Someday...an Economy Without Money

[Revoltingest]

Are you saying that better policy making doesn't involve making better decisions? If so, that doesn't make sense to me.

It appears to me that you're proposing a decision making
system that is comprehensive, rigid, & powerful.
But you've not mentioned how this system would incentivize
achieving desired goals. Without proper incentives, your
system would become corrupted. We see this in court,
which is supposed to operate that way, but exhibits
incompetence & corruption. It lacks sufficient incentives
for just decisions.

Efficiency to me describes methods that achieve the wanted objectives. I don't associate the word with hasty, thoughtless decision-making.



The capitalist free-market idea has been around for centuries and gets an overall failing grade because it rewards high intelligence and greed. It has had limited utility, and still does, only because it limits the power of corrupted, inefficient governments.

Heaven forbid we reward low intelligence & sloth.

That's a good idea that could be put in place now.

Never happen.
Lawmakers won't pass laws that harm crooked lawmakers.

 

[joe1776]

It appears to me that you're proposing a decision making system that is comprehensive, rigid, & powerful. But you've not mentioned how this system would incentivize achieving desired goals. Without proper incentives, your system would become corrupted. We see this in court, which is supposed to operate that way, but exhibits incompetence & corruption. It lacks sufficient incentivesfor just decisions.

You ducked my question which was: Are you saying that better policy making doesn't involve making better decisions? If so, that doesn't make sense to me.

So, may I assume that you do, on second thought, understand that your desire for a better world rests on a government capable of making better decisions than those now in power?

You want a better world, but your best idea is capitalism which fails to give most citizens their fair share of the benefits of our cooperative endeavor. Instead it rewards those of us who are born with high intelligence and the ability to compete.

My economy would give willing citizens with strong bodies but below-average intelligence the same quality of shelter, food, clothing, etc. for their contribution to the cooperative effort as those citizens contributing brainpower.

Our economic system ought to motivate everyone to cooperate. You can't devise a highly functional cooperative society that involves a competitive economy.

It just can't be done.

 

[Revoltingest]

You ducked my question....

Not that I know of.
I'll take a look see again.

.....which was: Are you saying that better policy making doesn't involve making better decisions?

I am not saying that.
What I am saying (& said before) IOW, is that your postulating
better decision making doesn't address how to make that happen.

So, may I assume that you do, on second thought, understand that your desire for a better world rests on a government capable of making better decisions than those now in power?

You want a better world, but your best idea is capitalism which fails to give most citizens their fair share of the benefits of our cooperative endeavor. Instead it rewards those of us who are born with high intelligence and the ability to compete.

My economy would give willing citizens with strong bodies but below-average intelligence the same quality of shelter, food, clothing, etc. for their contribution to the cooperative effort as those citizens contributing brainpower.

Our economic system ought to motivate everyone to cooperate. You can't devise a cooperative system that involves a competitive economy.

It just can't be done.

We need a balance of cooperation & competition.
One without the other would fail.

 

[joe1776]

We need a balance of cooperation & competition.One without the other would fail.

How is that possible?

Can you give me an example of anything in our world where cooperation and competition are BALANCED?

 

[Revoltingest]

How is that possible?

Can you give me an example of anything in our world where cooperation and competition are BALANCED?

I compete with other businesses for customers.
I cooperate with my customers, competitors, workers, & suppliers.

 

[joe1776]

I compete with other businesses for customers.
I cooperate with my customers, competitors, workers, & suppliers.

OK, the word "balance" threw me off. You're doing both, cooperating and competing, but the word balance implies an equal measure of both and there's no standard for measurement.

To achieve their cooperation in your competitive economy, how will you balance the motivation for both citizens with less than average intelligence with citizens who are highly intelligent?

 

[Revoltingest]

OK, the word "balance" threw me off. You're doing both, cooperating and competing, but the word balance implies an equal measure of both and there's no standard for measurement.

I didn't imply "equal".
Cooperation happens far more than competition.

To achieve their cooperation in your competitive economy, how will you balance the motivation for both citizens with less than average intelligence with citizens who are highly intelligent?

If someone isn't intelligent enuf to function in our society,
then they need a guardian. Problem solved.
I have one such customer, whose guardian pays his bills.

 

[joe1776]

I didn't imply "equal".
Cooperation happens far more than competition.

You used the word balanced. I still don't understand what you meant by that, but moving on...

If someone isn't intelligent enuf to function in our society,then they need a guardian. Problem solved. I have one such customer, whose guardian pays his bills.

That isn't what I meant at all. I'll try again:

The intelligence level of the top ten percent of Americans is obviously better equipped at birth to compete in the capitalist free market than others. How will you balance the incentive for the other 90% in order to get them to fully cooperate?

I don't think that most of them want to be charity cases, on some form of public assistance or working at menial jobs. Do you?

Besides, these people can work at tasks that would contribute to everyone's welfare if given the chance.

I don't know how you can think that this kind of economy is the best we can do.

 

[Revoltingest]

You used the word balanced. I still don't understand what you meant by that, but moving on...

A system equilibrium which is optimized for societal goals
by multiple components in appropriate proportions.

That isn't what I meant at all. I'll try again:

The intelligence level of the top ten percent of Americans is obviously better equipped at birth to compete in the capitalist free market than others. How will you balance the incentive for the other 90% in order to get them to fully cooperate?

I don't think that most of them want to be charity cases, on some form of public assistance or working at menial jobs. Do you?

Besides, these people can work at tasks that would contribute to everyone's welfare if given the chance.

Intelligent people outcompeting others is fine with me.
Smarts, drive, investment, & risk taking benefit the
mouth breathers too by creating a productive economy.

There's already a balance of competition & cooperation.
Not saying it can't be improved, but I don't see you
offering a better way.

I don't know how you can think that this kind of economy is the best we can do.

Because no better way has been observed in the
real world, attempts at alternatives notwithstanding.

 

[Heyo]

Not saying it can't be improved, but I don't see you
offering a better way.

I didn't either. And I think it is too early to draw a master plan. What is important is that we have a discussion about what we want and what is realistic to achieve.
All I have to offer is any kind of UBI as a "proof of concept" study.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't either. And I think it is too early to draw a master plan. What is important is that we have a discussion about what we want and what is realistic to achieve.
All I have to offer is any kind of UBI as a "proof of concept" study.

I recall the Cato Institute long ago proposing a UBI.
It made a lot of sense....a more libertarian approach
than the myriad of byzantine social welfare programs.

 

[joe1776]

A system equilibrium which is optimized for societal goals by multiple components in appropriate proportions.

OK, I get it. "Balanced" = four or more fuzzy terms added together?

Not saying it can't be improved, but I don't see you offering a better way.

If you WANT to see a better way, follow the link I gave you earlier and don't come back five minutes later making a comparison to some nonsensical idea as you did earlier. If you have a logical reason to knock my idea that makes sense, let's hear it.

Here's the link again if you feel up to the challenge;

The Future of International Expert Advisory Panels

 

[Revoltingest]

OK, I get it. "Balanced" = four or more fuzzy terms added together?

I had no idea that the concept of balance would be so difficult.
It applies to so many things....
- Train but don't over-train for sports.
- Balance aggression with safety in board games.
- Balance cost & performance in car design.
It's not about a certain number of things,
nor is it about equality of magnitude.
The concept is more general than that.

We've reached a point of agreeing to disagree about this.

 

[joe1776]

I had no idea that the concept of balance would be so difficult.
It applies to so many things....
- Train but don't over-train for sports.
- Balance aggression with safety in board games.
- Balance cost & performance in car design....

You're using the word "balance" to describe the point of diminishing returns in SOME activities. The activity of cooperation doesn't have a point of diminishing returns. Full cooperation is always better at achieving the objective than partial cooperation.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're using the word "balance" to describe the point of diminishing returns in SOME activities. The activity of cooperation doesn't have a point of diminishing returns. Full cooperation is always better at achieving the objective than partial cooperation.

If you want to eliminate competition, I oppose that.
I find it useful & inspiring.
Again, agreeing to disagree is best.

 

[joe1776]

If you want to eliminate competition, I oppose that.
I find it useful & inspiring.
Again, agreeing to disagree is best.

In sports and business, I've had fun competing in years past. Now, I think that someday, when we humans are wiser, competition will be as offensive as body odor.

No problem agreeing to disagree. It's always a pleasure.

 

[Revoltingest]

In sports and business, I've had fun competing in years past. Now, I think that someday, when we humans are wiser, competition will be as offensive as body odor.

No problem agreeing to disagree. It's always a pleasure.

Everyone will get a participation cooperation trophy.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

We need a virtual currency system.
Each account would have a maximum limit and sell by date.
Your account would self adjust to match your input, necessary outgoings, and balance.
Unused balances that reach their sell by date would dissolve as unnecessary.

Investment money would be freely available to those suitably qualified to take advantage of it, but could not be owned. However it would be limited by the number of people who wanted to invest their time and effort to the project. And the number of people who could benefit from it.
The greater your turnover between input and output the greater your personal annual limit.

There would be a minimum limit for those who for one reason or another needed support. This would increase as to need , and for any output they were able to generate.

There would be a differential between the maximum and minimum annual balances based on the total population and total product. It would have a token differential of five to one maximum.

On retirement you would retain you final annual income and balance topped up annually.
If you had had a productive life you would maintain a comfortable retirement.

Healthth care and disability support would be fully covered.

Incentive would be a more comfortable and interesting life.

 

[Heyo]

If you want to eliminate competition, I oppose that.
I find it useful & inspiring.
Again, agreeing to disagree is best.

The problem isn't competition, it's the rules of the competition. When destruction is the goal, competition becomes self defying.

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem isn't competition, it's the rules of the competition. When destruction is the goal, competition becomes self defying.

I'm not a fan of destruction.
That's more the realm of lawyers.

BTW....