For the People of Earth: A solution



There is a reason this Socialist/Communist/Marxist stew couldn't work.

The great flaw in your model is the disregard for basic economic

principles. Namely supply and demand coupled with the relationships of

marginal benefits verses marginal cost.

Firstly, it comes with the assumption that the need for certain

goods or services will be equal everywhere...an assumption that is

totally wrong for a great number of reasons. It also comes with the

assumption workforces will be evenly distributed...another idea that

really could not work. If peoples jobs are "adjusted" to the needs of

the country, an obvious consequence is forcing people to move to

location where the "need" is greater. Not everybody wants to be a

pediatrician in Mott, North Dakota...income is not the sole reason

people take jobs, lifestyle and family also play a major role.

Second is your capitalist model. The idea of innovation and

technology in capitalism results in greater efficiency...a greater

efficiency that can often mean less need for workers, this is called a

layoff. What happens to the now displaced workers? Their skills sets

that they went to school for could largely be null and voided. A

capitalist economy with your Marxist model is incompatible. It also

places need above gain, a concept that results in marginal cost

outweighing marginal benefit thus condemning the economy to a slow and

painful death.

Also, where does all the money come from to pay for all of the

comprehensive socialized institutions you talk about? From profits?

That kills the incentive to do anything because all the headway we

could make with technology in Silicon Valley...it will always be held

back because we "need" to over pay for plumbers in South Tampa.

For your model to work, there also must be an accurate way to

calculate numbers, supply, demand, and personal into a mathematical

model...a feat that is impossible because a model as comprehensive as

yours would certainly incorporate things that do not have a tangible

worth attached to them.

-Quinny

Im just going to repost this in bold so people can see how dumb you are.

 
I also agree that it couldn't work because of human nature, economics, and many other factors... but please stop attacking him so much he obviously spent a lot of time working on it, just say i dont agree with you because _______. Dont be like OMFG YOUR SO DUMB FAG. seriously grow up and stop the name calling.
 
dude seriously shut up. we understand his THEORY will most likely never work, but you act like you fucking know everything. he doesn't have to answer to quinny or do anything. all the posts i see you make are attacking people. lay off man.
 
Or you could take your retarded head out of your ass and lighten up. I dont attack everyone mainly just icepointa and eastcoastar5 for their liberal bullshit. Im not attacking ad hominem but rather his ideologies. Im fucking sick of perfectly capable kids bandwagoning onto liberalism while being so tunnelvisiioned and naive.

I dont act like i know everything, i act like i know more than him, which i do.

And uhh buddy he should answer to quinny. If he is rebutting everyone elses counterarguements, why not tackle quinnys? Its cuz hes scared and his "theory" (if that) is, for a lack of better words, retarded.

So how bout you get a different name than a Sean. knockoff and stay out of arguements in which you can't contribute?

No offense.
 
I'm not gonna argue for or against your idea because I didn't read the whole thread but if you want to learn something about economics research Milton Friedman. He was at one point in time a bit of a fiscal liberal being a strong supporter of FDRs "new deal" and in the 50s changed his ideology to a free market society.
 
he used to be crookedboner and the kid that made that thread about his friends giving him a boner.

silly mike
 
I in no way assume that labor and demand for goods is equally distributed. If someone does not want to move to help where his services are needed, he has nothing forcing him to do so. Compensation for the job would be increased to a level in which demand for labor is satisfied, whether that means hiring local workers, or encouraging others to travel to provide their labor for the increased reward. Demand for goods takes transportation costs into account, and if a region was in need of supplies produced far from it, it would have to pay that premium. Tarrifs could be imposed to encourage local production so that supply chains are not needlessly extended.

Your marginal cost vs benefit analysis is largely irrelavent in this model. All you're saying is that is is probably not "profitable" to provide the goods lat a level where demand is fully met. Take cable internet as an example. Rural areas are not supplied with it, not because people can't pay for it, but because the added infrastructure is not profitable. This doesn't mean that it loses the company money neccesarily, only that the added incentive of profit is not there. This is why basic services are socialized in the first place. They are provided at a level that can be supported universally, despite the fact that it may cost a little more to pump out the last needed goods/services instead of just ignoring it because the profit isnt there.

The "money" or valued to be exchanged for the labor to provide these services, is derived from the excess production created through industry. Yes, that means heavily cutting into CEO and investor profits to provide a substantial level essential services first. There aren't any billionares. If the highest levels of achievement and success were lowered to the level of a millionaire, do you really think all incentive would be lost? To an intergalactic alien race, our efforts may look in vain, or pointless, since high achievers are not rewarded with control over several planets. But do you think that creative efforts would actually be reduced if the highest reward that anyone could achieve was control of an island instead? What I'm trying to say is hat incentive levels are relative to the highest available incentive.

The appeal of this all depends on the type of society you want to live in. If you value the rate of technological advance over the wellbeing of life on this planet, this model might not be for you.

A working model of this system could work as well as any other. You talk about the relationship of marginal benefits vs. cost, which applies to the current system as well. However, marginal benefits are largely intangible, yet managed to be accounted for nonetheless.
 
Ok, i know i've been a bit harsh in the past but let me reiterate what i have said before: YOU ARE A TOTAL DUMBASS WHO HAS COMPLETELY SPUN OFF THIS PLANET. WHAT THE FUCK HAVE YOU BEEN SMOKING, CUZ I WANT SOME OF THAT SHIT!

Ok so you hate how money is written off from banks and the federal reserve because you watched that ridiculous youtube video. Logistics aside, let's say you have a system in which perpetual debt isn't in existence and some how there is a set amount of money in your "model". Also, let's assume that the services you wish to socialize are out to be non profit. How, then, is it possible to increase the reward in one area to compensate for the demand in labor without equally decreasing from other areas? In your model, in one way or another, with so many regions, one region is going to get the shaft. In your model, so many things are socialized that I doubt local workers would be able to keep up (such as infotech, communications, desalination) so you must somehow encourage the scarce skilled workers to travel somehow without any money?

What if tarrifs actually prevented people from getting what they needed? Let's say Bob, happily married and living in Socal is getting rather rich. He works in cutting technology ( a capitalist sector) at a company called IPIG (IcePointa Is Gay). He has enough money to keep hiring local workers for IPIG. There are fewer and fewer intelligent workers in the Sanfran bay area. Now lets say New mexico has a booming corn production plant but a tariff is imposed so that the poor, rather dumb people in New Mexico have corn to eat. Now the poorer people (minimum threshold people) in the San Fransico Bay area have no corn! and they can't afford the tariff. However, Bob can still afford food and now he can horde it. How is this situation not worse than our current situation?

But how could there be a tariff on something that was socialized in the first place?! So now the limited workers in New Mexico have to work double time in order to expedite food to both areas? How is transportation compensated then?

I think you simply Googled the term marginal benefit and marginal cost. I think so because, 1 i believe youre retarded, and 2 because you don't seem to understand it. What quinny is saying is

NOT that people are out to profit, people are out to maximize output. And when marginal cost exceeds marginal benefit, it doesn't mean a firm isn't maximizing profit, it means its not working efficiently and is not maximizing output. So if we were to follow your model where MB and MC were completely disregarded, every firm would be running at an extremely inefficient rate and more people would suffer because of it.

I also don't think you understand a CEO's value. His or her (god help us) net worth is not synonymous with income. A CEO's income is generally not that high, but his or her net worth is high due to stock holdings in the first place. And a CEO does deserve the right to own his own company's value, don't you think? Otherwise, why work for it? A CEO is also there to prevent diseconomies of scale which would lead to more inefficiency and lead to more suffering.

I hope you realize technological progress and wellbeing are not mutually exclusive. They are one of the most mutually related pairs i can think of. I think you are so spoiled you fail to realize how lucky you have it. I don't think you take the time to consider how the very tiniest bit of technology you take for granted enhances your daily life. From water purification, to glasses and contact lenses, to basic medical supplies such as bandaids and asprin, to personal hygene products, to dietary improvements, to modern transportation, to instant communication, technology in the past 100 years has almost doubled the life expectancy of a human being, not to mention greeaattttllly comforted man. Imagine waking up one day, without a weather forecast, no pasteurized orange juice, or toaster, or toothpaste, comb, or anything made out of plastic for that matter. There is no school because there are no busses to commute you there. You are having your period but there are no tampons or pads. You cant even stick a dildo up your ass cuz theres no silicone! You can't call anyone or go on newschoolers. I think you should go about your daily life these days and just appreciate what you have now and think of how lucky you are.

 
That is the most blatantly naive and ignorant statement you have made in this entire thread. Inventions don't come about because people just want to make things...it happens because of a necessity to achieve something. Somebody can make a technological achievements with the goal to benefit life on this planet, but his innovations can be used in more than one way. You can't expect an inventor to be able to completely grasp all the possible uses for their ideas. History a shown this, just look at the history of nitroglycerin. Hindsight is 20/20, foresight is quite different. Just to say the model might not be right for someone that lacks perfect foresight is absurd and shows the flaws in your model.

As for the rest of what you wrote, pick up a book on macroeconomic principles. There is extensive mathematical and theoretical models that would not at all agree with your assessments, particularly with marginal benefit vs marginal cost. That relationship in itself is largely the basis for basic economics. If you simply drop incentives from billions to millions of dollars, you would indeed kill incentive because nobody would touch any projects that cost great amounts of money, regardless if it would "benefit" the planet. It operates on the same principle of why communism has been such a miserable failure as a construct of society.
 
Bullshit. Look at Moore's law and tell me that it stems from NECESSITY. How could we ever survive without Quad-core processors, FUCK!

I've taken macroeconomics in college. Stop telling me I need to take college courses and read books because I already fucking have.

Almost all economists seem to be braindead outside their specific field, as they seem to believe that exponential growth can continue forever in a finite world.

Look at NASA and tell me that big things can't happen without huge profit incentives. Sure, you might say, oh its inefficient because they employ too many scientists and engineers than is really needed to get the job done. God forbid taxes take away from a rich motherfucker's ability to make money without actually doing anything and go to pay people who are actually doing something.
 
Moore's law? You must be kidding. Feel free to compare technological efficiency from the mid 60's to today. Why stop with computer processors? Lets look at pharmaceuticals and medical discoveries. How about engineering? Supply chain management? Human communication? So we don't need any of that? I guess we can all go live in caves and sing around a campfire.

And I honestly think you're lying when you say you have taken macroecon class. The knowledge you have demonstrated in this and other threads seems to indicate that you have not...or I guess its also possible you took the class and failed out miserably.

The very basis of economics is the allocation of scarce resources...that principal itself implies finite values. Not all economists are capitalists, but you wouldn't know that given your total lack of knowledge on the subject. And the vast majority of people in the field would disagree that economists are brain-dead outside of their world. If they where, the idea of managerial economics would not exist.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a plane to catch.
 
If you don't appreciate the relationship moore's law has on technological development, you shouldn't even be trying to discuss this. It has far reaching effects in almost any significant field of development.

Again, you try to imply that if people were not threatened with extreme poverty and death that nothing would ever happen and that people would just lie around in caves. Yea, those advances are all nice, but at what cost? Would it be so bad if the quality of life people led was increased, and the rate of further development slowed to a sustainable rate? Were people not comfortable and happy in the 60's, so they had to be herded along to create all these neccesities of life we have today so that they could finally be happy? Are people today more happy than they were before? Societies in the past seemed to be a hell of alot better at keeping people healthy. The modern medical and pharmaceutical industries treat diseases, not people. They don't make people healthy, they tend to keep people alive and sick, dependant. Most pharmaceuticals could be replaced just fine with a natural remedy. How many drugs today would be made worthless with the legalization of marijuana?

Also I don't give a shit if you don't think I've taken classes that I have. I don't think you really even give a shit about these issues, you just like to argue.

Explain to me how exponenial growth can continue forever in a finite world? Do you really not see the problems this total disregard for common sense has caused so far, and the ones we are facing just around the corner?
 
I'm not "implying" anything at all. Self interest of the individual is the driving force behind everything, regardless if they are threatened with extreme poverty, death, or live a perfectly safe and comfortable life. The human condition always strives to better ones self, thats instinctual by nature. It just astounding that you can't seem to grasp that, particularly if you took an econ course (assuming again that are you not lying). Thats exactly why capitalism has been able to work and communism has not. Your general disregard of this principle shows how naive and off-base your entire argument/model really is. At least you manage to be correct on the assessment that perpetual growth is not sustainable, but who to say where it ends? I personally believe that a degree of self restraint is required for a global market to survive, but not at the gross expense of capitalism that you had proposed in your original post. I am of the belief that once we approach this ceiling of growth you doomsday kids keep squawking about, I imagine that development and the market will correct itself to suit the need of the people naturally without some uber-socialist model guiding it. The necessity to sustain would take over and the market would gradually right itself.

And again "The very basis of economics is the allocation of scarce resources." That has nothing to do with perpetual growth. You are confusing extremely basic ideas here.
 
I completely understand the drive for humans to better themselves. Of course I understand that. I understand that so well that I believe people will continue to better themselves and the world not because they are forced to, but because they want to for the achievement and the rewards. There isn't a total disregard for capitalism here. People will work and create based on the incentives instead of threats. Why is that such a foreign concept?

I don't have much faith that a free-market capitalist model will ever protect a rainforest and its inhabitants in South America from a businessman in London.

The basis of economics may very well be the allocation of scare resources, but that doesn't change the fact that our economy cannot function without exponential growth. More credit (debt in a sense) must be created to pay for the principle + interest of the last quarter. Why did they stop publishing M3? Because its getting fucking rediculous and they know this circus is going to hit a wall eventually.
 
As rich people, we need to keep the poor down and out. I hate everything your new world is based on.  I like being fat while knowing people around the world are starving. I like wakeboarding behind my boat in a resiviour, knowing people don't have clean drinking water. I like living in a 3 bedroom house with just my girlfriend, I don't give a fuck about some crazy bum living on the street. (it's so annoying when they hold up traffic begging for quarters) If your life sucks blame your loser ass parents. If you are at an advantage in life keep your mouth shut and take all you can before you die. If you really feel that bad go waste your time volunteering. 
 
It isn't, but you can't seem to get past the idea that incentives and threats are not related. That in itself isn't true at all and it plays both ways. Having only an absolute of either positive or negative is impossible.

Why do I work hard? Because I can potentially get rewarded with a bonus or promotion. Why do I not slack off? Because I will get fired when there is somebody else ready to take my job that will do better at it.
 
to static's post (it wouldn't let me quote it for some reason)

this is exactly why your model would never work it is human nature for people not be happy when they have enough. they want more and 99% of people aren't willing to give up what they have to help the people that won't or can't help themselves. i don't know enough about economics and such to tell you that it COULDN'T work but i know enough about human nature and especially human greed to know that it WOULDN'T work. you could never get people ( especially those who have alot) to give it up for the greater good of the world because frankly most people just don't give a flying fuck about people in africa starving

and static i'm not hating on you at all i kinda agree with you it's just that what you said pretty much proves my point
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top