- Misaki ~
- Seattle, WA
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
We should fix the economy now
"The most precious asset... is time."
—Warren Buffet
There are three, interrelated assumptions of importance to an industrialized world, where economies of scale put high-quality products within financial reach of the average individual:
‣ Additional labour by an employee will always provide benefit to other individuals in a society, by decreasing the cost of that good or service or increasing access at a given price
‣ Wasteful spending by wealthy individuals decreases the amount of that good or service available to the rest of society and the total amount of economic output other individuals have access to
‣ Refraining from wasteful spending, thus reducing the utility of money, will lead to a reduction in the source of income allowing that money to be spent by other people
Adhering to all three of these principles causes a society to experience increasing accumulation of wealth in the owners of factors of production, but the reason becomes more complex for a subset of conditions. When the outflow of wealth as a result of wasteful spending happens due to disproportionate value of higher qualities of a certain good with no increase in the quantity purchased, instead of wasteful spending as a larger quantity of the most cost-effective version of that good, then combined with the first of the above assumptions the resulting currency flow effectively forms a loop or eddy in the higher socioeconomic tiers of a society, as a result of insensitivity to prices due to the lack of alternative uses for the same money which prevents other sellers from competing in that market by driving down the price.
The way to fix this is to encourage people to reduce their hours spent working if they feel they can accept the drop in income that results, and instead use that time for other life goals. The decrease in marginal utility for using cheaper products is very small, allowing quality of life to increase due to non-monetary goal completion.
More: http://pastebin.com/Q86Zhgs9
Nhan Bui
Nhan Bui
Yes i will trust in the "magical" techno logistic network. For one thing, I think just by being here on TED we can agree that technology is as concrete as anything and is not invented by mythical unicorns. I trust that when the computer said that 14325X8976 is 128581200, that it is 128581200. And when it comes to asking these calculating questions I will trust its data more than I would trust in economists and in politicians who have the say in our resources. And for your question. Using all the compiled data, the answer to this question will depend on many variables. The main goal of course is to save as many people as possible, so distance, the magnitude of the disaster within each area, etc will be calculated first to arrive at the best decision. I said the best decision because this is not a utopia where there is a "magic" solution for every situation. It is very much scientifically driven. For your first reference, in my interpretation what Jacques is saying is that once we are born on this earth we have immediate rights to access our resources as we deem necessary. Scientifically the city, the state and the nation is not our home, but the Earth is our home. Logically, if Earth is our home than all the resources belong to everyone living in it. But of course this is obstructed when politics, economics, and ignorance is stubbornly holding on to it's influences in our society. Just because this project realize that each individual should have it's basic needs met, which in our current system record's for accomplishing that realization is a big NO, doesn't mean that it does not follow on the concept that our resources are finite. The goal is to distribute resources to everyone based on the amount of resources that available within our planet. I hope that answers your standard of living reference as well. But if resources a wisely used, then that will create abundance.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
it is not logical. it just as well could be that different parts of it are owned by different people.
Nhan Bui
Krisztián Pintér 200+
in fact, personal ownership is more logical than collective ownership. collective ownership is hard to imagine. how decisions would be made?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
let's get started.
"Additional labour ... will always provide benefit ... by decreasing the cost of that good .. or increasing access at a given price"
exactly how would an additional worker lower costs? obviously it rises them. the exact opposite is true in two ways:
1. if the production cost decreases, it makes hiring more workers profitable
2. if demand rises, price goes up, and this makes hiring more workers profitable
"Wasteful spending by wealthy individuals decreases the amount of that good ... available"
first observation: it is pointless to separate the spending of wealthy and poor individuals.
second observation: personal spending can not be wasteful because value is subjective. a $200 bottle of wine can be a very good purchase for a given person, and a waste of money for another. we have no tools to judge it. the only wasteful spending would be buying something i perceive i will enjoy, but turns out that i don't enjoy it. this is hardly a problem of our economy though. it is insignificant.
final observation: you link that article in every topic that even loosely related to economics. i'm not sure it is an appropriate behavior.
Nhan Bui
Nhan Bui
Bob Shingles 10+
The art is inspirational, the ideas of a resource based economy are as childish and simplistic as the story Utopia where the community leaders say gold has no value and the the citizenry just accept the idea like sheep.
Rarely do these ideas answer questions related to unavoidable scarcity, limits on current technologies or physics.
There may be problems with our current economy but it works much better than communism.
Nhan Bui
Bob Shingles 10+
You are living in "should land" which ignores or glosses over facts. I understand because the imagery is so tempting.
I'll try to point out a few ways on how the resources based economy is utterly a flawed idea.
"It is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few." (http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy)
When resources become the common heritage of ALL inhabitants, this ignores the idea that resources are finite and when resources belong to everybody, they belong to nobody because, at any time, a person can lay claim to what you may be using or wanting to use.
"At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth's inhabitants."
Who defines the standard of living? What is considered a high standard of living? Having a car and a television? Some would define a high level of living in such a manner.
"Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today's society would no longer be necessary."
If resources are finite and the population continues to grow beyond carrying capacity, how can we overcome scarcity?
"Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold."
HAHAHAHA Ever hear of bottled water?
Graham Wishart
I believe our transition to a RBE system will be easy, its called EDUCATION.
We have TED, we have Singularity University, WE (still) HAVE THE INTERNET lets move. :) Profit for our planet, not our pocket.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Nhan Bui
Krisztián Pintér 200+