h a l f b a k e r yNumber one on the no-fly list
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
The way the economy works at the moment tends to be that people set themselves up to ask for money. The money goes to the people who ask most convincingly, and then in return they deliver goods and services to the payees.
I propose that the economy is reversed so that people set themselves up to deliver
goods and services. The goods and services are given to the people who look like they would appreciate them most, and then in return those people give money to the providers.
0 -> oo
0_20-_3e_20oo
(actually, programmed it exactly to be driven by orders, by default, and money is optional) [Mindey, Mar 26 2020]
Trekonomics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekonomics
A "new world order" ...? [8th of 7, Mar 29 2020]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Can you provide any preliminary figures for possible injuries and deaths ? To the nearest million is fine. |
|
| |
<Decides not to point out to [poc] that "economics" is a phenomenon bounded by the bleak dictates of natural selection, and watch the inevitable consequences with detached amusement/> |
|
| |
//"economics" is a phenomenon bounded by the bleak dictates of natural selection// and yet "the economy" is as natural as a farm. This idea is for Economists to give them something useful to do. |
|
| |
A farm is a partially controlled environment. However, some factors- such as the law of supply and demand - operate inexorably, whatever farmers, governments and economists do. |
|
| |
[+], cause, it's not the money what matters - it's things. :) and, it obviously
can work. |
|
| |
^It's not things it's people. |
|
| |
In theory the brightest and the best should need the least resources because they have the skills and capability to act resourcefully. People with lesser knowledge and skills need more, produce waste and cause problems. Of course, where there is no knowledge or methods, resources are going to be lost finding a way. |
|
| |
So why do societies look up to people that are grossly resourced? May be a primitive survival thing. Kudos needs to be realign to those that deserve it and broken away from monetary/resource accumulation. |
|
| |
// why do societies look up to people that are grossly resourced? // |
|
| |
Probably because those people have the capability to modify the life-experience of others. |
|
| |
If you are a peasant living in a hovel, the peasant in the next hovel but one can probably do very little to significantly improve your economic* life experience. |
|
| |
However, your Lord (or Lady; we acknowledge equality of opportunity in brutal feudal oppression) in their castle can do a lot, to make your life better or worse. Thus it is good policy to behave in a way they will perceive positively, at least until such time as you can join with sufficient other peasants to storm the castle and eject them, then (a) institute an anarcho-syndicalist commune, or (better for you) (b) install you as the new Ruler. |
|
| |
Does that answer your question ? |
|
| |
"Saving one dog will not change the world, but it will certainly change the world for that one dog". |
|
| |
*What you do in the privacy of your or their hovel may improve your life experience significantly, but the economics of any related transaction are not relevant to the discussion. |
|
| |
//goods and services are given to the people who look like
they would appreciate them// |
|
| |
So ... "to each according to how they look" ? |
|
| |
"Hollywood Economics" ....? |
|
| |
I don't like being pushed, generally. |
|
| |
I interpret this as pervasive surveillance monitoring every
thing you do and deciding what you need and pushing
products to you. |
|
| |
One day you wake up to find a parcel for a spatula that you
need because you always misuse your other cutlery to
perform the same function. |
|
| |
And that would include weapons ? We'll have some of that, please. |
|
| |
// (a) institute an anarcho-syndicalist commune |
|
| |
(a) sounds better than (b), but there's also (c), when you feel like a kid of
the world,
rather than any particular commune. |
|
| |
// (a) sounds better than (b) // |
|
| |
(b) places you in a greatly improved social and economic position (until the next rebellion, in which case keep the secret escape tunnel clear of junk, and oil the hinges of the door). |
|
| |
In a subsistence economy, (a) will do little (though something) to improve your personal situation. It depends on the resource previously diverted to the ruler. There is a limit to how much resource can be "harvested" from a population before they reach the "nothing more to lose" point and revolt. Wise rulers recognize this; the ones that don't tend to get burnished on the Lathe of Heaven ... |
|
| |
Situations that fail to recognize the fact that humans mostly operate from logical self-interest rarely persist. |
|
| |
I like the idea, but I have one misgiving. In the Age of Exploration, the country of Spain in fact went bankrupt from importing too much gold and silver, allegedly because "too much money was chasing too few goods". That is all. |
|
| |
But that's the thing, this system would be free from inflation, recession, or depression, because the goods and services would lead. The amount of money in the system would no longer dictate the way the economy worked. So it wouldn't matter if huge amounts of cash suddenly flooded into the economy, because money doesn't start the process nor lead the economy. |
|
| |
This sounds a lot like the economic model proposed by, among
others, Allen Ginsberg and D H Lawrence. It requires an
incredibly servile underclass of morlocks with pitifully low
expectations. Lawrence was at least honest enough to mention
the violence that would be needed to keep this underclass in
their place. Ginsberg was not so honest. |
|
| |
Toilet paper suppliers stocking my homes W.C.. That sounds great. |
|
| |
With the coming of say fusion or SMRs, energy will be abundant and humanity could unshackle from nature. We will have to evolve a way to have people serve society fairly so everyone can ride the train however they like. And humanity could step over the points system. |
|
| |
That's what people *thought* had happened inthe 1950s (not
with fusion in particular, but abundant energy in general). It
appears they were mistaken. What lessons can be learned from
that mistake, in your opinion? |
|
| |
"Predicting the future is very difficult" ? |
|
| |
There is an interesting book called "Trekonomics" which directly addresses the scenario [wjt] presents. <link> |
|
| |
In the 50s, there was a lot of follow the norm or be ostracized, so I would posit that society was not ready for abundant low cost energy at that time.
Maturity of technology and society has to coincide. |
|
| |
The question would be, how to dismantle or modernize a fundamental system? that has served us well, but isn't that fair to those new to the system. |
|
| |
Your species' normal solution to such problems is to kill off part of your population in a ritual called a "war" ... |
|
| |
Ah, one of the internal conflicts, stopping us finding more original deaths, out in the universe. |
|
| |
Yes, you have no idea of all the new and interesting things you're missing out on... |
|
| |