You didn't answer to my question. What are you going to do about the black market?

I wasn't really replying to your system Tempz, but rather lanthanide's proposal for restructuring the tax system.

@Vrael
mmk

@Gigins
we will always have corruption the best we can do is weed it out the best we can... it won't prevent or stop it. I didn't answer it because i didn't really know how to answer you at the time; simply put if there is a crack no matter how strong the foundations a weed will sprout all you got to do is rip the weeds out one at a time. At my own curiosity how does this purposed system help black markets, all it does it force the currency into something else which makes exchange rates harder to figure out so it actually imo makes it harder to organize black markets.

Post has been edited 5 time(s), last time on Feb 13 2012, 7:43 pm by Tempz.

What if a group of citizens start printing money? They could resurrect the dollar and use that to trade. One could acquire automated machines with points, and create their own robotic textile factory and sell the clothes for dollars. Exchange rates between goods and dollars will naturally occur just as it has in our society.

The center of the argument is that greed will be gone in a free-money world. If you educated people to not be greedy in a capitalist society, bankers wouldn't make risky investments, politicians wouldn't have to lie so much, and people would be satisfied with what they have. As said before, you can't eliminate greed from human nature. And even if you could, why wouldn't you just educate people in the capitalist society? People need an incentive to work; earning the money to buy luxuries (even for a selfless reason; perhaps you wish to give a gift to your lover) encourages people to do a good job. Otherwise factories turn into Soviet assembly plants producing low-quality goods.

I'm not going to get into a long discussion about this. I'll just say that I think it's idiotic. I'm more of a socialist than a communist. Black market, bribery, lack of motivation, complexity. The more problems you try to fix by putting more crap on top of the system, the more complex and slow it becomes.

all true but the major problem with system of capitalism is leverage meaning you can simply out compete people which this system tries to eliminate. But how complex would it be if for every problem you'd have to put another check or balance to make sure nothing goes wrong. A new system will work a whole lot better then making it over complicated. I mean look at the law system... its overly complicated and even so there are many loopholes people find.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here... Are you saying that competition is bad? Competition drives down prices for the consumer. If hardware companies didn't compete, our computers would be much less advanced than they are today.

I agree that the legal system is highly complicated, but I do not agree that "simpler means better". Instead of abiding by a written constitution, we could be ruled by a dictator. Government would be much simpler, but that doesn't mean that it's better.

I agree that if people were more virtuous, (less greedy, less selfish, etc.) the world would be a better place. The world you envision would have to be socially re-engineered, which takes efforts on a scale like Brave New World or Anthem. Slow change over time may lead to a better world, but I doubt the people of the Earth could come together to completely redefine human behavior within our lifetimes.

Not really competition is great for the world; its just over competing meaning something like walmart can squash small business which makes it impossible to get anywhere.


All true and agreeable but our system is outdated simply for the reason of greed and human nature... And your right to a degree change won't happen suddenly but the women's voting movement, black rights movement(s), and even some native American issues took in some cases decades to smooth over the details from the inception of the idea of freedom. I never stated (i think) that it will happen like speeding bullet but it probably won't happen at the speed of snail stuck in glue. It will happen eventually.

I was very busy so sorry it took so long to respond.

Let me make sure I've got this straight:


...

1. So basically our current monetary system?
2. So basically a centrally planned economy?
3. So basically like our current government but with even narrow constituencies?
4. So when humans are hungry, they are taught to resist the urge to ask for food, and that will solve the worlds' problems?

1)Yes except points aren't dependent on job
2)yea that's the idea
3)Power should be divided so people aren't able to do horrible things (such leaders such as stalin) and each leader of the each pillar will have an adviser
4)not really they are more taught to take what you need.

1. So, the lazy man is paid the same as the industrious worker?
2. Are you saying that the government knows how to run the economy better than the natural forces of the market system? How will the government know how to allocate resources? I doubt that bureaucrats know better than businessmen when it comes to producing what people want at the lowest possible price. It didn't work well in the USSR, why would it work on a larger scale?
3. Dividing power between individuals leads to legislative gridlock. If every industry has representative(s), then those representatives are responsible only to that industry. Let's say I represent all carpenters. As the leader of the carpenters' union, I will try and do the best for my carpenters. I will try and get the government to order wood furniture over other goods, like ceramic bathroom fixtures. If the carpenters' union is stronger (more numerous = more representatives), then the government will buy more desks, even if no one wants them. The other option is to give economic planning to a centralized bureaucracy, in which case, has little incentive to allocate goods properly.
4. What if a person spends all their points for the month but still wants more? He might plant a garden in his backyard and sell the produce for points. What's to stop this from happening? If the government stop this, why would increased production be considered bad? And if they didn't stop extra production, the economy might revert back into a capitalist system.

1) no...any lazy person who doesn't have job will be punished with point reductions

2) no there should different group of public servants to deal with the economy... how should choosing the right people for the job is whole other discussion. And this group of people will probably have to be intertwined with the pillars of leadership although a fair system would be that any changes has to be consoled with politicians and leadership so as to not be radically devalue any items.

3)That's why a unrelated 3rd parties will vote...

4)I see what you did there... perhaps you want me to say that points are not trade-able which will entrap me but a system i was thinking of would be that farming and any form of business will require permits.

What is this simplicity is better stuff going on here? Just because something is simple does not necessitate that something is fast, or even better. You have to realize government has been tasked with trying to do something really, really difficult. It's no surprise it's a complex system. It deals without how to deal with people, and people are by no means simple things.

Unlike robots, we don't do what we're told all of the time, we have a huge variety needs that must be fulfilled just to survive, and we want a lot of things. When we don't get what we want we will lie/cheat/steal to get it, depending on the thing.

What I'm saying is that labor would be misallocated. Not enough people would want to become doctors. Why study medicine for 10 years if you get paid the same as a janitor? There will be some people that become doctors because they enjoy the medical field, but much fewer people will become doctors than society will need.

This sounds like our current system, except the bureaucrats have even more power than they currently do. There are committees in Congress right now that set policy for different sectors of the economy. For example, price floors on milk cause farmers to produce extra milk, even when consumers do not desire as much dairy as what has been produced.
As you can see in our current government, votes from third parties in Congress can help either side. Oil, gas, and solar companies have been receiving subsidies. Legislators can form coalitions and logroll, benefiting all members of the party.

The problem is not registering a business. The problem is that people could produce more goods and services without direction from the government, therefore setting the society back to our current capitalist system. The "Free Money System + Capitalism" would be the equivalent of everyone getting a welfare check, and then having no taxes on other sources of income.

A bonus wage or assigned jobs if not enough people are doing a certain job
I don't see who a third party will be a bad thing as long there is a check to make sure they aren't too corruptible.

how will this give more power to polticans... and as i said i don't think i will be able to come up with a fair system so maybe you can come up with one =3

Simply fix this by making it so you can't make your own items to sell back... if one were to do something it would simply only benifit themselves or whoever they give it to for free.

That would create income inequality. You've just turned the "Free Money System" into an oligarchy.

It would give more power to politicians because some part of the government (appointed officials, career bureaucrats, or elected leaders) will be the ones determining production and allocating resources.

The better system is to allow consumers to determine prices, as they (mostly) do right now. Business can price their products at any level (aside from government instituted price floors and ceilings--rent control, for example). However, businesses cannot price soda at $100 per can because no one would buy it. Businesses thus price their products where they can sell a combination of low price and high quantity for the highest profit. In the soda example, the price that would yield the most profit might be $0.50 per can.

If people could not produce as much as they desired, that would stifle production. People demand goods, people are willing to supply goods, but the government forbids logical transactions from taking place. You'd hold the economy back.

Fail on my part but fixing problems just create more problems...

Unfortunately there is no way around this... the better of the two would be to hold the economy...

No system is perfect, i'm not saying this is perfect its just a whole lot better.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Mar 11 2012, 11:57 pm by Tempz.