Thank you krzych32 for pointing out the issues you saw with the system I thought of. I'll try to address the biggest amount of issues I can.
"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."
-Government looses power to control currency.
-Government looses most of the power to stimulate the economy at the time of need.
-Other Governments have control over our trading deficit.
I don't see much problems with the first one, the second one is a real issue and I don't know how I would handle it, and a simple solution for the 3rd one would be to apply the currency/political system worldwide, instead of locally (I do say in the beginning "if you could change everything").
"Then I would eliminate the stock market. It is useless in my opinion. "
-Companies are locked out from the pool of available assets from the investors.
-Selling and buying of stock becomes difficult.
-Stops the creation of new corporations, the old one's have trouble acquiring assets.
-^ Corporations pay double taxation, thus, limiting the income of the federal government.
I'll start by rectifying my original opinion. I should have said that the stock market isn't useless, but does not work in a way I think is acceptable or fair. People can earn money without any real and useful contribution to society trough it.
With this set, the 1st and 3rd issues are the issues I consider the most important. A new system would need to be created to handle those cases. About the difficulty on selling and buying stock, I think that is more of a... feature instead of default.
Of course the difficulty on selling and buying stock is what would cause the 1st and 3rd problems, but I think those problems can be solved without the use of stocks. I don't understand what you mean with the double taxation part. I also don't know very deeply the stock exchange system, so if you could further explain what you meant I'd be glad to hear.
"I would also apply market rules so companies could not abuse monopolies"
-Monopolies, with a couple of exceptions are illegal....
No, abuse from the powers monopolies give is illegal, but from what I see in many places, the sentences are usually a slap to the wrist. By allowing the option to "pay the way out of jail", corporations with monopolies aren't afraid of breaking the law, as they have enough money to pay whatever the fine is, thus escaping jail.
"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."
-Govermant infringment on the right of the costumer.
The government is just providing a service, not forcing people to use it. It is the same as what happens in almost European countries. An example of an already existing case: you can use postal services or resort to UPS/Feedex/whatever. You can choose the one you want. I just want to extend that to all other essential services.
-As govermant chooses providers, creation of monopolies.(ironic)
As I said, I only want to be sure monopolies aren't abused. And I am sure it is possible to implement my system without forcing a choice to people. If, for example, the government calculated how much would cost to pay the essential services for the needs of the person/family, and provided something equivalent to food tickets (I don't know how they are called elsewhere) for each service, people would be able to use them anywhere where that service is provided.
-Failure of most businesses in the provided sectors.
Untrue, government run health-care is practically universal in Europe, yet, there are several private insurers that manage to keep working (I see several ads for them on tv everyday). These insurers have an healthy competition, and thus don't have a monopoly. On the other side, for example, in my city, the management of water providence and sewers is handled by a private company. It has a monopoly and prices for water are higher in here than in most other places.
-overwelming bureaucracy.
Not necessarily, it just depends on how each service is run.
-No point to it all, as you can jst give people their money and they can buy what THEY want.
About the service providence for people, letting people have their money and buy what they want is not the ideal option not because of the people, but because of the company they work for. It is usual to see people having to choose between 2 essential things (for example, education vs food). With this I would just make sure that people would have all essentials no matter what. And as taxes would go to pay those essentials, it would be impossible for an employer to underpay the workers, as they would always have their essentials + the liquid part of the minimum wage, at the very least.
"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."
-With all that is above, the economy would surely fail. To keep the system going, you would have to tax people so much there wouldn't be any money for "secondary needs"
-Also, deep class devisions.
To answer that, I repeat what I said before: I should have said things differently. What I truly meant is that, as most of the salary would be taxed, the liquid part of it would drop significantly, but as most services are already payed, there wouldn't be much difference. As the percentage taxed would grow with the amount of income, it would be possible to keep money for secondary needs and wants for everybody.
I exemplified in my 2nd or 3rd reply, where people with the minimum wage would be taxed, for example, 40 to 50%, and up from there up to 90%. If the minimum wage is of 400€, the least amount a person would have leftover would be of 200€, and that is a good amount of money if all other things are paid.
I also disagree with class divisions. In society there would actually be less divisions, as all people would have their essentials and would always have leftover money for what they want. The government discrimination would only be in relation to taxes, and it would benefit almost all the population.
"Likewise, all job offers would need to be provided trough a centralized entity."
-People would not be able to get a job, except thru the "system". That is total goverman controll. The whole system is more radical and leftist then the Soviet Union.
I'd like to start by saying that government management =/= government control. And ironically, this was based on the communist system. I know some people who migrated from old soviet countries. They said that their system had some advantages and disadvantages. One advantage was that you didn't need to search for a job. The government would give you one according to what you wanted/needed. If you didn't like it, you would be moved to another job. This is an awesome system, as it reduces unemployment and makes it easier to search for jobs, as all jobs are carefully organized and cataloged. What matters here is
not how you search for/get the job, but
the efficiency you get when you search for it. This would boost job search efficiency by A LOT. And having a single system that works very well is better than having several scattered systems in which you have no warranties to get a job.
At last, I propose you to give an idea of a economical system. It may be flawed, it may be far from perfect, you may not even like it a lot. But it will be interesting to see how each person would do it and to see how we can improve it.
Give it a shot!
