Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alway]

I agree with that(apart from Mr. Makeadeathstar at least).  I still think there will be money though, because people will always want more, even if their every desire is being satisfied.  Money will go from something we need to survive, to being a restriction to prevent excessive decadence. 

Star trek actually has a pretty interesting example of this.  It's repeated endlessly that poverty does not exist, people work for the sense of accomplishment.  But there are plenty examples of people doing their own businesses, evidently for the hell of it.

Yeah, and I believe that is possible. (Its a bit busy at work, so I'm only partway through that star trek article so far).   Lots of people do stuff because they enjoy doing it, not JUST to make money.  My only point is that no matter how well off everybody is, there will always be some form of money used to exchange goods/services/resources.

More importantly, to build off this, our economy is moving in a direction where those jobs which produce the most value for society are precisely those jobs which would continue to be worked simply because people got satisfaction from them. No one wants to drudge away their life at a walmart cash register; but likewise, that's a job which  provides very little value to society compared to those things they would likely enjoy doing more. If those people were freed up to no longer need to worry about dying of exposure under an overpass if they lost their jobs, it would have as many beneficial effects on the economy as the outlawing of debtor's prisons.

[mainiac]

Way fewer people are involved in transportation then in sales, branding, etc.

Yes, but, a: sales and branding are only useful in a for-profit environment, which is exactly what I'm advocating against and b: I'm talking about resources in the sense of trucks, roadways, fuel, etc., not human resources. If there's one thing we're not short on, it's manpower.

That's sorta my point.

[Graknorke]

Having one big stockpile to take whatever you need will lead to everybody taking and nobody putting it, which is obviously non-sustainable.

Would it really though?

[Angle]

Well, yeah, or it would result in people doing things that they think are contributing when really they're just wasting resources, or any of half a dozen other things. Especially cause you can't just implement such a thing out of the blue, you' have to do so in the context of our current society. So then you;d just have people grab them and sell them all.

[Tomcost]

So, we arrive to the conclusion that the problem is not the system, but rather the sociopolitical values?

[Loud Whispers]

There are some (many?) problems with that approach, Loud Whispers. I mean, there is certainly and engineering problem in providing all the people in the world with all the food they need/want, and nothing more.

Pretty certain you got me confused with LordBucket

[Angle]

So, we arrive to the conclusion that the problem is not the system, but rather the sociopolitical values?

Well, no, not quite. The system shapes the sociopolitical values, and they shape it in turn. You can't easily separate the two. Things that are rewarded by the system you use tend to become more valued while things that are not rewarded become less valued. These values then tend to shape the mores that regulate the system.

[penguinofhonor]

There are some (many?) problems with that approach, Loud Whispers. I mean, there is certainly and engineering problem in providing all the people in the world with all the food they need/want, and nothing more.

Pretty certain you got me confused with LordBucket

No way, dude. The Concept of Monkeyright Megathread idea is incredibly flawed. Blindkitty has only scratched the surface of why it could never work out. Honestly I'm kind of disappointed you would post such a low-quality idea.

[Duuvian]

There are some (many?) problems with that approach, Loud Whispers. I mean, there is certainly and engineering problem in providing all the people in the world with all the food they need/want, and nothing more.

Pretty certain you got me confused with LordBucket

There are a lot of ways to decrease waste that would help feed people, it's just that it doesn't mean profit for the extra work to people that can do it.

For example, I've worked in a few pizza places as a professional driver. They have several pizza pans prepared with the crust dough already spread inside for when there is business. At the end of every day, ten through twenty various sized pans of dough that would be edible bread if run through the oven go in the trash next to the oven instead. If even a small reward were paid for that bread, like the Michigan 10cent bounty for returned aluminum cans though without the deposit part, the owners would run them through the ovens and give them to the local food pantry that's always hard up for food if the pantries are the ones that sign off on the bounties according to their need.

[penguinofhonor]

That's right, Duuvian. Give Loud Whispers the what for.

[BlindKitty]

Please tell me about the ways to cheat the system that would become non-existent in LE-economy. Or greatly reduced. And I will probably be able to show you some new ones pretty soon.

Planned Obsolescence would be one of the most blatant- where products are designed to wear out sooner than they otherwise would so as to make you buy a new one. Pollution is another, where a business cuts it's expenses by externalizing costs- say, by dumping their waste in a river. Cutting their costs by hiring underpaid migrant labor is another, or by simply paying their workers as little as they can get away with. Anti competitive practices. Manipulation of government, as seen with our privatized prison industry.

Of course, many of these have solutions that could be implemented in a capitalist society. But due to the fact that that would run contrary to many vested interests, it's unlikely to see adoption. The big thing that my system does is prevent anyone from gaining too much power, whether that political power, economic power, whatever. There would be strict regulations on how large any individual enterprise could get.

Well, the huge thing is of course the fact that your argument about what prevents the adoption of countermeasures for all those problems is also to argument about what prevents implementation of your system; if there are interests in place manipulating government for profit (I don't really know much about the privatized prison industry, really, but in Poland there's like, half of all laws that are just bought by someone for some reason), there are the same interests stopping the adoption of system that would make it impossible to manipulate powers-that-are for the same profit.
That said, illegal practices like dumping waste and hiring illegal immigrants (who are pretty new concept, really) are not getting any more illegal in LE system; it's just that you are assuming that moving control divisions to LE and closer to actual companies allows for more efficient control. But I would say that's not obvious at all - corruption is a complicated thing, and it might turn out that corrupting people in your logistical enterprise is actually easier than doing the same with government officials. Especially with the LEs close to maximum size, which can not grow any bigger and thus lose the reason to actually keep fighting for the new markets.

What I mean is: people are running companies for some reasons. Being bored to death is not one of them, as far as I know; people may take it as hobby to run small firm writing computer games, but furniture factory is most likely being run by a person who wants something more tangible than satisfaction out of it. Some kind of profit must be actually delivered to company owners, or they will quit the business. And since there exists some kind of profit, it should be somewhat tied to the company results or size or something, otherwise most people will devolve to running tiny furniture workshop with two old many putting together tables from old wood; if there is no incentive to run major companies, there will be no major companies. And whatever the system, if there is incentive, there will be people trying to cut corners; this is the major problem. Whether there is money or some other form of incentive, it doesn't matter all that much in the long run.

@LoudWhispers - of course; I am really sleep-deprived, it seems, for such a mistake. ^^" Sorry!

[Baffler]

Well, yeah, or it would result in people doing things that they think are contributing when really they're just wasting resources, or any of half a dozen other things. Especially cause you can't just implement such a thing out of the blue, you' have to do so in the context of our current society. So then you;d just have people grab them and sell them all.

The solution to this is fairly easy, you'd need to have some specialist to manage the operation of these things, to teach people how to contribute properly and effectively. I couldn't just decide to make a chair, after all. I'd need some instruction on how to carpentry, what tools and materials I need, etc.

[LordBucket]

Having one big stockpile to take whatever you need will lead to everybody taking and nobody putting it, which is obviously non-sustainable.

http://www.thingiverse.com/

[alexandertnt]

Having one big stockpile to take whatever you need will lead to everybody taking and nobody putting it, which is obviously non-sustainable.

http://www.thingiverse.com/

And if people keep "taking" from it they start consuming significant quantities of plastic to be moulded into poor quality plastic figurines.

[Loud Whispers]

No way, dude. The Concept of Monkeyright Megathread idea is incredibly flawed. Blindkitty has only scratched the surface of why it could never work out. Honestly I'm kind of disappointed you would post such a low-quality idea.

Nah see, all you'd need to do is replace money with pictures of monkeys