Do I have too? Well, here have an compilation of ideas that can probably be horribly subverted, corrupted or are probably unworkable to begin with. Some might note that I actually poked holes in a few of those in some threads past. You'll notice I prefer to be on that side of the argument.
Firstly, economics is the study of the distribution of scarce resources. In order to do this, we need to know both demand, and supply. This is easy to simulate in a micro-economic system, but once you go to larger systems, the water soon becomes troubled. In order to obtain a sufficient amount of information, and be able to process it fast enough, a complete digitalization of the entire economy has to occur. A digital currency will go a long way, but optimally you have a single connected network spread through every factory and productive installation. (You can allow small shop's and goods producers to fall through the mazes, as you'll get that info anyway, thanks to sales records from the digitalized currency). All information is handled in bulk, and thanks to state of the art data mining you get a very clear view of the economy.
The money can be a fiat currency, or backed by whatever you like. It doesn't matter much, as this will be a primarily government controlled economy, which will utilize it. Thanks to a guaranteed userbase, perfect control of where the money is, and some other tricks, we can safeguard a stable currency. (Assuming nobody is an idiot and cracks the system). Depending on your preferences, you can give everyone a base allowance, set allowance based on work, or combine both.
Now, in order to ensure an optimally managed economy, I'd like to put the experts on the matter into the system. Preferably, using large groups of them at once, and using groups of flexible size. If you get only 1 person on each matter at hand, you'll have them doing stupid things to leave a mark, and impress people to be reelected. Hence why the position would not have a set limit, it'll last till they step down, or they get a motion of distrust. This stimulates people to play safe; not risky.
Electing can be done in a variety of ways.
1) A series of exams and requirements to judge everyone, and choose the best candidate.
2) A performance based system.
3) A democratic economy. Each factory is divived in groups of workers, which sent a representative to a parliament, which sends a representative to a larger parliament, until you reach the top.
4) Something else
This is likely to result in a fairly large government, but it should be a capable one. Slow and steady is the idea.
Note: This is a functional and good system, but like everything else, only works if someone games it.
The correctness of that single example is pretty irrelevant to his greater point.
Unless you are contesting the veracity of the base statement (that there are ways to significantly reduce work while keeping output flat), then the argument of over what exactly the most effective means of sewage are is pointless.
I'm contesting the idea that decentralization is the way forward. You'll see that I have been arguing against most of his other arguments for decentralization too.
Elimination of paper pushing and other useless work, just for the existence of having work is something I can get behind though.
Author
Topic: Let's talk Capitalism. (Read 26966 times)