TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

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


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jun 24 2011: Bob,
    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.
    • thumb
      Jun 24 2011: "Logically, if Earth is our home than all the resources belong to everyone living in it."

      it is not logical. it just as well could be that different parts of it are owned by different people.
      • thumb
        Jun 24 2011: I know that different parts are own by different people. What I'm trying to get at is that society is not align with science.
        • thumb
          Jun 24 2011: i didn't say they are now owned by different people. i said your statement "logical..." is not logical at all, since other solutions are possible too. you have to argue for your solution in a lot more depth than "logical".

          in fact, personal ownership is more logical than collective ownership. collective ownership is hard to imagine. how decisions would be made?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.