User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 33

  1. #21
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bluemountaintree View Post
    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.
    I am not mixing them, they are synoymous.

    What do you understand by economics? When Adam Smith first formulated his economic theories the entire purpose was to determine a means by which typical behaviour, not ideal or perfection but what IS, can be turned to the common good, he stated that no society could be prospering in which the majority were in want and experiencing shortages, so he defined a means to maximise productivity and production in order to eradicate that shortage and want. It was and is a moral theory.

    As with profit, I believe that you are conceiving of profit as exclusively capitalist returns on investment or wages etc. There is a wider definition, for instance in the bible it is written "what does it profit a man if he wins the whole world and loses his soul? (or in some translations "mind")", profit as I understand it simply means benefit or gain or a good. This is the same as the concept of selfishness, for some selfishness is totally anathema, always wrongful, a positively evil thing, while for others it is a virtue, I think either extreme is sorely mistaken and a neutral legitimate self-interest exists which is neither of these extremes and a prerequisite to altruism or doing good for others.

    Now I would accept and believe that from the time when Smith formulated his theories that economics has become more rationalising (in the psychological sense) than reasonable, it has degenerated in many ways into being the ideology of ruling elites and elites in conflict. Marx was one of the first to suggest that economics was no longer a science or interested in being scientific but he wasnt the only one and the others which felt this way were not even always socialists or interested in ending class struggles or elitism. That said I do think it is mistaken to create a dichotomy of morality vs. amoral economics.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bluemountaintree View Post
    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.
    I do think the theory you're describing is or could be just as liable to the same failings or outcome as communism. Any radical change could result in tyranny or hijacking.

    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.
    Then their incentive IS job satisfaction and the love what they are doing.

    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.
    I think you're going to have to define your terms before the discussion goes any further, like I've said I see the concept of profit and incentives as being synoymous with the things you describe and opposing or alternative and conflictual concepts.

    Do you think that all the jobs which people dont like can be automated? Can you think of this in terms of house work? Or the actual jobs within a single workplace, do you think self cleaning rooms or toilets can be or will be created like in the Carlsburg ads?

    There are some good theories I've seen developed by some economists, like the participatory economics project by Robin Hahnel and Michael Albert, which seek to deal with those challenges through the creation of balanced jobs complexes, in which job rotation would be used so that the menial, or disliked work, can be shared in rotation with more satisfactory or pleasing work. I dont know if it would work well in pratice, I figure that eventually organisational theorists will seize upon it because it could be a source of cost savings and then it could be tested but its association with left wing thinking and just the habits of a life time created by a certain division of labour are real obsticles to it working in pratice.

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I do think the theory you're describing is or could be just as liable to the same failings or outcome as communism. Any radical change could result in tyranny or hijacking.



    Then their incentive IS job satisfaction and the love what they are doing.



    I think you're going to have to define your terms before the discussion goes any further, like I've said I see the concept of profit and incentives as being synoymous with the things you describe and opposing or alternative and conflictual concepts.

    Do you think that all the jobs which people dont like can be automated? Can you think of this in terms of house work? Or the actual jobs within a single workplace, do you think self cleaning rooms or toilets can be or will be created like in the Carlsburg ads?

    There are some good theories I've seen developed by some economists, like the participatory economics project by Robin Hahnel and Michael Albert, which seek to deal with those challenges through the creation of balanced jobs complexes, in which job rotation would be used so that the menial, or disliked work, can be shared in rotation with more satisfactory or pleasing work. I dont know if it would work well in pratice, I figure that eventually organisational theorists will seize upon it because it could be a source of cost savings and then it could be tested but its association with left wing thinking and just the habits of a life time created by a certain division of labour are real obsticles to it working in pratice.
    I appreciate you for taking interest in the discussion. Sorry i need to actually mention this concept more clearly. I single post or a thread is not sufficient to describe the entire concept fully.

    By not working for profits the only thing i really mean that the love of doing your job and job satisfaction is what actually motivates people to do the job. So job satisfaction is the only incentive for people in the nonprofit economy. People do not work for monetary incentives is the exact term that i should have used.


    The kind of doubts that you are having is legitimate and reasonable but i suggest you to please study the concept in detail. It might seem very counter intuitive for people to understand at first but after you have read the concept fully you can understand better how it can work.

    Nonprofit Economy is a radically different concept but not a tyranny or highacking because it is only for those people who wish to work without any monetary incentive by their own wishes not because of any tyranny or legislation. If all such people who wish to live like this are demographically available in more than 60 percent population in a state it is possible to sustain a nonprofit economy in a democratic setup without any legislation.

    Now question comes why would people choose to work without any monetary incentive? There are many benefits that you can obtain which might encourage people to live like this.

    If you want to live in a society where there is a sense of equality, people can openly share and collaborate with each other without the concept of patents and intellectual property restrictions. You can expect changes in our education because people do not work for incentives so we can study whatever we like without the obligation of getting a job. The education can be flexible and people can study whatever they are interested in.
    We can expect better work environment where there are no hierarchies. There is no financial insecurity because job is not the only source of earnings.

    If anyone is interesting to study the Nonprofit Economy in detail you can search for Nonprofit Earth Exchange based Economy on the google. There is actually a book in which the entire concept is described in fully in detail which everyone can read on the internet.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    I have looked into these ideas in a great deal of depth and this sounds like a variety of "naive socialism".

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I am not mixing them, they are synoymous.

    What do you understand by economics? When Adam Smith first formulated his economic theories the entire purpose was to determine a means by which typical behaviour, not ideal or perfection but what IS, can be turned to the common good, he stated that no society could be prospering in which the majority were in want and experiencing shortages, so he defined a means to maximise productivity and production in order to eradicate that shortage and want. It was and is a moral theory.

    As with profit, I believe that you are conceiving of profit as exclusively capitalist returns on investment or wages etc. There is a wider definition, for instance in the bible it is written "what does it profit a man if he wins the whole world and loses his soul? (or in some translations "mind")", profit as I understand it simply means benefit or gain or a good. This is the same as the concept of selfishness, for some selfishness is totally anathema, always wrongful, a positively evil thing, while for others it is a virtue, I think either extreme is sorely mistaken and a neutral legitimate self-interest exists which is neither of these extremes and a prerequisite to altruism or doing good for others.

    Now I would accept and believe that from the time when Smith formulated his theories that economics has become more rationalising (in the psychological sense) than reasonable, it has degenerated in many ways into being the ideology of ruling elites and elites in conflict. Marx was one of the first to suggest that economics was no longer a science or interested in being scientific but he wasnt the only one and the others which felt this way were not even always socialists or interested in ending class struggles or elitism. That said I do think it is mistaken to create a dichotomy of morality vs. amoral economics.
    Yeah sorry i should have mentioned this in a more clear way. People always work for benefits and this is a natural human logic. By saying that people do not work for incentives i actually meant to say that in a Nonprofit Economy people do not work for Monetary Incentive. The job satisfaction and love of doing your job is the actual incentive for people to do their job.

    In the whole context profits only means monetary incentives and not the benefit in general.
    If people are working for everyone's benefits they are also benefiting in that because they are the part of economy. So people are working for benefits.
    If you study nonprofit economy we can see that working for everyone's benefits is actually gives a more productive model of economy compared to the conventional economy. There will be no requirement of intellectual property protectionist measures like patent which slows down the growth in the economy.
    Patents do slow down the growth of the economy. This is something not required in a nonprofit economy.

    There is actually a complete production efficiency analysis available where we can even analyze the purchasing capacity and standards of living of a nonprofit economy and how it can result into a better, more productive and more efficient economy. This is the reason why due to the benefits the people can find this concept interesting even though it might appear very counter intuitive on the surface.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    214

    Red face

    Any system that requires people to act against their nature in order to function is doomed to failure. 'A job well done is reward in itself' is a great saying, but the reality is that the number of people who work at McDonald's for self-actualization is incredibly small. Further from that, people (as a voting mass) absolutely do not tolerate freeloading. They much prefer (for example) a single mother to work three jobs rather than be on welfare, even if this results in a net loss for society.

    I can accept the concept of all natural resources belonging to the people of a country. However, even this has its issues. The most obvious one is that each new citizen results in a dilution of ownership, and this incentivizes people to limit citizenship. Followed to its logical conclusion, you could end up with children either not being born or not being granted citizenship, or the creation of an imported and unrepresented working class made up of foreigners.

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dala View Post
    Any system that requires people to act against their nature in order to function is doomed to failure. 'A job well done is reward in itself' is a great saying, but the reality is that the number of people who work at McDonald's for self-actualization is incredibly small. Further from that, people (as a voting mass) absolutely do not tolerate freeloading. They much prefer (for example) a single mother to work three jobs rather than be on welfare, even if this results in a net loss for society.

    I can accept the concept of all natural resources belonging to the people of a country. However, even this has its issues. The most obvious one is that each new citizen results in a dilution of ownership, and this incentivizes people to limit citizenship. Followed to its logical conclusion, you could end up with children either not being born or not being granted citizenship, or the creation of an imported and unrepresented working class made up of foreigners.

    In a nonprofit economy Resources are not owned by the citizens only the origins of the resources are owned by the citizens instead of government or the profit based organization.

    I actually did not mention the concept properly in the original post. So i have edited the entire post. I suggest you to please read it again.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dala View Post
    Any system that requires people to act against their nature in order to function is doomed to failure. 'A job well done is reward in itself' is a great saying, but the reality is that the number of people who work at McDonald's for self-actualization is incredibly small. Further from that, people (as a voting mass) absolutely do not tolerate freeloading. They much prefer (for example) a single mother to work three jobs rather than be on welfare, even if this results in a net loss for society.

    I can accept the concept of all natural resources belonging to the people of a country. However, even this has its issues. The most obvious one is that each new citizen results in a dilution of ownership, and this incentivizes people to limit citizenship. Followed to its logical conclusion, you could end up with children either not being born or not being granted citizenship, or the creation of an imported and unrepresented working class made up of foreigners.
    That's the rub there, its a good summation of public choice theories I've read, its more the cultural norm in nations like the UK and US than the Scandinavian states like Sweden and Norway, although immigration or concerns about "welfare tourism" is threatening that particular consensus.

    Its always interested me because even where it would benefit everyone or where indirect benefits are assured to subscribes who are not direct users of services the free loading problem would encourage a lot of people to nix entire programmes and forego any benefit at all, potential, actual whatever. Its part of the reason I dont think welfare states have much of a future, even seperated from any ideological ties, and given the extent to which I believe capitalism itself requires some similar institution for the circulation of money and guarantor of mass production it doesnt bode well for the economy itself either.

    Norms of a certain sort trumph reality or the good life.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bluemountaintree View Post
    Yeah sorry i should have mentioned this in a more clear way. People always work for benefits and this is a natural human logic. By saying that people do not work for incentives i actually meant to say that in a Nonprofit Economy people do not work for Monetary Incentive. The job satisfaction and love of doing your job is the actual incentive for people to do their job.

    In the whole context profits only means monetary incentives and not the benefit in general.
    If people are working for everyone's benefits they are also benefiting in that because they are the part of economy. So people are working for benefits.
    If you study nonprofit economy we can see that working for everyone's benefits is actually gives a more productive model of economy compared to the conventional economy. There will be no requirement of intellectual property protectionist measures like patent which slows down the growth in the economy.
    Patents do slow down the growth of the economy. This is something not required in a nonprofit economy.

    There is actually a complete production efficiency analysis available where we can even analyze the purchasing capacity and standards of living of a nonprofit economy and how it can result into a better, more productive and more efficient economy. This is the reason why due to the benefits the people can find this concept interesting even though it might appear very counter intuitive on the surface.
    Now its beginning to sound like you're proposing that gift relationships replace other forms of social exchange or social relationships including those in the economy.

    That's fine and it wouldnt be the first time that's been proposed, gift relationships already exist but they have not subsumed the other forms of exchange, there are some I dont believe gift relationships can be susbtituted for.

    Have you read Marcel Mauss? I think you'd be interested in what he had to write about in his book The Gift, he was an anthropologist who investigated the extent to which gift relationships, in which people must always reciprocate any gift they recieve with another gift of equal or greater value, were universal and existed in cultures which have never had any contact with one another.

    Mauss was a social democrat but because he felt that communism and even some varieties of "free gift" welfare measures were injurious to ideas of gift giving and receiving.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dala View Post
    Any system that requires people to act against their nature in order to function is doomed to failure. 'A job well done is reward in itself' is a great saying, but the reality is that the number of people who work at McDonald's for self-actualization is incredibly small. Further from that, people (as a voting mass) absolutely do not tolerate freeloading. They much prefer (for example) a single mother to work three jobs rather than be on welfare, even if this results in a net loss for society.

    I can accept the concept of all natural resources belonging to the people of a country. However, even this has its issues. The most obvious one is that each new citizen results in a dilution of ownership, and this incentivizes people to limit citizenship. Followed to its logical conclusion, you could end up with children either not being born or not being granted citizenship, or the creation of an imported and unrepresented working class made up of foreigners.
    It does make me think of the sorts of "communal ownership" involved in the penal laws in Ireland whereby all familial properties must be subdivided and subdivided again among each generation of sons, eventually the land being divided was so small or virtually vanished, it was a way of effectively dispossessing the RC minority, they couldnt own land and couldnt really subsist as a result.

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