifies a lot of what government needs to do to make society work well. And it appeals to both the Left and Right. The Left like that it eliminates poverty and reduces inequality. The Right likes that each individual is spending the tax money instead of government. It enables us to reduce the footprint government has in society (there are libertarians who wrote books about implementing a basic income).

So it appeals to most people. If people are told about this option, they usually support it. It is just a matter of getting the word out. If every voter was made aware of this idea, I believe it would be something demanded in the next election. It all depends on how long it takes me, you and whoever else to reach out to voters and let them know about this idea.

[snappyturtle]

72. I understand it's appeal but I don't believe repukes would spend the $$$

on it...or that most of them would understand or become 'aware'. AND. I'm afraid we won't be able to reach the minimum GDP you suggested until (?) the economy recovers. imho

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

74. they would have no choice

The last significant push for paying a basic income was made by President Nixon. There are libertarians that advocate the basic income concept. It reduces the size of government, so I would not dismiss this as something the Right would not embrace. This is one idea that the Right and Left can both agree on.

But if it gains popular support, even if they oppose it, they would have no choice but to implement it.

And I think this can gain a level of popular support unlike any other government initiative. It would solve nearly every social problem we have. And it will significantly improve the lives of every single person. Nobody is going to say I would rather not have the extra money, I prefer more financial struggle.

There is no minimum GDP that we need to reach. It can be implemented immediately. It most likely would not be at the level in the website. But you need to start somewhere and then just build on that. If we implemented it today, the dividends would be 20% lower.

[bluestate10]

60. While your goals are noble.

You don't properly consider pitfalls like nationalism, laziness, boredom, dishonesty. Eliminate those pitfalls, your system would indeed be worth living in. I have some profound philosophical differences with your vision, I believe that enlightened capitalism may be easier to get up and running quicker, if that migrates to your system, no complaints here. I will check out your site when I get time, I hope in the next day or two.

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

63. points

"nationalism"

I'm not sure of what you mean. I don't know how that impacts the economy.

"laziness"

I think people should be able to be lazy if that is how they are. People will never be permanently lazy or they will go nuts. But if they want to be less productive and that suits them, so be it. There are more than enough motivated people with endless energy to make up for them.

We have the ability to automate 55% of the economy with existing technology. We could have a 55% unemployment rate and maintain the same output.

"boredom"

In a modern, wealthy society where you have a high income and the ability to participate in the economy in meaningful ways, you should never become bored.

"dishonesty"

I believe the economy should be completely transparent which I talk about at my website. All business and civic activity should be disclosed in real time in a standard format in a central database (all financials down to the line item, contracts, salaries, etc.). That is the best defense against dishonesty, fraud and corruption.


"I believe that enlightened capitalism may be easier to get up and running quicker, if that migrates to your system, no complaints here."

I am not on an ideological crusade. I am interested in real solutions to real problems like poverty, income inequality, access to education or healthcare, etc. I have some strong opinions on how to solve those problems and make the economy better, but if at the end of the day the unfettered pursuit of profit works, I am for that.

[Scruffy1]

11. When a system no longer works its time to change it

All those who are afraid of change keep saying we don't have a new improved model yet but every engineering project I ever worked on started as a mandate for change without a clear cut solution. First you must have a consensus of the desired results and then identify possible solutions.

If the change doesn't work good enough keep changing it until it does. In reality no system is perfect and change is an ongoing process, but you will never improve anything unless you experiment and try new things. We've been locked into this no change philosophy by those on the top who would love to preserve the status quo. I remember seeing an anti Obama poster in Oklahoma with a gun on it that said just change one more thing. When we finally realize that capitalism is a bust for the entire world then we will be ready to change. If it doesn't work out keep changing.

[bluestate10]

51. Social change is not an engineering experiment.

Engineering experiments boil down to cold logic, the experiment will either lead to a solution or set the stage for more inquiry. In the end the laws of nature and how they are managed determines the success or failure of an engineering experiment, nature does not shade it's response (data).

Social experiments involve people, some with greater power of comprehension than others. Unlike engineering experiments, social manipulators can fudge data and get the result they desire,

[Statistical]

12. Capitalism is highly dysfunctional. The problem is nobody has come up with a better system.

All of your claims are bogus. Would Harlem have access to wine without the shop? Of course nobody claimed otherwise that is your easily defeated strawman. The fact that their business is successful indicates it filled a niche. Either other businesses were too far, too expensive, had too little selection, or were too poorly maintained.

Capitalism is the mechanism that enabled them to fill that niche. Had there been no niche (residents liked existing solutions just fine) the business would have failed. To pretend there is no overhead/inefficiencies/corruption in other systems is silly. Under a communist system the number of wine shops would be centrally planned. That would require bureaucrats and long delays in allocation of resources. Often the central plan would be wrong and there would be for example too many wineshops and not enough car dealerships. Lastly if you don't think there wasn't a huge amount of corruption to influence those "optimum" decisions well I got a bridge for you. High level central planners made fortunes making sure the "right" (often wrong for the people) projects were approved.

So what is your alternative and how do you legally transfer to that (the whole seizing of private property problem)?

[Ichingcarpenter]

15. A very simplistic and I think Economical Neologistic Concepts

Very Naive..........

I don't think you are aware of Many International thought of Economic solutions
that have worked and are not as you conceive things to be.

Their are many new Nobel Laurents in the past decade
that describe new economic systems.

[Statistical]

19. Yet even the most successful socialist states (Scandinavia) are built on the backs of capitalism.

Nothing wrong with Capitalism. Just understand Capitalism encourages concentration of wealth.
Successful countries have various mechanisms that redistribute that.

Universal health care, free higher education, strong social safety net, good infrastructure, state sponsored research, etc in Finland for example are all paid for by very progressive taxation on wealthy capitalists.

It is one thing to write a paper, it is another thing to transform an entire economy.

In the real world capitalism works, and no other economy system is even close to capable.

[Ichingcarpenter]

20. Capitalism right now is confused with Corporatism

When Corporations, as in the US, are citizens
ALL IS LOST.

Its a worldwide plague that destroys the Identify
of human vs Corporation.......


US export.......... now ..... no one can assume responsibility...... I'll just move off shore .... off worldl





Corporatism has nothing to do with your old concepts of what made capitalism real and good.
WE ARE TALKING PLANETARY NOW.





.

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

24. there are plenty of solutions being proposed

"All of your claims are bogus. Would Harlem have access to wine without the shop? Of course nobody claimed otherwise that is your easily defeated strawman. The fact that their business is successful indicates it filled a niche. Either other businesses were too far, too expensive, had too little selection, or were too poorly maintained."

You are missing the point. The point is do we really need this system where someone tries to earn a business profit and others sell themselves as workers in order to have a society where Harlem has wine.

I think we can come up with a much better system that makes sure Harlem has wine without having the infinite problems that a for profit system produces.


"To pretend there is no overhead/inefficiencies/corruption in other systems is silly."

In an open, transparent system that I propose, that uses the methods of science, you would be constantly improving the system.


"Often the central plan would be wrong and there would be for example too many wineshops and not enough car dealerships.'"

Often a market plan is wrong. What I would propose is a system where you experiment, test and improve in an open, transparent way. Science is the method for all our progress, including the operation of our economy. If you have too many wineshops, no matter what economic system you have, you shut down the extras.


"Lastly if you don't think there wasn't a huge amount of corruption to influence those "optimum" decisions well I got a bridge for you. High level central planners made fortunes making sure the "right" (often wrong for the people) projects were approved."

It would be run by the system, not by some maverick bureaucrat. It would work just like our Legal system. Judges and prosecutors don't make the law, they just make sure citizens are following it. And there is no economic incentive for people to be corrupt when everyone is paid a flat salary. There is no "fortune" to be made.


"So what is your alternative and how do you legally transfer to that (the whole seizing of private property problem)?"

See my comment above.

[eallen]

14. Yes, please, sketch for me how I would get wine through non-profits?

How many Argentinian and Chilean vintners would continue to produce grapes? Who would make the wine? Who would ship it? How would it get to my neighborhood? To my pantry?

I'm quite curious about this.

:hippie:

[handmade34]

16. maybe?

http://www.co-operative.coop/food/ethics/Ethical-trading/Fairtrade/Our-fairtrade-products/Wine/Chilean-vineyard-planting-project/

http://dutoitskloof.co.za/history.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/wine/3342104/Top-ten-Fairtrade-wines.html

[eallen]

25. "Fair trade" doesn't mean non-profit. Every "fair trade" grocery I've bought...

Was bought in a grocery store run for profit, which received it on trucks driven for profit, often after it crossed the oceans on ships built and managed for profit.

That's not a criticism of co-ops. I like co-ops, and encourage them wherever they work. But they don't work everywhere and at all things. That co-op winery in New Zealand uses tractors. Can you point to a co-op manufacturer of tractor engines? Wineries in New Zealand need to ship their product. Can you point to a co-op shipping outfit? There are economic reasons co-ops survive in some kinds of enterprise, but not in others. Pointing to co-ops doesn't mean the entire economy could be run that way. Or even the parts of the economy required for the survival of co-ops. If anyone were nuts enough to propose a rule restricting co-ops to dealing with only other co-ops, the result wouldn't be the death of the rest of the "evil" economy, but the death of the co-ops.

:hippie:

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

30. it is simple

If we had an economic system that just paid everyone a high enough salary so that everyone lived a wealthy lifestyle, not a middle class lifestyle, regardless of what work they did, some people will recognize consumers like wine and so they will choose to work on making wine to meet that demand.

Since there is no private profit, everyone is on the same team, so they will be able to collaborate with every wine maker across the world and share best practices and the best way to make wine. They will also be able to collaborate with all farmers and robotics companies to enable us to grow grapes without having people manually work the field.

We do not need the profit incentive and a labor market which treats people like a mere commodity of labor to figure out people want wine and then to figure out a way to grow enough grapes to meet all the diverse wine tastes that are demanded by consumers.

[eallen]

32. Sounds like magic to me.

<i>"Some people will recognize consumers like wine and so they will choose to work on making wine to meet that demand."</i>

I can't recall ever seeing someone choose to work hard <i>solely</i> to satisfy other people's demand for a good. That kind of hard work always seems to be driven by a desire for status, fame, or, most commonly, fortune. What you describe sounds more like magic than anything else. Do you have any data to show that it might work?

:hippie:

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

33. it is not magic, you get paid to work

You aren't working solely to satisfy people's demand. You are working to satisfy people's demand AND getting paid top dollar to do it. This is not a system where you volunteer and do not get paid. You get paid a a very high salary. You just do not earn a profit.

If we took profit out of the economy we would have enough money to pay every worker a salary that starts at $115,000 per year and goes up to 365,000 per year.

[eallen]

35. How is it decided how much various jobs pay? And when a new business is needed?

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

37. the same way we do now

The government has millions of employees and they employ a system of pay grades. So there is already precedence for this. It could be based on difficulty of work, skill needed and availability of workers. You develop a rational system and then people just follow the system. The system is developed in an open, transparent way and constantly improved upon.

Businesses are launched the same way they are now. You do market research to determine demand. If there is a market for it, you qualify for a test. If the test works, it goes into full production.

And if sales are not able to cover expenses, the business is shut down.

You develop a system for managing an economy, based on best practices (using a lot of the best practices we have already developed) and constant improvement, but that system is now open to everyone equally as a right of citizenship.

But the goal is no longer how can I use the system to make me as rich as possible. Since everyone is wealthy, the goal is now pride and satisfaction in making the greatest goods and services humanly possible.

[eallen]

38. Sounds like more magic.

Businesses cost money to open. And there is no test that determines which are more likely to work than others. The government funding all businesses that pass a test is a recipe for both the government wasting huge monies on lousy businesses, while underfunding ones that are most needed.

Nothing has been found to work better at this than the evolutionary algorithm of investors putting skin into the game. What works gets propagated. What doesn't work, goes broke. Business is an ecosystem. We don't know how to design ecosystems. China provides a relevant experiment in that regard -- it didn't start growing until its government decided to hand off a lot of the entrepreneurial decisions to investors seeking profit. Look at the graph below: those inflection points are when stock markets were opened.



And what happened in those decades before the Chinese government decided to put profit back into business, starting with farming? Starvation. Quite literally. Given its history of failure, why should anyone want to try that again?

:hippie:

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

39. everything looks like magic when you don't understand how it works

The problem with China was that it was a command economy. A small handful of bureaucrats decided what was produced and what you were allowed to consume. That is not what the purpose of an economy should be. It shouldn't be some Emperor's Sims game. And that is not what I am talking about.

The purpose of the economy should be to just deliver whatever people demand, it does not tell you what you are allowed to have. China switched from a command economy whose goal was to achieve purity in Mao's socialist ideology to an economy whose goal was to meet citizen demand.

We have a way to measure consumer demand and can develop the technical solution to meet that demand. We have a way to measure consumer satisfaction and have the capability to develop a system that meets consumer satisfaction. We have a way to measure what new ideas people want to pursue and can develop the technical solution to enable everyone to test the viability of their ideas.

The government would not run the system, it would just make sure the system is being followed. The system would be required by law to meet consumer and investment demand and the government would work on behalf of consumers and investors to make sure their right to the economic system is being met.

There is already plenty of proof that organizations can work efficiently and can be innovative even though they are non profit. The US post office is a non profit organization, but it has perhaps the most innovative and sophisticated logistics system in the world. It also is able to deliver mail more efficiently and for a cheaper price than its for-profit competitors.


"Businesses cost money to open. And there is no test that determines which are more likely to work than others."

That is not true. Entrepreneurs put together business plans that measure potential market demand and feasibility of their idea. The criteria investors use today to determine what might work will be the criteria we will continue to use. It will be done in an open, transparent way and constantly improved upon.


"The government funding all businesses that pass a test is a recipe for both the government wasting huge monies on lousy businesses, while underfunding ones that are most needed."

A process for funding new businesses either exists or it doesn't. If a private bank can determine what to invest in, then a public bank can.

[eallen]

41. Investment followed by profit/loss is the only way we know to find consumer demand.

We're going around in circles. There is one proven way to determine whether future consumer demand will support a new business, and that is to make the investment, open the business, then see whether it succeeds (makes a profit) or fails (takes a loss).

You previously described as your alternative a bureaucracy that would administer a "test" to pre-screen businesses. When pointed to examples where bureaucratic decisions of that sort fail, you complain "a small handful of bureaucrats decided what was produced and what you were allowed to consume." But I don't know that it was a small handful. And every piece of evidence is that their intentions were exactly what yours are: to produce a healthy economy that provided people what they wanted. The problem was they didn't have your magical method for predicting consumer demand.

It just didn't work out that way. And you have yet to explain why your system would do any better. More, you cannot point to a single example where your system has worked. That's not a very persuasive argument that we should switch to it.

There are many things that shouldn't be left to the market: the administration of justice, the provision of a social safety net, protection of the environment, and public education among them. But the one thing the market does do well is explore consumer demand and foster businesses to meet it.

:hippie:

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

43. And that process can work whether you pursue wealth accumulation or not

"There is one proven way to determine whether future consumer demand will support a new business, and that is to make the investment, open the business, then see whether it succeeds (makes a profit) or fails (takes a loss)."

And that process can be performed regardless of whether you are looking to maximize wealth or not. A non-profit can do that just as well as a for-profit.


"You previously described as your alternative a bureaucracy that would administer a "test" to pre-screen businesses."

I am a business owner, if you think a "test" is not administered before an investment is made, you do not understand how business operates. All new ideas are vetted with tests administered by a bureaucracy.


"And you have yet to explain why your system would do any better."

There would be no poverty, no business cycles, everyone would be wealthy, 100% access to healthcare and education, we can pursue the elimination of jobs through automation instead of the creation of jobs, we can avoid duplicate products (consumer choice in cell phones is important, having 200 different kinds is ridiculous), collaboration between all firms, no monopolies on intellectual property, everyone has full access to all technology, full employment, productive efforts focused on meeting real demand not just trying to take some of the market share, etc.


"But I don't know that it was a small handful. And every piece of evidence is that their intentions were exactly what yours are: to produce a healthy economy that provided people what they wanted."

China was a dictatorship where Mao and his insiders directed the entire economy. Their version of a healthy economy was not to meet consumer demand. It was to pursue an ideology that he hoped would produce a certain kind of culture. His objective was not to measure what consumers wanted and then produce whatever that was. He dictated everything that should be done and if you complained, you were thrown in jail. That is not an open, transparent system that is able to solve problems.

I am not proposing a command economy. People are not going to be given a plan to follow and if they don't follow it they will be thrown in jail. It is up to individuals to find out what people want and produce it. Production is not dictated by the chairman of some political party. And the methods of measuring demand and production will be based on the best available science, not the gospel of some mythical political figure.


"you cannot point to a single example where your system has worked. That's not a very persuasive argument that we should switch to it."

There are tons of examples of non profits working: police, fire, defense, hospitals, radio programs, tv programs, NASA, most major medicines from National Science Foundation, Paul Newman's sauces, Post Office, secondary school, university, wikipedia, linux operating system, apache web serer, my sql database, python programming language, php scripting lanuage, subway, light rail, etc.

I find the idea completely absurd that we can't determine people want wine and then produce and deliver that wine at a price people are willing to pay, unless someone is making a profit. All of our significant medical, scientific and technological achievements come from non profit organizations. Designers will still want to design, scientists will still want to develop the next breakthrough, and inventors will still want to innovate.

[lumberjack_jeff]

73. Magic... or a candidate for automation.

This discussion bugs me because it reminds me of my brother. Anything he doesn't understand must:
a) be easy
b) be easily explainable using the most airily dismissive terms to anyone smart enough to understand him. No one is, of course.
c) be the kind of thing that I enjoy doing so I'd be happy to come over and "help" him implement his great idea.

There are a great many jobs that are necessary, yucky, hard AND impossible to automate. People don't do them because they have some sort of artistic or humanitarian compulsion to install roofs, fix sewers, plant trees and change the diapers of nursing home residents. They do it for the pay it brings.

[eallen]

36. And more importantly, when an old business should close its doors.

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. The US gdp per capita is about $46,000.

Some explanation of your math is in order.

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

53. the math...

The numbers are based on an economy that implemented the program at demandTheGoodLife.com. So that means the economy is producing $18 trillion per year in total income (which we would have reached in about 4 years if we weren't in a recession but would be about 20% lower if this was implemented today), 15% goes towards investment (our current rate of investment is 10.9%), every adult is getting paid a $20k citizen dividend, every worker is getting paid an additional $45k citizen dividend, and the workforce is 100 million.

Here then are the calculations:

$18.0 trillion: Total National Income
$ 2.7 trillion: 15% Retained Earnings
$15.3 trillion: Available to pay in wages

$6.0 trillion: $300,000 salary paid to 20% of employees
$4.0 trillion: $200,000 salary paid to 20% of employees
$2.8 trillion: $140,000 salary paid to 20% of employees
$1.5 trillion: $ 75,000 salary paid to 20% of employees
$1.0 trillion: $ 50,000 salary paid to 20% of employees
$15.3 trillion in total wages paid

The workforce is normally 135 million people. But since people will be getting a tax free $20k citizen dividend, many people will choose not to work that currently do. The numbers above are based on the workforce being 100 million.

When you include the $20k dividend and the $45k dividend to the above salaries, the salaries range from $115,000 to $365,000 per year.

The salary would be taxed at 50%. The dividends do not get taxed. So if you made the lowest salary of $115k, your after-tax take-home pay would be $90k (an effective tax rate of 21.7%).

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. ... could use some improvement.

You'd only have to create another $9 trillion in GDP.

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

62. your math is incorrect

The $9 trillion is a tax on wages.

So you would subtract the $9 trillion in dividends from the $15.3 trillion in wages.

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. Okay, here's another way of looking at it.

Setting aside the insurmountable social issues for a moment so we can look only at the math.

The tax rate required on the salaries of the workers to pay for dividends and 15% government investment would need to be 72%.

Which brings us back to the social issues. I suspect that a heart surgeon is the one least likely to participate for $7000/month.

... unless you're planning to conscript him into national service to provide his unique and necessary services. In which case, this idea has been tried before albeit with smaller numbers and poor results.

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

67. and that way is also incorrect

You are not calculating correctly.

The total income is $18 trillion. The tax rate is 50%. That gives you the $9 trillion needed for the dividend.

The top salary paid is $300,000. That amount gets taxed 50% which brings you to $150,000. Add in the additional $65,000 in dividends brings the surgeon's total, after tax income to $215,000 per year.

The average pre-tax income for a surgeon in 2009 was $219,770. So the average surgeon would get a pay increase.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.t01.htm

[lumberjack_jeff]

70. First, the US gdp is 14.2 trillion.

I used 15 to be generous.

If you're planning that the existing system creates another $4 trillion in GDP prior to implementing the big fix, it's reasonable to wonder what's so broken about the existing system.

Second, 100 million workers with an average salary of $154,000 don't earn $18 trillion. In your plan, government needs $11 trillion to pay dividends and make investments. Either the GDP or tax rates would have to go way up.

Third, what about other things? I assume that government will be required to do more than just build roads and pay dividends.

Fourth, the surgeon could get paid $65,000 tax free by sanitizing phones or sitting at his keyboard reinventing economics.

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

71. you need to read my responses

In my response I wrote: "...the economy is producing $18 trillion per year in total income (which we would have reached in about 4 years if we weren't in a recession but would be about 20% lower if this was implemented today)"

The $18 trillion comes from the example in my website.


"Second, 100 million workers with an average salary of $154,000 don't earn $18 trillion."
The pay scale was also in my response. Since 15% is for investment, the wages total 85% of $18 trillion. See the calculation above.


"In your plan, government needs $11 trillion to pay dividends and make investments. Either the GDP or tax rates would have to go way up."
It needs $9 trillion, which it gets from a 50% tax, to pay out $20k to 220 million adults and $45k to 100 million workers.


"Third, what about other things? I assume that government will be required to do more than just build roads and pay dividends."
Since everyone gets a dividend, the government no longer needs to provide medicaid, medicare, social security and welfare. When you eliminate those expenses, the government could run on $1 trillion per year which it would get from a 4% tax (which comes out of the 15% investment) plus existing excise taxes, tariffs and user fees. State taxes is a separate expense.


"Fourth, the surgeon could get paid $65,000 tax free by sanitizing phones or sitting at his keyboard reinventing economics."
If you would rather clean phones than save lives you have the freedom to do that.

[SoCalDem]

18. When most of the suit-wearing, briefcase toting people are selling burritos & oranges at freeway

off-ramps....and their plastic cards are useful only as ice scrapers for their P.O.S. car they bought after the Volvo got repo-ed.

[Odin2005]

26. Capitalism is incopatible with technology-brought plenty.

It leads to technological unemployment.

[customerserviceguy]

27. That sure happened

when the Western world went from a primarily agricultural economy to a primarily industrial economy, didn't it?

I think that capitalism is a fine system, it's the times when those with the money begin to use government to create 'favors' and restrictions to new entrants that capitalism breaks down and becomes the ugly thing that we rightly despise.

[Locrian]

31. read Douglas Rushkoff's book "Life Inc"

The basic premise is that the economic system was designed to favor the investment class (ie the rich). That's why money is based on debt, and how money will ALWAYS become concentrated in the hands of bankers and the rich: because thats how it was DESIGNED to work.

There used to be "local" currency and "exchange currency". Local was exclusively based on VALUE. REAL value, like food, real work, etc. The exchange currency was used for long distance trade etc. Most people never used the exchange currency, the money stayed LOCAL along with the real value.

Sure, there are various degrees that you can "tweak" the current system with laws, taxes, etc. Regulation etc. Those have largely been destroyed and we are seeing the true nature of the "system".

http://rushkoff.com/books/life-incorporated/


• Money is not a part of nature, to be studied by a science like economics, but an invention with a specific purpose.
• Centralized currency is just one kind of money – one not intended to promote transactions but to promote the accumulation of capital by the wealthy.
• Banking is our society’s biggest industry, and debt is our biggest product.
• Corporations were never intended to promote commerce, but to prevent it.
• The development of chartered corporations and centralized currency caused the plague; the economic devastation ended Europe’s most prosperous centuries, and led to the deaths of half of its population.
• The more money we make, the more debt we have actually created.

[upi402]

34. When the press knelt before Reagan

and then the "opposition" party gave us NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act - that cemented it.

[Amonester]

40. Long enough before it gets to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR8O0H6gKqs&feature=related">this *

which is the one-percenters'$ wet dReam plan.

You know, no Real healthcare for millions (but a mandate to buy INSURANCE), millions homeless, millions hungry, et al.



* Soylent Green (excerpts)

[AngryAmish]

42. My friend, have you ever met people?

You know, those things that walk around and kinda look like you.

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

44. come again?

[bluestate10]

52. The posters is asking whether you get out often.

Good causes and profits don't have to be mutually exclusive. A person can have passion for making positive change in society and not be any less serious about the passion because his or her company makes a profit.

No one challenged you with this question. What realistic alternative would you propose and why is that alternative superior?

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

55. weird

"The posters is asking whether you get out often."

Yeah, that is a weird question.


"No one challenged you with this question. What realistic alternative would you propose and why is that alternative superior?"

This article was just a thought experiment. To see what my ideas would be for an alternative, read through my comments starting with #21.

But for real solutions that I advocate to be implemented now, see DemandTheGoodLife.com

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. The yummy medicine guy did it for his child.

Absent some form of a capitalist system, he doesn't have any motivation to do it for my child.

I build boats. I love 'em. I won't build you one unless I have some motivation, I'd build me another instead.

A world in which someone else meets my needs would indeed be a paradise. So long as I don't have to return the favor.

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

46. come on!

"Absent some form of a capitalist system, he doesn't have any motivation to do it for my child."

You really think he would keep the thing that helped his child a secret from every other parent that is going through the same as him? What would be the motivation for doing that!?

Even if he wanted to continue being a pharmacist, and didn't want to switch jobs, I think he would still be very motivated to make sure a manufacturing company made it available to other parents of disabled kids.


"I build boats. I love 'em. I won't build you one unless I have some motivation, I'd build me another instead."

You wouldn't be motivated to continue to build boats for other people if you were making between $115k and $365k per year? How much do boat makers make?

[lumberjack_jeff]

47. I like making boats, but I'd rather make zero boats if the money is all the same.

Sanding is a lot of "mindless drudgery".

Why don't you invent a robot which does it and ship it to my address. Surely you wouldn't keep such a thing secret.

The stuff which did so much good for the pharmacist's child won't get to mine, secret or no, unless someone develops it, manufactures it, bottles it, markets it and delivers it to my home. It isn't a matter of keeping it secret, it's a matter of no one will distribute the product gratis.

Here's the flaw with utopian thinking. Independently wealthy people basking in their leisure want their toilets to flush, but really don't want to think too hard about the army of specialized skills and mindless labor required to make it happen.

Have you ever read the Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy? The 1/3 of the people of Gulgafrincham who could neither lead, nor do anything useful (the hair stylists, insurance salespeople and telephone sanitizers) were placed on a ship and sent to another planet. Upon arriving at the new planet, they decided that they needed a currency. Lacking the skills to make anything better, they found that leaves would do nicely. Since leaves actually do grow on trees, the inflation rate began to approach infinity. The consensus solution was to embark on a systematic program of inflation reduction, in which the forests were burned.

Money isn't "...digital, and no longer physical like gold or silver", it's the value of our labor. No labor = no money.

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

49. a little confused

I don't know if you are referring to the thought experiment in this article or the actual plan at DemandTheGoodLife.com.


"Sanding is a lot of "mindless drudgery". Why don't you invent a robot which does it and ship it to my address. Surely you wouldn't keep such a thing secret."

You are absolutely right. If money was no object and you had the ability to spend your time any way you want, few people would choose to spend it sanding boats all day. So an economic goal should be to automate that job, and we have the capability of doing that. The more you turn something into a commodity, the easier it is to automate. And the more advanced our automation becomes, the less we need to make something into a commodity to automate it.


"The stuff which did so much good for the pharmacist's child won't get to mine, secret or no, unless someone develops it, manufactures it, bottles it, markets it and delivers it to my home. It isn't a matter of keeping it secret, it's a matter of no one will distribute the product gratis."

That is why I do not advocate in this article, in this article's comments or in the plan at my website to not pay people to work! Nobody is required to do anything gratis. To the contrary, I advocate a system where everyone who works gets paid top dollar.


"Here's the flaw with utopian thinking. Independently wealthy people basking in their leisure want their toilets to flush, but really don't want to think too hard about the army of specialized skills and mindless labor required to make it happen."

Nobody should have to think about how each item is produced in order to enjoy the fruits of wealth. Why do you need to know how a toilet works in order to enjoy the convenience of a toilet?

But you might not have a full understanding of what the term leisure means. A life of leisure is a productive life. A life of leisure means the work you do is Leisure Activities instead of Jobs. Jobs is "mindless labor" work which we should have machines doing. A productive leisure activity is the opposite of a job - it is an activity that people naturally want to do, that people do in their free time, that people do even if they aren't getting paid for it, that people would do more of if they didn't have a job to go to, that is recreational and done primarily for pleasure. But it is also an activity that is productive. Some examples are any activity that people currently do as a hobby or volunteer for or pay to do such as writing books, making music, filming movies, raising a family, furthering basic science, building robots, programming open source software, occupying a position of power, designing stuff and developing new inventions.

We get more overall productivity from people doing leisure activities (where we get to have fun, express our creativity and apply our intellect) than from people doing jobs (which are boring, menial and best suited for machines).


"Since leaves actually do grow on trees, the inflation rate began to approach infinity. The consensus solution was to embark on a systematic program of inflation reduction, in which the forests were burned."

I have no idea what you are getting at!


"Money isn't "...digital, and no longer physical like gold or silver", it's the value of our labor. No labor = no money."

That is not correct. Money is a unit of measurement. It measures the productive value of the economy. Money is in fact digital. And money does not equal the value of our labor. If there was no labor, you would still need money. If we had a completely automated economy, you would still need to ration whatever the robots produced. That would require money.

[lumberjack_jeff]

54. Money is a store of value.

If I build a boat, the value that I've added to the boards is worth something to a person who needs a boat. Unfortunately, the person who needs the boat makes mascara (which I don't need) so he exchanges the value he added to his raw materials for the value I've added to my raw materials using currency as an intermediary.

Like the Gulgafrinchans learned, you can't simply arbitrarily create money without the value to back it up or inflation instantly devalues it. If you think that everyone in the US deserves top dollar in addition to the basic citizenship dividend (which itself is more than the entire GDP per capita) then you are proposing exactly that.

The "productive value of the economy" IS the labor. There is no other basis - good ideas don't create value until labor creates a product.

Why do you need to know how a toilet works in order to enjoy the convenience of a toilet?

So long as you have the money to hire skilled people to fix it, you don't. But anyone who aspires to redesign the global economy should know that someone will have to fix them, and that it is his (or her) labor which is the underlying value of the economy.

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

57. store of value is a potential feature of money

"If I build a boat, the value that I've added to the boards is worth something to a person who needs a boat. Unfortunately, the person who needs the boat makes mascara (which I don't need) so he exchanges the value he added to his raw materials for the value I've added to my raw materials using currency as an intermediary."

What you are describing here is the unit of account. Money is a common unit of measurement in an economy. It is a unit of measurement no different than the inch, ton or degree. It is difficult to exchange through barter, so everyone agrees on a common unit of measuring goods and services and you exchange units instead of bartering.


"you can't simply arbitrarily create money without the value to back it up or inflation instantly devalues it."

True, if you increase the money supply greater than you increase the amount of goods and services available, you will create inflation.


"If you think that everyone in the US deserves top dollar in addition to the basic citizenship dividend (which itself is more than the entire GDP per capita) then you are proposing exactly that."

The amount of money paid out in salary and citizen dividends does not exceed the GDP and does not come from printing money so does not cause inflation.


"The "productive value of the economy" IS the labor. There is no other basis - good ideas don't create value until labor creates a product."

In modern economic thought, the factors of production are labor, capital and land. The labor theory of value was an idea during Marx's time.


"But anyone who aspires to redesign the global economy should know that someone will have to fix them, and that it is his (or her) labor which is the underlying value of the economy."

The overwhelming majority of people who use toilets probably will never aspire to redesign the global economy. And if they picked up a recent economics textbook while sitting on the throne, they would learn that Land and Capital in addition to Labor add to the underlying value of the economy.

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. Utopia collides with reality, news at 11

What you are describing here is the unit of account. Money is a common unit of measurement in an economy. It is a unit of measurement no different than the inch, ton or degree. It is difficult to exchange through barter, so everyone agrees on a common unit of measuring goods and services and you exchange units instead of bartering.

No, it is not necessary for everyone to agree. It is only necessary for the buyer and the seller to agree on the equitable exchange. If I think that the value in a boat is X, then I won't make one for .5X - regardless of what the government formula says.

The amount of money paid out in salary and citizen dividends does not exceed the GDP and does not come from printing money so does not cause inflation.

See post 58

In modern economic thought, the factors of production are labor, capital and land. The labor theory of value was an idea during Marx's time.

Without labor, capital and land can't add value to goods.

The overwhelming majority of people who use toilets probably will never aspire to redesign the global economy.

With all due respect, I'd stick to the former.

Is wealth spread inequitably? Absolutely. Are taxes insufficient to assure the general welfare? Absolutely. Is america's relationship to work less than ideal? Of course. Is increased efficiency fueled by increased automation a good thing? Yes, provided those increases in efficiency provide some benefit to people and not just the person who owns the robot.

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

69. You shouldn't believe in Utopias

If you think our current system is perfect and does not need changing, then you are the one who believes in a mythical Utopia. I do not believe this system is perfect. I do not think it is a Utopia. I believe there is a lot of room for improvement.


"No, it is not necessary for everyone to agree. It is only necessary for the buyer and the seller to agree on the equitable exchange. If I think that the value in a boat is X, then I won't make one for .5X - regardless of what the government formula says."

You both agreed that X is the money. How many units of X you determine the value of the boat to be is completely different. The government only sets X as the money. It does not determine the value of goods and services that are exchanged. Our government does not have a formula that tells you what to sell your boat for.


"See post 58"

And see all my responses to it! :)


"Without labor, capital and land can't add value to goods."

I have a pristine piece of land overlooking the ocean that not a single human hand has touched. I can guarantee you it is going to fetch a lot of value.


"Is wealth spread inequitably? Absolutely. Are taxes insufficient to assure the general welfare? Absolutely. Is america's relationship to work less than ideal? Of course. Is increased efficiency fueled by increased automation a good thing? Yes, provided those increases in efficiency provide some benefit to people and not just the person who owns the robot."

And in that we agree!

[lumberjack_jeff]

84. Labor created the value of your land, too.

The numerical supply of currency is irrelevant. The only inherent value that currency has is the aggregated value of all the labor which created goods and services in the economy. The only reason that your pristine piece of land has any value is because buyers exist who possess currency underwritten by the labor-created worth.

Your land value will buy X cheeseburgers. If you inflate the currency by printing more, it be worth more money, but it still buys the same number of cheeseburgers.

If the economy becomes less productive, by setting up a system where less than half of the people choose to work for the privilege of paying much more than half of the next dollar they earn to support those who do not, the value of cheeseburgers goes up, but the value of your property does not.

Put them both together, and you'll find that "top dollar" has suddenly become the new minimum wage.

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

86. your responses are no longer making sense

"The only inherent value that currency has is the aggregated value of all the labor which created goods and services in the economy."

Not true. That is the labor theory of value from classical economics. Modern economics rejects that. The value of money (not just currency) is the aggregated value of the goods and services in the economy (regardless of how much labor went into them).


"The only reason that your pristine piece of land has any value is because buyers exist who possess currency underwritten by the labor-created worth."

Not true again. The buyer's labor may have created value somewhere else that gave them income, but that labor did not in any way cause that land to have value. That land has value all by itself without any labor.


"Your land value will buy X cheeseburgers. If you inflate the currency by printing more, it be worth more money, but it still buys the same number of cheeseburgers."

True. But completely irrelevant to what we are talking about!


"If the economy becomes less productive, by setting up a system where less than half of the people choose to work for the privilege of paying much more than half of the next dollar they earn to support those who do not, the value of cheeseburgers goes up, but the value of your property does not."

Not true. If the economy becomes less productive and demand for cheeseburgers begins to outpace supply, the value of cheeseburgers will go up. But the same exact thing would happen to every good or service, including land.


"Put them both together, and you'll find that "top dollar" has suddenly become the new minimum wage."

If you are trying to say my idea would cause the GDP to drop and would cause inflation, that is not true. There is no money printing, so there is no inflation. And there is no reason why the economy would all of a sudden stop growing and shrink. I believe it would do the opposite. The increase in income for people who currently do not have a high income would cause a stimulus and grow the economy more than it already does.

[Maru Kitteh]

65. Your username is SPAM for your website. Not cool.

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

68. Your user name is SPAM for your name. Not cool. Are we redefining spam?

[TransitJohn]

66. Under capitalism, the whole world's a company town. n/t

n/t

[Taitertots]

76. Meaningless aphorism

What are you going to do spend your money on other planets? The whole world is like a company town no matter what system you have.

[Taitertots]

75. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner"

Lets see someone produce a new system that is anything but unimplementable fantasy.

I'll take capitalism with a healthy dose of public works programs. Universal single payer, market regulation, social safety net.

[Hannah Bell]

77. meaningless aphorism. you might take that if it were offered, but sorry, that's

the old model capitalism.

the new model is different, and doesn't include the things you mention.

it's capitalism au naturale, red in tooth & claw.

like most of the world has suffered under for the past 400 years, not the relatively easy ride we got in the states circa 1940-1990.

[Taitertots]

78. Aphorism or not, it is certainly true

I see someone hasn't bothered to read "The theory of moral sentiments".

[Hannah Bell]

85. the quote is famous. you shouldn't make assumptions that *you* are the only one who's ever heard it

it's been repeated ad infinitum by people much less intelligent than smith, in all kinds of contexts. which is why it has assumed the status of a meaningless -- or perhaps "cliched" or "trite" would be better words -- aphorism.

[Taitertots]

87. I'm sure you have heard the quote, but have you read the works that it came from?

Obviously not, or you would see how very appropriate it is to this discussion. A lot of people less intelligent than Smith like to comment about the concepts he worked with, while remaining willfully ignorant about his works. I'm sure you have heard the quote, but do you understand the concepts he is discussing?

Being repeated "ad infinitum" doesn't make it any less true.

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

80. interested in your input

Hannah, I would be interested in what you think a new economic model might look like.

This article was just a thought experiment. I threw out some ideas which you can read in the comments. The basic thesis is that everyone is just paid well, there are no profits, and then we come together in an open, transparent system that uses the methods of science to measure what people want, use technology to deliver whatever everyone wants and do the science and engineering to keep the ball moving forward.

The pursuit of profit to maximize personal wealth is unnecessary (everyone is just paid well enough to live a wealthy lifestyle which provides all the financial incentives to work hard) and it is the root cause of all the economy's problems (it is the reason why society does not work well for everyone).

[RegieRocker]

79. Before it goes to Crap and many many are unemployed.

Too late!

[handmade34]

81. just posted...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x92123

[demandTheGoodLife.co]

83. about zeitgeist

Although I agree with the aims of the venus project of having a society that works for everyone, I agree there is more than enough to provide a high standard of living for everyone, and we can use existing automation technology to free people from jobs nobody has any interest in doing, their methods of achieving those goals will not work.

He does not have an accurate understanding of economics. A lot of his claims are wrong about our current economy. The problem in the world is not money, it is the allocation of money. Eliminating money will make the world worse. They have no system of allocation. Having an unelected group of scientists direct the entire economy is a recipe for disaster and does not have a good track record. The allocation of resources is mostly subjective so there is no scientific correct way of allocating them like they claim.