Ask an Economist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-07-2013, 05:08 PM (This post was last modified: 28-07-2013 05:24 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Ask an Economist
(28-07-2013 03:18 PM)I Am Wrote:  Fairness, cooperative support, diversity, self-direction, and efficiency. An economy built on these principles will be better overall. It still won't be perfect of course, but it cannot help but be better than our current system, in my opinion.

Like I said, you may not hold these principles. If you don't, then we disagree. That's fine.
These are very nice principles. What method do you propose of making people live by them and keep them and not revert into something worse?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2013, 12:39 AM
RE: Ask an Economist
(28-07-2013 08:12 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 07:28 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Why do you think we should live in an equal society?
Not everyone is equal.

What kind of equality are we talking about here?

I'm not sure what earmuffs means by equal, but I agree with his statement that people are not all equal. As an extreme example, LeBron James is not equal to Stephen Spielberg. They are both exceptional individuals, but their exceptional skills are dramatically different. Also, I'd say that Spielberg, or me, or probably you cannot be equal to James in his area of highest skill, no matter how long or hard we train and practice, or what instruction we get from even the best teachers. That doesn't mean we can't learn basketball, or film making, and even improve ourselves and have fun doing it, but we aren't equal to the best of the best.

In less extreme ways, every adult has a set of genetic traits, an educational and experiential history, a set of likes, dislikes, habits and hangups that make them a unique person, unequal in real ways to every other adult.

What earmuffs seems to imply with his question, and please earmuffs correct me if I'm wrong, is that these differences should justify rewarding people differently for their work. This, I do not agree with. No person is responsible for all of the conditions that make them who they are. Some people are born with remarkable genetic gifts, like LeBron James or Michael Phelps. Some people have insanely rich family, and barely have to lift a finger to become bankers or captains of industry, no matter how meager their skills. Some people are born to convicts who are prevented from getting jobs or public housing, and so grow up with hardly any chance to be anything but another convict, no matter how bright their potential.

My point is, real inequalities between persons shouldn't translate to inequalities in access to resources. We shouldn't reward children of the rich with easy access to the best of everything, and we shouldn't "reward" children of the poor with bad schools and increased likelihood of being arrested. We shouldn't reward exceptionally beneficial genetic abnormalities, any more than we should shun and reject people with less desirable genetic abnormalities.

So, what should we reward? How should people get paid? Well, that leads to my... really, Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel's... answer to Luminon's question a little further on.

I AM he who is called... cat furniture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2013, 01:53 AM
RE: Ask an Economist
(24-06-2013 02:52 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Because you don't understand the answer.
Seriously, the amount of times I have given you the exact answer to that exact question and you blatantly refuse to even think about the answer before claiming it doesn't answer the question.

Or is DL? Consider No I'm 90% sure it was you.
Seriously though, it's because you don't understand the answer.

I'll explain it one more time for you if you insist, but only if you pinky swear like a 5 year old little girl, to actually use that brain of yours to actually think about the answer this time.

Wasn't me kid.

Okay, now for my question, oh mighty economist.


Alright, why does the Fed create economic bubbles by artificially manipulating interest rates to keep them low? Are all bubbles doomed to pop or is there realistically a way to deflate the bubble before it goes pop?

The questions have presumptions in them, so if you disagree with the premise of the question, please address that as well. Thanks.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2013, 02:16 AM
RE: Ask an Economist
(28-07-2013 05:08 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 03:18 PM)I Am Wrote:  Fairness, cooperative support, diversity, self-direction, and efficiency. An economy built on these principles will be better overall. It still won't be perfect of course, but it cannot help but be better than our current system, in my opinion.

Like I said, you may not hold these principles. If you don't, then we disagree. That's fine.
These are very nice principles. What method do you propose of making people live by them and keep them and not revert into something worse?

I am so glad you asked! First, I want to refer you to Moving Forward and Parecon, which both do a better job of answering that question than I can. I'll do my best to summarize them. Outlining economic mechanisms that promote people being good to each other takes some words, though, so please bear with me.

The short answer is, reshape our interactions in a way that supports these principles, instead of using a system that undercuts them.

I'll briefly outline why "something worse" is so prevalent. Our economy begins with a buyer and a seller, whose motives in an exchange are opposed to each other. The buyer wants lots and wants it cheap, the seller wants to give up little and do it for as much money as possible. This is a market, and it pits us against each other in production and consumption. We come to expect shopkeepers to inflate prices, employers to underpay workers, etc., because the markets for goods and labor literally force them to do so. It's not their fault. It's the market. So, otherwise good people - fathers, mothers, friends and helpful strangers - become, in a market situation, cutthroat competitors, because they are compelled to by the nature of the interaction. That's our "something worse." There are other even worse things, like dictatorships and such, but a market economy is what we have.

So here's the alternative.

Balance jobs so that everyone has a set of tasks that is more or less equal to every other person's set of tasks. No one is a high-level corporate leech with nothing to do but attend meetings and play golf. No one is a janitor with nothing to do but scrape gum and mop floors. Everyone has a job that includes decision-making responsibilities, creative responsibilities, some drudgery, etc. A surgeon isn't just a surgeon, she also takes her turn in the hospital laundry and negotiates equipment leases with suppliers. A teacher isn't just a teacher, he also empties the trash and serves on a curriculum design committee. No one gets all of the worst tasks, with no hope of doing anything else. No one has all the best tasks, with no motive to do anything else. Balance jobs within and between workplaces as best as we're able, and keep re-balancing as we improve at doing so.

Next, create councils of workplaces and consumers, and make service on them part of some or all people's balanced job. These councils will work out what products to make and services to offer, how much of them to make available, and how much they should cost. This can be done at many levels, so for example, neighborhood councils can make decisions about parks and schools within its area, and a larger city-wide council can decide about water treatment and power consumption. These councils go back and forth in an iterative process until proposed production matches proposed consumption.

Then (and here's the answer to the question I raised at the end of my response to Logica Humano above), pay people for the effort and sacrifice they put forth in their work. Set an average compensation package for average effort in a balanced job, and then get paid according to some independent evaluation of your effort. If you work harder, great! Have a bonus. If you work more hours, great! Get paid for more hours. If you work less hard or less long, that's just fine... and you'll be paid commensurately less too.

How does this encourage the principles as they're laid out?

Fairness- People are paid for what they do, not what they own, or what bargaining power they command, or how they were born.

Cooperation- People are encouraged to make everyone's job easier and more pleasant, because that's how they improve the balance of their own work.

Diversity- more tasks per job, no huge corporate monopolies, and a metric crap-ton more creative ideas and innovative solutions from tapping the unused potential of millions of workers who presently do only rote, boring, disempowering work.

Self-direction- people will participate in the councils that determine what they will do, and have opportunity to contribute to the decisions made.

Efficiency- This is the tremendous one. Good grief, is this more efficient. The iterative planning process will determine what and how much is produced based on real plans of real consumers, not based on speculation about how much the advertising department can get chumps to buy. No warehouses full of rotting clothes in a style that didn't catch on. No shortages of the season's hot new toy, artificially created to prop up prices. Hardly any resources dedicated to cajoling you to buy, buy, buy. No one will make things that people don't want, because they will prefer to earn their more-or-less balanced pay doing something useful. Stuff can be made with quality and durability in mind, because there is no obsolescence cycle that needs to be constantly fed. We'll have more stuff, better stuff, fewer ads telling us to buy crap. We'll have more physical and labor resources available to promote the public good... and incentive to use them for everyone's benefit.

That's my (ahem) "brief" summation of the brilliant work cited above. Any mistakes or misrepresentations are my fault.

So what do you think?

I AM he who is called... cat furniture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2013, 10:30 AM
RE: Ask an Economist
(29-07-2013 02:16 AM)I Am Wrote:  
(28-07-2013 05:08 PM)Luminon Wrote:  These are very nice principles. What method do you propose of making people live by them and keep them and not revert into something worse?

I am so glad you asked! First, I want to refer you to Moving Forward and Parecon, which both do a better job of answering that question than I can. I'll do my best to summarize them. Outlining economic mechanisms that promote people being good to each other takes some words, though, so please bear with me.

The short answer is, reshape our interactions in a way that supports these principles, instead of using a system that undercuts them.

I'll briefly outline why "something worse" is so prevalent. Our economy begins with a buyer and a seller, whose motives in an exchange are opposed to each other. The buyer wants lots and wants it cheap, the seller wants to give up little and do it for as much money as possible. This is a market, and it pits us against each other in production and consumption. We come to expect shopkeepers to inflate prices, employers to underpay workers, etc., because the markets for goods and labor literally force them to do so. It's not their fault. It's the market. So, otherwise good people - fathers, mothers, friends and helpful strangers - become, in a market situation, cutthroat competitors, because they are compelled to by the nature of the interaction. That's our "something worse." There are other even worse things, like dictatorships and such, but a market economy is what we have.

So here's the alternative.

Balance jobs so that everyone has a set of tasks that is more or less equal to every other person's set of tasks. No one is a high-level corporate leech with nothing to do but attend meetings and play golf. No one is a janitor with nothing to do but scrape gum and mop floors. Everyone has a job that includes decision-making responsibilities, creative responsibilities, some drudgery, etc. A surgeon isn't just a surgeon, she also takes her turn in the hospital laundry and negotiates equipment leases with suppliers. A teacher isn't just a teacher, he also empties the trash and serves on a curriculum design committee. No one gets all of the worst tasks, with no hope of doing anything else. No one has all the best tasks, with no motive to do anything else. Balance jobs within and between workplaces as best as we're able, and keep re-balancing as we improve at doing so.

Next, create councils of workplaces and consumers, and make service on them part of some or all people's balanced job. These councils will work out what products to make and services to offer, how much of them to make available, and how much they should cost. This can be done at many levels, so for example, neighborhood councils can make decisions about parks and schools within its area, and a larger city-wide council can decide about water treatment and power consumption. These councils go back and forth in an iterative process until proposed production matches proposed consumption.

Then (and here's the answer to the question I raised at the end of my response to Logica Humano above), pay people for the effort and sacrifice they put forth in their work. Set an average compensation package for average effort in a balanced job, and then get paid according to some independent evaluation of your effort. If you work harder, great! Have a bonus. If you work more hours, great! Get paid for more hours. If you work less hard or less long, that's just fine... and you'll be paid commensurately less too.

How does this encourage the principles as they're laid out?

Fairness- People are paid for what they do, not what they own, or what bargaining power they command, or how they were born.

Cooperation- People are encouraged to make everyone's job easier and more pleasant, because that's how they improve the balance of their own work.

Diversity- more tasks per job, no huge corporate monopolies, and a metric crap-ton more creative ideas and innovative solutions from tapping the unused potential of millions of workers who presently do only rote, boring, disempowering work.

Self-direction- people will participate in the councils that determine what they will do, and have opportunity to contribute to the decisions made.

Efficiency- This is the tremendous one. Good grief, is this more efficient. The iterative planning process will determine what and how much is produced based on real plans of real consumers, not based on speculation about how much the advertising department can get chumps to buy. No warehouses full of rotting clothes in a style that didn't catch on. No shortages of the season's hot new toy, artificially created to prop up prices. Hardly any resources dedicated to cajoling you to buy, buy, buy. No one will make things that people don't want, because they will prefer to earn their more-or-less balanced pay doing something useful. Stuff can be made with quality and durability in mind, because there is no obsolescence cycle that needs to be constantly fed. We'll have more stuff, better stuff, fewer ads telling us to buy crap. We'll have more physical and labor resources available to promote the public good... and incentive to use them for everyone's benefit.

That's my (ahem) "brief" summation of the brilliant work cited above. Any mistakes or misrepresentations are my fault.

So what do you think?

And so what happens when Person A saves all their money and person B spends all their money and then Person A invests their money in property or shares or bonds or whatever, and their money starts to grow, all the while Person B is spending away all their money. And what happens when those people die and Person A gives his money to his son Person A2 and Person B gives the tiny amount of money he has to his son B2, and then A2 uses this new mass of wealth to further invest and further grow his money, while B2 continues to spend all his away.
And thus A2 doesn't need to work any more, and can afford that big house on the hill, all the while B2 is stuck in the slums?

Your model, which is basically just communism, doesn't take into account human nature of greed. Some people will spend and others will save. There will always be a distinction between rich and poor. It doesn't matter if people get paid based on work effort, there will always be people who will work harder and thus get paid more and there will always be people who work less and bitch and complain that someone that worked more, got more.

Just as there will always be people who seek more power, and people that are willing to give it to them. Sure, it'd start off with everyone doing everything, but eventually, someone is going to gain an edge and they're going to use that edge to further increase their edge. It doesn't matter if it's on the government level or the small business level, it'll happen.

Also, I would question this "it's waaaaay more efficient" thing.
I don't believe it would be. It sounds like a lot of blockage in the machine.
What I mean is, all these committees?? Yuck.
Right now you have a CEO for example. He makes the final decisions on where the company is going. He is dictator. This is an extremely efficient means of getting shit done. His word is final. But in saying that, he also takes on the risk associated with that. And if you think being a CEO is easy as pie, then you clearly have no idea what a CEO does all day... This stereotype that CEO's doing nothing all day is a load of shit.
Back to the decisions. The CEO also has extensive experience in this position (or they wouldn't CEO if they didn't have the knowledge and know-how) and are better to make a decision because of it.
Forming shitty little committees wastes time. You not only need to schedule meetings, but that's time these people aren't working. Not to mention arguments and disagreements. There's also no risk. You can't put all the risk on the group and fire the entire group as that'd be a huge important chunk of your business being kicked out the door... As such, these small committees would hold too much power, easily exploiting power I might add.

Specializing is the best way to get shit done. It is the most efficient way to do things. Though I agree that current day boss's do need to ask their workers for their opinions more. But that's the extent of it.

Your model is also very anti-rich. It's not pro-poor, it's straight up anti-rich. Which is just pure, 100% unadulterated jealousy.




Look, this idea people have that all men are born equal is a load of shit.
I don't give a fuck how politically incorrect that makes you feel, it's a boat load of shit.
If there were two people hanging off a cliff and you could only save one and one was a rapist and the other was a doctor, you're saving the doctor 10 times out of 10.
This idea that human life is somehow sacred or whatever is bullshit.

I'm gonna put my views as blunt as I can.
Where you are born is completely random. You, I, that random guy staring through my window right now, none of us chose to be born into the situation that we were.
Prince William didn't choose to be born as Prince William.
I didn't choose to be born to a poor couple in small town New Zealand.
As such, it matters jack shit where people are born. I don't give a flying fuck if you are the son of Bill Gates (though if you are can I totally have $10K?). That was just pure blind dumb luck. Good for you.
People being born rich doesn't effect me in the slightest. They were just lucky, that's all. Just like a lotto winner is just lucky.
And human nature is greed and to better your position. So of course rich people like to get more rich, just like poor people want to be rich..
It's human nature and we all do it.
The difference between you and I is that I know this and I don't care. I don't blame people for being rich. Good on them I say.
The only concern I have is improving my own situation in respects to only myself.

A better way of explaining this is an experiment.
An experiment was set up between two people. They were told that a $10 note would be split between them. If they regret the amount offered to them, neither would get anything. Both have to agree on the amount in order to receive it.
Sure enough, the $10 was split 50|50, and both agreed 10/10 times.
It was then split 60|40 and the person who got $4 refused something like 10% of the time. It was then split $9/$1 and the person who received $1 refused something like 90% (or something really high like that, can't remember the exact %) of the time.
Now what is wrong with this? You're likely a person who would refuse.
The problem is, the person who received the $1 started with nothing.
They increased their own net worth by $1. Economically they should be happy because they went from $0 - $1.
But what is happening here? Human nature. Jealously this time, and perception of equality. They would rather sacrifice their own $1 in order to assure that the other person received nothing. Economically this is fucking retarded.
BUT, this is exactly what happens on a large scale in society.
People would rather sacrifice a little gain to assure that someone else doesn't receive a huge gain despite both parties receiving a gain.

The difference between you and I, is that you would press the button and I wouldn't.

How does this relate to communism? (your model). Your model is based around poor people wanting more. It's about sticking to people who have more and not about improving your own situation. Yes you can argue that it would improve the poor persons situation, BUT that's not it's primary function. It's primary function is get rich people on par with poor people. If I can't be rich, nobody can.


People don't realize the effect of the economy in the US on them.
The better a countries economy, the better it can afford infrastructure, better security etc.. people have better access to consumer goods, and cheaper consumer goods too etc.. etc.. Everyone focuses on the really poor, but the majority of Americans are Middle class, which says something about the effect of it's economy on the population.
Your model would decrease this effect on the country. Yes, the rich would not be rich (for now) and the poor would be a little richer (for now). BUT the overall increase to the country would decrease because it's a less efficient system.
It's the example above, it's pressing the button.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2013, 01:08 PM
RE: Ask an Economist
(29-07-2013 10:30 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  And so what happens when... Person A invests their money in property or shares or bonds or whatever, and their money starts to grow (snip) And thus A2 doesn't need to work any more...

People are rewarded for effort, not property. Investment happens through councils, for the purposes agreed on in the planning process, for everyone's benefit, not for anyone's profit.

Quote:Your model..., doesn't take into account human nature of greed.

It does, really. It says that a greedy person, in order to enrich themselves, has to contribute more. That's just fine... be greedy. And work for your riches.

A selfish, lazy person who wants to skate by doing as little as possible has to first, reduce their own proposed consumption, and then, try to make the entire balanced job easier for everyone. Be lazy! By all means, please reduce the amount of labor we need to put forth to meet demand, and thus increase everyone's free time.

Quote:Also, I would question this "it's waaaaay more efficient" thing.
I don't believe it would be. It sounds like a lot of blockage in the machine.
What I mean is, all these committees?? Yuck.
How much time is spent in meetings now? Lots. And yes, there would be more meetings. If we all fossilize from boredom in meetings and everyone hates it, even though they live in a fair and sensible economy, then the model sucks. Okay. If that's the case, how do we make it better? The answer isn't to keep institutionalized poverty, ongoing class struggle, a small enclave of the super-wealthy, a massive tax structure to redirect resources to public investment, etc. Make the fair, efficient system better.

Quote:...a CEO for example... He is dictator... But in saying that, he also takes on the risk associated with that.

First, I have no problem with dictatorial decisions, when the dictator making them is the only one effected by the decision. You are dictator over, say, your home decorating. When more people are effected, they should have a say in the decision proportional to how much it effects them. This is part of the fairness principle.

Second, the CEO does not take on the risks associated with ordering goods from a sweatshop, hundreds of impoverished people take on those risks, and suffer and are wounded and demoralized while the CEO enjoys comfortable conditions at home and work. He doesn't take on the risk of polluting a water table, generations of people after he dies take on that risk, and suffer cancer and birth defects.

Quote:This stereotype that CEO's doing nothing all day is a load of shit.

Of course it is. Why should one person have to get ulcers and other stress-related diseases just to make a company run? Spread the responsibility. It may slow down decisions a bit, but you'll get decisions consistent with meeting human needs, and happier people making them.

Quote:Forming... committees wastes time. You not only need to schedule meetings, but that's time these people aren't working.

But they are working, just as much as managers and boards of directors are working when they have meetings. It doesn't waste time, it uses time considering broader needs than just the bottom line, increasing job satisfaction, and fulfilling the potential of the people involved. That's not a waste.

Quote:Specializing is the best way to get shit done.

And that's often exactly what it accomplishes.

Quote:Your model is also very anti-rich. It's not pro-poor, it's straight up anti-rich. Which is just pure, 100% unadulterated jealousy.

How is it jealousy? The people who created this model are professors and academics, and quite comfortable. I make less than they do, but my job is pretty secure and I do okay. I don't envy the rich the moral strife they must feel when they drive past a group of homeless people. Nor do I envy a stockbroker his hypertension and cardiac arrest. This model will reduce instances of super-wealth, but it will do so for *everyone's* benefit, even the rich.

Quote:Look, this idea people have that all men are born equal is a load of shit.

See my response in post #22 in this thread. I agree with that fact... though your discourtesy is beginning to wear a bit thin.

Quote:Your model is based around poor people wanting more. It's about sticking to people who have more and not about improving your own situation. Yes you can argue that it would improve the poor persons situation, BUT that's not it's primary function. It's primary function is get rich people on par with poor people.

This is absolutely not true. It's based on making use of the potential of all people, and making sure that everyone lives in a just society. It doesn't lower anyone's worth, it recognizes everyone's worth.

I AM he who is called... cat furniture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2013, 05:32 PM
RE: Ask an Economist
(29-07-2013 02:16 AM)I Am Wrote:  I am so glad you asked! First, I want to refer you to Moving Forward and Parecon, which both do a better job of answering that question than I can. I'll do my best to summarize them. Outlining economic mechanisms that promote people being good to each other takes some words, though, so please bear with me.
Will look.

(29-07-2013 02:16 AM)I Am Wrote:  This is a market, and it pits us against each other in production and consumption. We come to expect shopkeepers to inflate prices, employers to underpay workers, etc., because the markets for goods and labor literally force them to do so. It's not their fault. It's the market.
Very true.

(29-07-2013 02:16 AM)I Am Wrote:  Balance jobs within and between workplaces as best as we're able, and keep re-balancing as we improve at doing so.
Sounds good to me.

(29-07-2013 02:16 AM)I Am Wrote:  Next, create councils of workplaces and consumers, and make service on them part of some or all people's balanced job. These councils will work out what products to make and services to offer, how much of them to make available, and how much they should cost. This can be done at many levels, so for example, neighborhood councils can make decisions about parks and schools within its area, and a larger city-wide council can decide about water treatment and power consumption. These councils go back and forth in an iterative process until proposed production matches proposed consumption.
I'm kinda squeamish about councils, democratic councils especially, but that can be remedied easily. Just make a rule that the council is forbidden to make a decision. It has to arrive at a decision. It has to use all the statistical and consumer data it can get, to make the decision make itself. If the decision isn't obvious from the data, then either don't make it, or make a test decision... If you got that requirement, then the councils should be a job for social scientists or statisticians. I feel better about councils of professionals.

(29-07-2013 02:16 AM)I Am Wrote:  That's my (ahem) "brief" summation of the brilliant work cited above. Any mistakes or misrepresentations are my fault.

So what do you think?
I like it. You should read a book by Edward Bellamy - Looking Backwards 2000 - 1887. It's sort of a sci-fi story, when a guy from 19th century falls into a state of suspended animation and is woken up in 20th century, after the world is transformed. He describes the system just like you do.

The system is basically that everyone is in an army. But the army is not military, it's industrial. People are soldiers of labor, they get ranks based on the jobs and how they work.
The jobs are, as you say balanced to have almost the same difficulty and reward. Military officers work like managers and their pay is dependent on the pay of their subordinates... The pay is even, but you're not allowed to accumulate the money more than a year...
The shops are basically just showcases, you order what you need to be delivered right home... The vocations are carefully selected for those you actually like and are good at.
There are many nifty positive and constructive mechanisms like that. I can't find much wrong with it, except... Well, it's not a new idea and can be improved. I'd certainly prefer it to the current system. Bellamy wrote it in 1888 and it's terribly advanced for the age, but meanwhile the technology opened new possibilities. And that's awesome.

One thing I hate about capitalism... Capitalism is like a war. It never changes. I mean, see how many technologic marvels people at NASA or CERN invented that transformed our lives. These guys pursued their dreams and things like mylar or the internet are just byproducts. But no matter what they invent, we still have to go to work, earn money, buy products and pay the bills. And the technology eventually throws us out of work. Looks like even the middle class jobs can get completely automated. In capitalism, technology may cut our working hours, but that gets us sacked. Plus all this buying commercial crap, planned obsolescence and so on.

Now imagine, what if this Bellamy's system or parecon went hi-tech? What if jobs were automated, but people kept the money? What if they could order their stuff through computer on demand, or go to a restaurant, without money? What if the industry just kept track of resources through global network of super-computers and satellites? I think the good thing about this system is, that technology works with it, with people, not against people.
We can basically automate almost every job (even restaurants). What to do then? How would that end up? You can read about it in another book, called Looking Forward by Kenneth S. Keyes and Jacque Fresco.
A total change of culture and life style, a culture where you don't even think about fairness, cooperation and diversity, because it's normal. It's when people tell you about freedom and democracy when you have to watch out. If we really had that, they wouldn't have to tell you about it.

(You can find both books on bookos d o t o r g. Or Amazon, if you're into this capitalism thing Smile )
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Luminon's post
31-07-2013, 12:30 PM
RE: Ask an Economist
(29-07-2013 05:32 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Just make a rule that the council is forbidden to make a decision. It has to arrive at a decision. It has to use all the statistical and consumer data it can get, to make the decision make itself. If the decision isn't obvious from the data, then either don't make it, or make a test decision...
Seems reasonable to me. I'm fine with a variety of different decision methods, and data-determined consensus is among the best. In situations that have less hard data, I'm also okay with a majority vote, or a two-thirds vote, or even required unanimity for decisions with severe impacts.

Quote: I like it. You should read a book by Edward Bellamy - Looking Backwards 2000 - 1887.

I will, thanks.

Quote:We can basically automate almost every job (even restaurants). What to do then? How would that end up? You can read about it in another book, called Looking Forward by Kenneth S. Keyes and Jacque Fresco.

I'll get that one too. It's been recommended to me before, and it's time I got around to it.

Quote:A total change of culture and life style, a culture where you don't even think about fairness, cooperation and diversity, because it's normal. It's when people tell you about freedom and democracy when you have to watch out. If we really had that, they wouldn't have to tell you about it.

It's good to find like-minded people. :-)

I AM he who is called... cat furniture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2013, 09:29 PM
RE: Ask an Economist
Following a train of thought....

Is there a word for 'the sucker market' of self help and new aged woo? How large a sector is it?

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 03:56 PM
RE: Ask an Economist
(14-08-2013 09:29 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Following a train of thought....

Is there a word for 'the sucker market' of self help and new aged woo? How large a sector is it?
Ask JREF. I don't know, hard to see from the inside Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: