User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 33

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Isn't it communism under a different name? If you decouple reward from performance, there would be no incentive to excel. No one would show up for work unless they felt like it.

    What mechanism is there to ensure that supply meets demand? If everyone gets paid the same, why would anyone want to be a toilet bowl cleaner instead of a fine dining critic?

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    That is a tough one. I think generally resources should belong to the people, and owned by the people, privately. Larger things that serve greater amounts of people should then be owned by larger groups of people, which I think is best represented, as I said, by the cooperative model versus a bureaucratic or non-profit model (because there is too much polarity in non-profit or communist models; meaning you have people that don't care and don't work, or people who overly care and work too hard).

    Finally, when the resource or product you are talking about is important to huge groups of people, and most of society relies upon one reserve or precious resource to function, then, yeah, perhaps then the government should step in and be involved, whether at the local, state, or federal levels>I don't really want to rely on the altruism of a lumber company to manage our forests, for example. Because, after all, money is the bottom line in all business models. And if it isn't the bottom line, it won't work anyway, making it impractical.

    There must the the right blend of profit and altruism, which, when combined, leads to cooperation.

    Corporations are all about profit = Fail.
    Communism (or similar conceptual model) is all about 'altruism' = Fail.

    People work best when working for themselves, or for their own tribe; that's just human nature. But a bunch of decentralized, grassroots cooperations (versus corporations, ) will serve society better, decreasing the need for as much big government involvement.


    Yeah exactly. You are entirely right we are on the same line here. What you have described about ownership of resources is the best way to own the resources.

    Let me explain everything in detail to have a more clear understanding.

    Every resource has an origin, for example you need to extract the coal from the coal blocks under the earth before you sell the coal in economy. Same for metals like iron. And for wood also. After the resource has been originated it can be used by the individuals and organizations in the economy. In a profit based economy all the origins of the resources are owned by the profit based organization or the government.

    While in a Earth exchange based economy all the origins of the resources are owned by the citizens of the state. This is the only difference when it comes to ownership of resources.

    When i said citizens of the state own the raw resources. Citizens of the state own the resources only when they originate in the economy.

    The citizens of the state will sell the raw resources in the economy and they will receive the resource cost after selling it. After the citizens of the state have sold the resources the ownership of the resource will be transferred to the individuals and organizations who buy the resources.

    The only difference in a Earth exchange based Economy and Profit based economy is that a coal block from where the coal originate will be owned by the citizens of the state while in a profit based economy a "coal block" will be owned by the profit based organization.

    After the raw resources are sold by the citizens of the state the ownership of the resources will go to their respective owners.



    Earth Exchange based economy can function only if people work without any incentive. It is a matter of ethics and personal choice and hence Earth Exchange based economy is not suitable for everyone. But there are many benefits of living in this way which might encourage people to consider this concept.

    Earth Exchange based economy might seem counter intuitive to people and impractical. But it can work if 60 percent of the people want a nonprofit economy.
    There are many benefits of Nonprofit Economy.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dala View Post
    What incentive is there for people to work or innovate in this system?
    No there is no incentive. Earth Exchange based economy is only for those people who want to work without any incentive. It is a matter of personal choice and ethics of the people.
    Earth Exchange based economy can survive and sustain if more than 50 percent of the people live like this. There is no requirement of any legislation and restrictions to make the concept work. There are many benefits of living like this. But the choice remains to the individual.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Imagine if the amount of trees where as important as the amount of gold? Forest reserves vs. Gold reserves
    In this economy resources do have a cost which is adjusted by demand and supply constraints so the cost of tree and the cost of gold will be different.
    The only difference in an earth exchange based economy and a profit based economy is that in the profit based economy people work for profits and incentives while in the earth exchange based economy people CHOOSE to work without any incentives and profits.

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Isn't it communism under a different name? If you decouple reward from performance, there would be no incentive to excel. No one would show up for work unless they felt like it.

    What mechanism is there to ensure that supply meets demand? If everyone gets paid the same, why would anyone want to be a toilet bowl cleaner instead of a fine dining critic?
    People should not confuse the Earth Exchange based economy with the socialism or communism. Earth Exchange based economy is designed to work in a democratic and free society and there is no requirement of any legislation to make the concept work.

    Communist economy do have a concept of performance based earnings and incentives. Earth exchange based economy do not have any such concept.

    Communist economy cannot work without enforcing restrictions on people and dictatorial regimes. While an Earth Exchange based economy can sustain in a free and democratic society without any restrictions on people and enforcing any legislation.

    in the nonprofit economy there is no obligation of getting a job to earn the money. People can take up any job that they like. The jobs that people do not want to take up can be automated.

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    There must the the right blend of profit and altruism, which, when combined, leads to cooperation.

    Corporations are all about profit = Fail.
    Communism (or similar conceptual model) is all about 'altruism' = Fail.

    People work best when working for themselves, or for their own tribe; that's just human nature. But a bunch of decentralized, grassroots cooperations (versus corporations, ) will serve society better, decreasing the need for as much big government involvement.



    I can actually imagine a tree being worth more to me than gold. When there are no more trees.
    in a profit based economy, there is a greater need for government intervention because the profit based organizations are generally not focused on public welfare so they tend to screw up and inviting more government intervention. But if all the organizations are nonprofit organizations, there will not be any need of government intervention. Further there is a lot of monopoly and big centralized organizations in the profit based economy. All is resulted due to the inherent nature of profit based economy.

    In a nonprofit economy we can expect to have a society where all organizations are decentralized and distributed. Rather than having one big centralized organization we can expect to have many small or medium organizations.
    We can also expect a better work environment better treatment for employees because earning the money and incentives is not an obligation and reason for work. In overall we can expect better work environment, less government intervention and more freedom and democracy.

    But there is a catch, there is an issue of personal choice and ethics. Nonprofit economy can sustain but only for those people who desire to live and work without incentives and profit motives.

    If you have a doubt about how a nonprofit economy can sustain in a practical way to understand more you will need to understand the full concept in detail. My only purpose in this thread is to introduce and make people aware of the concept of Earth Exchange based economy/ Nonprofit Economy. I cannot describe the full concept in this thread.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AphroditeGoneAwry View Post
    I can actually imagine a tree being worth more to me than gold. When there are no more trees.
    I dont really value gold even now, although its a fact of life that gold, as wealth, can allow you to improve your relationships and have experiences which are what life is really about.

    I had a strange book once which had all these oddball economics and social ideas in it, it was from the ninties when the left had totally jettisoned marx and socialism of pretty much all stripes and the new divisions between libertarians and pretty much everyone else hadnt consolidated themselves yet. One of the things suggested in it was that the wealth of economies be judged by the trees they possessed, not as potential timber either, but as fixed forests, you know the sorts of forests you see in reserves, which are mixed and indigenous. I was intrigued with the idea, it was suggested for all sorts of reasons, like changing the global distribution of wealth, ecological concerns, climate, soil errosion, flood control etc. etc.

    Although I'll be honest I just love naturally forested areas and visiting them, particularly if there's no one else around.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bluemountaintree View Post
    In this economy resources do have a cost which is adjusted by demand and supply constraints so the cost of tree and the cost of gold will be different.

    The only difference in an earth exchange based economy and a profit based economy is that in the profit based economy people work for profits and incentives while in the earth exchange based economy people CHOOSE to work without any incentives and profits.
    I'm a little loath to engage in protacted discussions of economics these days, it is probably the field in which incongruence in values, makes communication difficult and there are usually disagreements about definitions and language even when its kept to its most simple.

    Demand and supply is never as simple as the classical models make out, as a result the calculation debates and perspectives of the Chicago school, Hayek et al are always going to be imperfect. The critiques of the behavioural economists are very good. Although to all intents and purposes those criticisms make planning, anticipation and prediction of trends and trending even less likely than rational calculator models.

    I actually think there's a false dichotomy in what you're describing, the word profit, in the narrow increased revenue or capital returns or by association with capitalism, turns a lot of people off but its conceptually something I have no problem with, everyone acts as a result of what is profitable to them, responding to incentives, those can be different things to different people or defined differently by different people or cultures but its pretty much the case. Change up the language maybe but it amounts to the same thing.

    There exists a choice already and increasing choice and reducing compulsion are laudable goals for economic and social policy but I'm not sure what attempting to eliminate concepts such as profit from the literature and discourse does.

  8. #18
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bluemountaintree View Post
    People should not confuse the Earth Exchange based economy with the socialism or communism. Earth Exchange based economy is designed to work in a democratic and free society and there is no requirement of any legislation to make the concept work.

    Communist economy do have a concept of performance based earnings and incentives. Earth exchange based economy do not have any such concept.

    Communist economy cannot work without enforcing restrictions on people and dictatorial regimes. While an Earth Exchange based economy can sustain in a free and democratic society without any restrictions on people and enforcing any legislation.

    in the nonprofit economy there is no obligation of getting a job to earn the money. People can take up any job that they like. The jobs that people do not want to take up can be automated.
    I put it to you that both communism and socialism should operate in democratic and free societies, the theorists of each are clear about the whithering away of the state iself as an immediate or eventual goal, so there would be no legislative function at all. Pretty much as you describe for the earth exchange model.

    Performance based earnings and incentives will be a characterisation of any system, the choice of not working has been at least partially realised already by capitalism, it does not erradicate the concept of profit, it merely changes it so people who believe that a maximum choice and very possibly the choice of idolence and idleness are the most profitable are satisfied.

    I dont believe that all the unwanted work can be automated, a lot of what were once considered dignified, rewarding jobs have already been automated, like working to build cars or factory labour or even agricultural labouring. What remains are the very jobs which are most unwanted, such as domestic cleaning, caring for the sick, elderly, disabled, traumatised or trying to overcome delinquencey on an individual, family or neighbourhood, normative jobs with high social or emotional costs. That sort of a thing.

    To be honest, while I used to be really fond of theories like this when I was at university (wishing to be a perpetual student) and while I still support most socialistic or capitalistic basic income schemes, I tend to think that work is something that people want, human nature is productive and it is creativity, productivity, imaginative expression which has been a mainstay or driving force in evolution from the day and hour when cave men started to depict their lives and hoped for afterlives on the walls of caves. There's something wrong with a lot of the pro-idle, work is unpleasant thinking. There's also something wrong with it in so far as most of the time people see themselves as being freed to consume rather than freed to work or be productive.

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm a little loath to engage in protacted discussions of economics these days, it is probably the field in which incongruence in values, makes communication difficult and there are usually disagreements about definitions and language even when its kept to its most simple.

    Demand and supply is never as simple as the classical models make out, as a result the calculation debates and perspectives of the Chicago school, Hayek et al are always going to be imperfect. The critiques of the behavioural economists are very good. Although to all intents and purposes those criticisms make planning, anticipation and prediction of trends and trending even less likely than rational calculator models.

    I actually think there's a false dichotomy in what you're describing, the word profit, in the narrow increased revenue or capital returns or by association with capitalism, turns a lot of people off but its conceptually something I have no problem with, everyone acts as a result of what is profitable to them, responding to incentives, those can be different things to different people or defined differently by different people or cultures but its pretty much the case. Change up the language maybe but it amounts to the same thing.

    There exists a choice already and increasing choice and reducing compulsion are laudable goals for economic and social policy but I'm not sure what attempting to eliminate concepts such as profit from the literature and discourse does.
    It is a matter of ethics and personal values and not the economics. Whether to work for profit motives or incentives or to work without any incentive or profit motive is a question of ethics and personal value and personal choices not the economics. So there is no point in discussing logic and economics when we are speaking about ethics and values that individuals want to live with.

    There is room for everyone to live with the ethics that they desire to live with. Economists or intellectuals cannot choose for people what ethics and values they want to live with.

    What about those people who are not interested to work for profit motives? In a free and democratic society people can simultaneously live with many different values.

    A person who want to work with incentives can choose to work in that way. While other people those who want to not work with incentives and profit motives can have a separate economy. Everyone can live with the values they want to and nobody needs to make any compromises.

    You are mixing the economics,logic with the Issue of Ethics, values and morals. Keep it aside then only it will make sense and then only we can talk.

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I put it to you that both communism and socialism should operate in democratic and free societies, the theorists of each are clear about the whithering away of the state iself as an immediate or eventual goal, so there would be no legislative function at all. Pretty much as you describe for the earth exchange model.

    Performance based earnings and incentives will be a characterisation of any system, the choice of not working has been at least partially realised already by capitalism, it does not erradicate the concept of profit, it merely changes it so people who believe that a maximum choice and very possibly the choice of idolence and idleness are the most profitable are satisfied.
    That was the flaw in the theory of communism and something that the designers of those theories did not told the people or they failed to understand the outcome of their theory. Now we cannot generalize what happened to communism to every other concept.

    I will not advocate you or anyone to support the earth exchange based economy. but before fully making such comments i suggest people to at least fully understand and study the concept.



    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post

    I dont believe that all the unwanted work can be automated, a lot of what were once considered dignified, rewarding jobs have already been automated, like working to build cars or factory labour or even agricultural labouring. What remains are the very jobs which are most unwanted, such as domestic cleaning, caring for the sick, elderly, disabled, traumatised or trying to overcome delinquencey on an individual, family or neighbourhood, normative jobs with high social or emotional costs. That sort of a thing.

    To be honest, while I used to be really fond of theories like this when I was at university (wishing to be a perpetual student) and while I still support most socialistic or capitalistic basic income schemes, I tend to think that work is something that people want, human nature is productive and it is creativity, productivity, imaginative expression which has been a mainstay or driving force in evolution from the day and hour when cave men started to depict their lives and hoped for afterlives on the walls of caves. There's something wrong with a lot of the pro-idle, work is unpleasant thinking. There's also something wrong with it in so far as most of the time people see themselves as being freed to consume rather than freed to work or be productive.
    When did i said people are suppose to sit idle and do not work.I actually agree with what you said about human productivity in the last paragraph.
    Incentives are not the only motivating factor for people to do the job. People do their job because they really love to.

    Profits and incentives doesnt have to be a motivating factor for people to do the job. But again this is valid not for everyone there is an issue of personal values and ethics.

    We do not require automating everything. Because people can always do the job that they love to. I said we can use automation only for the jobs which nobody would want to do without any incentives like garbage cleaning and such jobs.

Similar Threads

  1. Organized pugilism as an alternative to gun violence ...?
    By iwakar in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-10-2016, 12:10 PM
  2. [MBTItm] Animals & MBTI (A thread brought to you via 'an attempt to satiate boredom')
    By FantailedWall in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 07-01-2011, 06:47 AM
  3. Resource Based Economy vs. Profit Based Economy
    By JediVulcanisim in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 04-01-2011, 04:47 AM
  4. [NT] What Compels An NT to Cheat?
    By LadyJaye in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 11-23-2007, 01:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO