Submitted by shanoshamanizum t3_xx48in in Futurology
shanoshamanizum OP t1_iradpip wrote
Reply to comment by The_Bjorn_Ultimatum in Moneyless economy simulator by shanoshamanizum
>Good idea. And since people will obviously demand way too much if everything is just available to take, we should also make that system track and calculate the value people are putting back into the economy, so we know that it is sustainable, and people aren't profiting off other people's input.
Practice has shown the opposite effect in fact. When you can have anything anytime it loses sentimental value to you.
Maintaining the scarcity mindset for abundant resources is what keeps the system alive. Just take a look around at digital scarcity.
The_Bjorn_Ultimatum t1_irajipp wrote
You need to learn some basic concepts about the economy. May I suggest the book Basic Economics, by Thomas Sowell. He does a good job of explaining, with real world examples, these concepts that you don't seem to grasp. Like scarcity, the role of prices, etc.
>Practice has shown the opposite effect in fact. When you can have anything anytime it loses sentimental value to you.
Nope. False. When people are given the choice to not work and can, in theory, get anything they want at any time, they will try to get it and not work.
SentientHotdogWater t1_irfg1wf wrote
Do you honestly think OP would be capable of creating something like this simulator without at least a rudimentary knowledge of economics?...
The_Bjorn_Ultimatum t1_irfgnk4 wrote
Yes. Did you even read the guidelines. It asks you to keep it real. The entire system relies on individuals being honest and not taking more than they need. It also assumes that people will be able to supply the same stuff as our current market economy.
SentientHotdogWater t1_irfh55j wrote
>It also assumes that people will be able to supply the same stuff as our current market economy.
I'm curious, who do you think actually creates and supplies the "stuff" in our current market economy if not people?
The_Bjorn_Ultimatum t1_irfjnjj wrote
Im curious how you think people are going to supply stuff wirhout any financial incentive to do so.
SentientHotdogWater t1_irfnwac wrote
Perhaps because people would rather live in a society with things like food, shelter, clothing, etc. than a society without these things?
The_Bjorn_Ultimatum t1_irfw7k7 wrote
And what would incentivize people to make those for others for free? People aren't just going to do this out of the goodness of their own hearts. You can't possibly believe that.
Also how would you distribute. All resources are scarce. So how are you distributing scarce resources with alternative uses in the economy without the guide of prices to determine where stuff is needed?
SentientHotdogWater t1_irfzeuo wrote
>And what would incentivize people to make those for others for free? People aren't just going to do this out of the goodness of their own hearts. You can't possibly believe that.
Of course not that would be ridiculous. However, people will work and make things for other people for free in exchange for the ability to get things that other people make for free.
There's nothing intrinsic to money that makes people want to work in exchange for it. People just want the stuff that they use money to get. If they could just get the stuff without using money why would there still be any desire for money?
>All resources are scarce.
Are they?... We grow enough food to feed 10 billion people yet 10% of us go hungry every year. The US has 580,000 homeless people in the US and 16,000,000 vacant homes. How real is this scarcity and how much of it is the result of a shitty means of distributing goods, labor, and services?
The_Bjorn_Ultimatum t1_irg15nu wrote
>There's nothing intrinsic to money that makes people want to work in exchange for it. People just want the stuff that they use money to get. If they could just get the stuff without using money why would there still be any desire for money?
Things have value whether there is money or not. Money is medium of exchange. So that we know how much things are worth relative to other things. Without money, value isn't determined and we lose the ability to effectively distribute goods and services to where they are needed most.
>However, people will work and make things for other people for free in exchange for the ability to get things that other people make for free.
First of all, OP said work would be voluntary. But beyond that, why wouldn't I just take much more than I contribute and screw everyone else over?
>Are they?... We grow enough food to feed 10 billion people yet 10% of us go hungry every year. The US has 580,000 homeless people in the US and 16,000,000 vacant homes. How real is this scarcity and how much of it is the result of a shitty means of distributing goods, labor, and services?
You are confused about what scarcity is. This is why I recommendes the book, "Basic Economics."
>The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.
-Thomas Sowell
You can't distribute goods better than prices can. If you think you can, then prove it.
SentientHotdogWater t1_irg2yak wrote
>Things have value whether there is money or not. Money is medium of exchange. So that we know how much things are worth relative to other things. Without money, value isn't determined and we lose the ability to effectively distribute goods and services to where they are needed most.
Under your system a banana duct taped to a wall is worth $120,000.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/someone-paying-120000-for-a-banana-duct-taped-to-a-wall-at-art-basel-is-the-perfect-picture-of-wealth-inequality-2019-12-05
If your system of valuing goods, services, and labor determines that a banana duct taped to a wall is worth more than a 2 bedroom apartment perhaps it's a sign your system doesn't work very well?...
>First of all, OP said work would be voluntary. But beyond that, why wouldn't I just take much more than I contribute and screw everyone else over?
Because if everyone did that then nobody would have anything.
Surely you'd rather have something than nothing, wouldn't you?
>You are confused about what scarcity is. This is why I recommendes the book, "Basic Economics."
I'm really not. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps Thomas Sowell was wrong about one or two things?...
The_Bjorn_Ultimatum t1_irg4v65 wrote
>Under your system a banana duct taped to a wall is worth $120,000.
Nah. I can buy a banana and duct tape for way less than that. And let's not pretend that modern art sales are your normal purchase that everyone relies on.
>Because if everyone did that then nobody would have anything.
>Surely you'd rather have something than nothing, wouldn't you?
The person next to me is going to take advantage of it, so why shouldn't I? This is how economies are ruined and people starve. It's the more extreme version of nationalizing all industry and redistributing wealth.
>I'm really not. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps Thomas Sowell was wrong about one or two things?...
Nope. He is a pretty good economist and gives actual examples in his book. Better than this marxist crap you are spouting. You can't even tell me how people will be incentivized to work and just assume people will do it out of their own free will.
SentientHotdogWater t1_irg6zwj wrote
>Nah. I can buy a banana and duct tape for way less than that.
Can you sell it for $120,000?
>And let's not pretend that modern art sales are your normal purchase that everyone relies on.
We pay athletes millions of dollars to throw balls through hoops, while we barely pay the people who teach our children a living wage.
There have been paramedics that make more money doing only fans. Are you telling me being a paramedic is seriously of less value to society than doing porn?
This is not a good system we're using. It might be the only one that's worked for us so far but it is godawful at doing what we need it to do.
>The person next to me is going to take advantage of it, so why shouldn't I?
Because if everyone, including you, did that then nobody would have anything. You seem perfectly aware that people would starve if everyone did this. Wouldn't you at least do the bare minimum required for people to have their needs met? Would you honestly rather starve than do the bare minimum?
>This is how economies are ruined and people starve
Your system grows enough food to feed 2 billion extra people while 10% of the population goes hungry and you want to talk to me about people starving?...
>He is a pretty good economist and gives actual examples in his book.
Einstein was a pretty good physicist, but he was wrong about nuclear power being impossible. Lord Kelvin was widely considered the most prominent scientist of his time, but he was wrong about heavier than air flight being impossible. Aristotle is widely considered to be one of the greatest thinkers in history, but he was wrong about the elements.
Smart people can still be wrong.
>You can't even tell me how people will be incentivized to work and just assume people will do it out of their own free will.
As I've said multiple times now, people will be incentivized to work in order to have things, just the same as they are now.
The_Bjorn_Ultimatum t1_irh5nqh wrote
It is a fact that that free markets have raised more people out of abject poverty and starvation more than anything else ever has, while marxist economies have ended in the deaths of nearly 100 million people with widespread starvation and poverty. But setting that aside, let's look at this core issue.
>As I've said multiple times now, people will be incentivized to work in order to have things, just the same as they are now.
You seem to think that people take the entire system into account when they make personal decisions. That is not true. You already changed the original proposed model that said work would be voluntary, so lets look at your model.
I have to work to use this system. Since the government runs this system, do they decide what I do or do I get to choose? If I get to choose, then how does the economy regulate oversaturated markets? We can't have everyone being an artist or a musician. And who would ever do the shit jobs in society with long hours and such unless they have some sort of incentive to do that instead of something else.
Next, what is to stop me from wildly overtaking goods and services. Does the government get to decide how much I purchase? Can they decide I have had enough food for the month and not give me anything? Do I have to get some sort of approval to buy everything?
What is your solution to these problems that money, and prices solve?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments