Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2010 16:20:49 GMT -5
Lets imagine the following: You could destroy entirely all of the current economical systems used EVERYWHERE, and remake a new system entirely from scratch, without any limitation or prejudices related to how it works. How would you do it? So here is my suggestion: post how you would do your economical system, and offer feedback on other's economical system ideas (the feedback part makes it belong to the debate club, by the way). __________________________________________________ So, here is how I would make mine (have in mind I am no economist, but I do some ideas I think are interesting): First, I would create a new currency. This currency would have a fixed value, which would not variate under any way. There would be no valuing/devaluing of currency at all. Then I would eliminate the stock market. It is useless in my opinion. It provides no real feedback on how any company is going. According to it, a near bankrupt company could be in amazingly good shape, as long as there were several stock holders wanting to buy shares (it is not probable, but it is not impossible either). Any need to know how the company is going should be made by evaluation of profits made or audits, period. I would also apply market rules so companies could not abuse monopolies and to guarantee the customer's rights and well being. On a quick note, all essential necessities would have a government run company to provide them, although no third parties would be blocked of offering the same services if they wanted. For the population there would be some wacky changes: First, anybody who had a job would have access to a home, electricity, water, transport (as in means of transportation and not a personal car), health, education, means of communication, access to news and food (plus anything essential I forgot to place) as a human right for no charge. The type of home and the amount of electricity, water and food provided would be defined according to several factors, being the most important one the needs of the person. With this, the salary of a person would drop significantly, yet, this wouldn't affect the person at all, as it would be used mostly for secondary needs. Of course, to provide such a thing, it would be necessary a large amount of money. I don't know how would I handle this, but a part of the solution would evolve taxes. As salaries are mostly secondary, a larger, more radical taxing of these could happen. My idea is that as the salary grows, a bigger percentage of it is taxed. Of course that, when applying to jobs, the liquid income should be announced, excluding the untaxed part, so as to not delude people. With this I come to job applying. For this I would base myself on a little interesting thing which happened on the (software) Ubuntu Operating System recently. They replaced the confusing notification system with a clean, neat, centralized solution. Likewise, all job offers would need to be provided trough a centralized entity. This entity would provide to all population an easy access to a clean, organized database, sortable and filterable by any relevant info. And this is all I have for now. I had all these ideas in my head, but this was the second time I organized them in some form of speech, and the first time I pointed them down. So they are still in the early stages and in a constant evolution. They are far from perfect, but I'm not looking for a perfect economy, I'm looking for a good economy that works decently. __________________________________________________ So, tell me what you think of my ideas, give your own ideas, and tell everybody what you think of each other's ideas. And remember, PDBAZ!
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on Jun 13, 2010 16:32:23 GMT -5
One flaw I see with your system is that if you plan on massive and expensive government provided social programs, and minimal salaries and high taxes, where is the money? The economy will be downright stagnant.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2010 16:41:04 GMT -5
One flaw I see with your system is that if you plan on massive and expensive government provided social programs, and minimal salaries and high taxes, where is the money? The economy will be downright stagnant. Ups, I meant the liquid income would be low. Salaries would technically not change much, only the amount people got would change. And as people would have all their needs without needing to pay them (as these would be payed by taxes), they could afford to buy new things for themselves (even if with a smaller salary, because a much bigger part of that salary would be "profit"). This would allow for a somewhat active economy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2010 16:45:22 GMT -5
I would like to add another flaw to your system: In case that this would be implemented, there would be a very small group with immense power, a lot more than governments have now. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not right-winged, I think government should regulate certain things, but I can't imagine that humans would be able to maintain a system like this without corruption.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2010 16:56:10 GMT -5
I would like to add another flaw to your system: In case that this would be implemented, there would be a very small group with immense power, a lot more than governments have now. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not right-winged, I think government should regulate certain things, but I can't imagine that humans would be able to maintain a system like this without corruption. Most European countries have (or had) a public company for each essential thing. All developed countries have a government controlled education system. The only things to pass in a mandatory way trough the government would be salaries and some regulatory things. It would be a little more power than currently, but not much more. Furthermore, with a strong democratic system, and strong education and some anti-corruption systems (I don't know how, but if some expert wants to drop in ideas, please do so) it is possible to keep the control on the population itself instead of being in a small group of people. One thing for sure tough, the government would have much more responsibilities. But that doesn't necessarily mean power.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2010 17:42:24 GMT -5
That's true If you could work this out, it'd be very interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2010 18:06:30 GMT -5
How about somebody gives their idea of a good economical system (while giving opinions on previously posted ideas too)? It would be good for everybody to see different perspectives.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on Jun 13, 2010 21:20:56 GMT -5
I don't have any new system right now, but another thing about your system:
Yeah, I am inclined to believe that corruption would be incredibly likely too, but corruption already runs rampant. I think a good appendage would be to do away with the lobby system and the like. I do recognize the good in it, but the bad far outweighs it.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Jun 14, 2010 0:40:49 GMT -5
It kind of looks like socialism taken to the extreme. Not communism really, but pretty damn close. The problem is of course the government oversight. It also becomes a problem trying to ensure there is enough food to go around, never mind simply making it available and paying for it. Companies will have less cause to compete, and less money with which to do so; you can't just eliminate the stock market I'm afraid. (Not that it couldn't use a lot of cleaning up, or even being rebuilt from scratch.) Unless you meant private trading only -- which is riskier and harder.
The expenses in managing all this would almost preclude the ability to provide it, I think.
//Edit: I just realised that in the US "communism" is used as an 'evil' word a lot and gets thrown around as an insult. I wanted to clarify that I didn't intend the word as an attack, only as its actual dictionary definition.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jun 14, 2010 1:27:57 GMT -5
"It kind of looks like socialism taken to the extreme. Not communism really, but pretty damn close."
Not even, its more like communism on steroids. Now imagin living in this system, they tell you how much food you get, what house you live in, what health care you get, and its all based on your "needs". Not only your freedom of consumption is being taken out of the picture, you get taxed for all of it also. Also, with the stock market gone the power to access assets by businesses would be very limited, at the same time limiting the ability to transfer the ownership of the businesses themselves. If you create a currency that does not flactuate, you would at least have to back it up with something, like gold, and even then it would be impossible to do because gold also changes in value, also, the central bank would not have the power the print money.
radicallyBlue, I see where you are going with this system, you are trying to fix everything that is wrong with our own, but the thing is that the thing you hate so much, like the stock market, do have a very real spot in our economy. You system on the other hand you be very potent to any changes in the economy.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on Jun 14, 2010 4:41:16 GMT -5
It's simple for me, I'd go back to bardering. You have something I want and I have something you want so lets trade. The problem of having nothing to trade for the thing you want still exsists with currancy in the form of I don't have enough money to afford it. I think bardering is better because that leave a constand negotiation for the price rather than a set price like there is with money.
If an item cost $50 dollars and you don't have $50 then too bad. But if you're trading and someone wants one thing but you don't want to loose it you might be able to trade something else that you don't mind looseing.
The one difference in my system that makes it better from how it was in the past is that basic needs, food, shelter, education, medical care, can not legally be traded and must be given for free. Only wants, things that you can live without having, can be traded.
In this kind of economic system I believe it would eliminate the need to work and create the passion to work. More people could do things they love and less people would be in jobs for the money alone. Someone who would normally give up on their dreams and take any paying job they can get to support a family would be able to get their dream job without worring about their families needs. This would also mean that in my system you know every single doctor genuanly wants to help people and you won't get stuck with a guy who became a doctor because it pays well because it won't pay well.
The only bad thing is getting someone to do the jobs no one likes but hell in my world we'd have robots to do all the things people hate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2010 4:43:52 GMT -5
Not even, its more like communism on steroids. Now imagin living in this system, they tell you how much food you get, what house you live in, what health care you get, and its all based on your "needs". Not only your freedom of consumption is being taken out of the picture, you get taxed for all of it also. Also, with the stock market gone the power to access assets by businesses would be very limited, at the same time limiting the ability to transfer the ownership of the businesses themselves. If you create a currency that does not flactuate, you would at least have to back it up with something, like gold, and even then it would be impossible to do because gold also changes in value, also, the central bank would not have the power the print money. I should have emphasized you do get a salary too, so the only things to be decided would be how much you get for free. If you wanted more, you could have so by buying. The removal of the stock market is complicated, but I also think it would be beneficial if it was well done. As I already said, it is a rough idea, and so I do not have a substitute for the stock market's functions, but I think it needs to be replaced, as all its functions are being poorly executed in my opinion. So while I do think it is perhaps a little more radical than socialism, and close to communism, I disagree about being communism on steroids, as people only have equal essential rights, being able to get more if they want to. I don't have any new system right now, but another thing about your system: Yeah, I am inclined to believe that corruption would be incredibly likely too, but corruption already runs rampant. I think a good appendage would be to do away with the lobby system and the like. I do recognize the good in it, but the bad far outweighs it. A good criminal system, in which you can't "pay the way out of jail", together with good anti-corruption systems (I don't know how they are, I just know they exist) would help to solve the problem. And I completely agree with you about eliminating lobbies. Lobbies want to promote what is better for themselves, not what is better for the people. As you say, the bad far outweighs the good.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jun 14, 2010 12:13:26 GMT -5
Not even, its more like communism on steroids. Now imagin living in this system, they tell you how much food you get, what house you live in, what health care you get, and its all based on your "needs". Not only your freedom of consumption is being taken out of the picture, you get taxed for all of it also. Also, with the stock market gone the power to access assets by businesses would be very limited, at the same time limiting the ability to transfer the ownership of the businesses themselves. If you create a currency that does not flactuate, you would at least have to back it up with something, like gold, and even then it would be impossible to do because gold also changes in value, also, the central bank would not have the power the print money. I should have emphasized you do get a salary too, so the only things to be decided would be how much you get for free. If you wanted more, you could have so by buying. The removal of the stock market is complicated, but I also think it would be beneficial if it was well done. As I already said, it is a rough idea, and so I do not have a substitute for the stock market's functions, but I think it needs to be replaced, as all its functions are being poorly executed in my opinion. So while I do think it is perhaps a little more radical than socialism, and close to communism, I disagree about being communism on steroids, as people only have equal essential rights, being able to get more if they want to." There is nothing for free, someone has to pay for it, so what you would have to do is tax them to the extreme. I don't see what the benefit of this system would be, the difference between living in that system and in this system would be that in this system you work, get paid, choose what you but for your money. In your system you work, get most of your money taken thru taxation, govermant gives you what they see "fit" for you. In USSR you at least had control what you but. And I understand that one would have their own money left over, but you would still have to tax them like 80%-90%, that leaves very little for personal consumption. Now when I think about it its kind of a "Pimp N' Ho" system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2010 14:03:15 GMT -5
I should have emphasized you do get a salary too, so the only things to be decided would be how much you get for free. If you wanted more, you could have so by buying. The removal of the stock market is complicated, but I also think it would be beneficial if it was well done. As I already said, it is a rough idea, and so I do not have a substitute for the stock market's functions, but I think it needs to be replaced, as all its functions are being poorly executed in my opinion. So while I do think it is perhaps a little more radical than socialism, and close to communism, I disagree about being communism on steroids, as people only have equal essential rights, being able to get more if they want to. There is nothing for free, someone has to pay for it, so what you would have to do is tax them to the extreme. I don't see what the benefit of this system would be, the difference between living in that system and in this system would be that in this system you work, get paid, choose what you but for your money. In your system you work, get most of your money taken thru taxation, govermant gives you what they see "fit" for you. In USSR you at least had control what you but. And I understand that one would have their own money left over, but you would still have to tax them like 80%-90%, that leaves very little for personal consumption. Now when I think about it its kind of a "Pimp N' Ho" system. Calm down, it is not that extreme. I just didn't explain it correctly. Lets imagine the minimum salary in Portugal. It is of 400 and something euros if I am correct (it is really small already). Now remember what I said about taxation: " My idea is that as the salary grows, a bigger percentage of it is taxed". What does this mean? It means that, for a minimum salary, for example, a maximum of 50% of it would be taxed. That percentage would grow as the salary grows. So, for example, a person getting 10 000 euros per month, would be taxed by 90%. Such taxes would leave the person with the minimum salary with 200€ and the person with the big salary with 1000€. Having in mind all essentials are already "payed" automatically, trough taxes, those 200€ are practically "profit", leaving the person with enough money for any additional expenses that person wants and with enough money for some new "toys" or a few good dinners in a restaurant. The person with 1000€ has even more chances of getting new things. When I said " With this, the salary of a person would drop significantly" I didn't meant to say that salaries would be lower and then taxed. I meant to say that, because of the taxing, the salaries would be lower. So a person wouldn't need to get into loans to buy houses, or cars, or expensive university education, as they would get it all "for free". If someone didn't like the ones provided trough taxation, they would be able to get their own by buying directly or by getting loans, as they do currently. You can't buy a house, or a car, or even pay university, with the current average monthly salary anyway, so it would be better for most people.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jun 14, 2010 14:18:08 GMT -5
@radicallyblue, just take economics 101 or something and you will see the multitude of flaws that this system creates.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2010 14:30:24 GMT -5
@radicallyblue, just take economics 101 or something and you will see the multitude of flaws that this system creates. I know it has flaws (even if I don't know which are). I am trying to exercise our minds in here. I proposed an idea. I hope people point flaws and then propose an alternative system, so I or someone then point out other flaws or solve previous ones. There's a reason this is called a "debate club". If you are simply going to answer " just take economics 101 or something and you will see the multitude of flaws that this system creates", you are helping nobody at all. So if you want to discuss irrationally, by trowing insults like those, then you can go another place, as you are going against this tribes values of " Stand by what we know to be true" and " Accept that we don't know everything" as you are promoting dogmatism based on a few insults. If you really think my system is so catastrophic you can't point out the problems in it and instead need to insult me, why don't you say how you would do your own economical system, mr. "Economics 101"?
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jun 14, 2010 15:22:17 GMT -5
ok, sorry, I didn't think you would take that as an insult. I'm not trying to create a system of my own because I know I can't create anything superior to what we have now.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jun 14, 2010 15:34:52 GMT -5
One thing we need to add is the salary system. Major league baseball players should never get more than a person who saves lives every day. Even out the jobs so the most important ones to keep the world running are the highest paying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2010 15:35:32 GMT -5
ok, sorry, I didn't think you would take that as an insult. I'm not trying to create a system of my own because I know I can't create anything superior to what we have now. Maybe you alone can't, but if we all get together thinking, seeing the flaws in the previous models and launching new ideas (no matter how crazy/mad/problematic they are) then I think we have good chances of making a good economical system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2010 15:36:42 GMT -5
One thing we need to add is the salary system. Major league baseball players should never get more than a person who saves lives every day. Even out the jobs so the most important ones to keep the world running are the highest paying. I agree. We need to figure out how to implement something like that...
|
|