Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SentientHotdogWater t1_irg6zwj wrote

Reply to comment by The_Bjorn_Ultimatum in Moneyless economy simulator by shanoshamanizum

>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.

1

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?

1