Capitalism has failed, let's consider other options

Perks are similar to money, except that unlike money, perks is better regulated. They can't be given away, they can't be reduced below the standard of living they represent, nor can they allow one to go above the standard of living it caps at.

You say "Perks can't be given away," in the above reply to my questions. However, earlier you stated that one could barter perks (I think you said in the form of a PS4 or whatever; still equates to perks in that you'd have to use your perks to buy that I guess... still sounds like cash money to me, bro) with someone else if you wanted them to clean your garage or some such.
If you're including barter in your new system, that makes it even more like capitalism and you're not gonna get rid of the big bad capitalists that way.

And your statements above that one cannot go above your "cap" (who decides) would be gamed by EVERYONE using simple barter.
I use my Perks to by XYZ. I barter my XYZ to someone (who wants XYZ) who used their Perks to buy ABC (which I want). I've just beat your cap system in that some items are always going to mean more to one individual over another. XYZ might mean F all to me but 1 MILLION perks to the sap I traded for ABC... Now I have a headache.

a reply to: Puppylove

Here's a novel idea why even have a substitute for money when instead we can do away with the concept all together. We can use love and compassion to foster talent and ingenuity we can reshape society as a tolerant accepting all doors open with contribution on the forefront of forwarding society as a whole, as species.

Never mind, we will likely destroy our self before we even become a solar system fairing species. Monkeys with guns

Six67seven, The Federal Reserve is a Fantastic Mechanism of Enslavement and Extraction, brought to you by Europeans saving themselves the hassle of having to have "Boots on The Ground" here to steal the fruits of people's labor. If you really look into who owns The Fed (I know Fed Reserve Bank of NY and The other Fed Res Banks). But, who actually own these entities (which is really clouded), that will bring you very close to The Truth. If you look closely into The Founding of The Bank of England in 1694 (Threadneedle Street) AND THE INNER WORKINGS OF "THE CITY" IN LONDON. It will bring you to a very scary conclusion and bring into question A Lot of Our So Called History (Read The Treaty of Paris). Peace Y'all here on ATS Arjunanda. a reply to: six67seven

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Puppylove

Here's a novel idea why even have a substitute for money when instead we can do away with the concept all together. We can use love and compassion to foster talent and ingenuity we can reshape society as a tolerant accepting all doors open with contribution on the forefront of forwarding society as a whole, as species.

Never mind, we will likely destroy our self before we even become a solar system fairing species. Monkeys with guns

How many Perks for your "love and compassion?"

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

A yatch for everyone. Yes we can! Lol

a reply to: DeepImpactX

the 80 hours 7 days a week thing at full steam was an exaggerated example of what a person could choose to do. If say 60 hours total at minimum effort per week was standard (Minimal Effort being one seriously #ty worker), with max productivity cutting those hours by down to one third max (an example), then by pulling off 80 hours at max production you've just bought 240 hours worth of minimal work. That's 4 whole weeks off at minimal work worth of standard of living. You can then trade in those hours to increase your standard of living for that week, however, there's a cap based on the job to how far that can go. For example purposes we'll say getting the max standard a living a job offers requires double normal expectations. So for max standard of living you would need to work 120 hours doing practically jack # on the job or 40 hours of kicking ass and taking names. Which means that instead of 4 weeks at minimal standard, you get 2 weeks at maximum for that 80 hours of working.

These numbers are just examples and certainly not hard coded, and obviously somewhat exaggerated in expectations. How it would play out is some variety of that.

Minimal is those people at jobs that gossip while casually doing their job, not pushing themselves at all. 60 hours a week while basically hanging out and casually accomplishing something is not working hard. This is what minimal represents and is why I put it at 60 hours.

a reply to: Puppylove

We need a system that puts humanity and environment before business, technology and money.
Yes its failing and its taking our ecosystems with it. Sustainability and capalism dont work. You cannot have infinite growth on a limtied planet..

purp..

a reply to: TechniXcality

Resource is finite therefore its management is what we are talking.g about.

I dont know

Land and the means of production seems to be the key - stop speculation and make it a community resource to be looked after for future generations. Yea I know it will be inefficient but then so are the old - needs to be looked at as a whole

a reply to: Borisbanger

I concure let's do this. Will u march on wall street with me?

The premise that capitalism has failed is utter bunk. Capitalism has done more to raise people out of poverty than any other "ism" ever tried. Is capitalism perfect? No it is not. However, to claim it has failed shows complete ignorance of history, economics, and basic logic imho.

When I read between the lines of posters who bash capitalism what I see is that some people basically want to be freeloaders. They want something for nothing. They don't want to compete. They expect others hard work and success to fund their lifestyle of sloth and laziness. They cloak the real desire in nebulous terms like income inequality, social justice, etc.

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

It can only be gamed for you though, not against you. You can only raise your standard of living using this form of barter, and lower yours by the same token willingly.

For example, the only kind of bartering that can really occur is goods for services. Say Bill wants a PS4 for but it's not within the means of his job, so he goes to Frank a doctor, the doctor, Frank says, "I'm having a party this weekend, if you clean my house, I'll give you my PS4." Bill says, sure, he cleans the doctors house and gets a PS4. However, Bill's standard of living is never reduced as a result, he still eats, has a roof over his head ect.

The only one who's sacrificed anything of substance is Frank, who already had more anyway.

People can gain above their standard by doing services for others outside their standard, but that other person willingly reduces their standard as a result. The distribution of wealth remains constant, hording cannot occur, one can only ever really give away wealth downward not pull wealth upwards.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: 35Foxtrot

It can only be gamed for you though, not against you. You can only raise your standard of living using this form of barter, and lower yours by the same token willingly.

For example, the only kind of bartering that can really occur is goods for services. Say Bill wants a PS4 for but it's not within the means of his job, so he goes to Frank a doctor, the doctor, Frank says, "I'm having a party this weekend, if you clean my house, I'll give you my PS4." Bill says, sure, he cleans the doctors house and gets a PS4. However, Bill's standard of living is never reduced as a result, he still eats, has a roof over his head ect.

The only one who's sacrificed anything of substance is Frank, who already had more anyway.

People can gain above their standard by doing services for others outside their standard, but that other person willingly reduces their standard as a result. The distribution of wealth remains constant, hording cannot occur, one can only ever really give away wealth downward not pull wealth upwards.

What you are describing is capitalism. Instead of bartering, you have money. It is the same god damn thing. Your labor is converted into dollars for which you trade for goods and services. This is better than bartering for most people because it is way more efficient.

Good grief.

a reply to: Edumakated

I don't bash capitalism it has been a gear of progress but most certainly it will fail. The funneling of resource is a mark of system failure. Not that I want it to, infact I'm generally on its fighting side.

a reply to: Puppylove

Capitalism only works for those who who have the capital.

People who work for a minimum wage are relegated to the lower castes of society and can only dream of the lives that those who make a fortune on stock market speculation (or gambling as I like to call it) and yet those 'higher born' have never toiled a day in their lives. You get people who buy a second house as an investment property and sweat on the consumer confidence of those who have the money to pay off a home loan and then they sweat on the fiscal confidence of the banks who issue the home loans. Then these people with their own home will moan 'woe is me' because their second home has devalued yet people work their entire lives in pursuit of their one and only home.

The only winners are the ones who issue and take the money-banks and governments. Like i said, capitalism only works for those who have the capital.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: 35Foxtrot

It can only be gamed for you though, not against you. You can only raise your standard of living using this form of barter, and lower yours by the same token willingly.

For example, the only kind of bartering that can really occur is goods for services. Say Bill wants a PS4 for but it's not within the means of his job, so he goes to Frank a doctor, the doctor, Frank says, "I'm having a party this weekend, if you clean my house, I'll give you my PS4." Bill says, sure, he cleans the doctors house and gets a PS4. However, Bill's standard of living is never reduced as a result, he still eats, has a roof over his head ect.

The only one who's sacrificed anything of substance is Frank, who already had more anyway.

People can gain above their standard by doing services for others outside their standard, but that other person willingly reduces their standard as a result. The distribution of wealth remains constant, hording cannot occur, one can only ever really give away wealth downward not pull wealth upwards.

Color me perplexed, but how is that any different than what we basically have now? Maybe you've removed or added or swapped around a few of the steps in the system, but you're still allowing for people to game your "caps."

And, of course people could barter goods for goods. Look at my example. While you're at it, re-read the part about things having differing values for different people. That's just one way the barter in your system could work against an individual.

Lastly, will my dealer take Perks?

Oh. Maybe this would be the impetus to the abolition of the current prohibition on all that stuff we can't mention. Then he'd get perks too! Imagine his Perk-Salary!

a reply to: Edumakated

It's not money. Money's distribution is not regulated or limited. Money can be loaned, perks cannot.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Edumakated

It's not money. Money's distribution is not regulated or limited. Money can be loaned, perks cannot.

Oh... I bet it'd take about 1 second for some guy to loan out his Perks (or converted goods or work or vacation time accrued by working super-duper hard) for some sort of interest... I know I would.

a reply to: Puppylove

This is the deciding factor for me. Do they give these "perks" at massage parlors or do I still have to pay 500 dollars?

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Puppylove

This is the deciding factor for me. Do they give these "perks" at massage parlors or do I still have to pay 500 dollars?

You, son, are being ripped off.

Unless....

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: Puppylove

Capitalism only works for those who who have the capital.

People who work for a minimum wage are relegated to the lower castes of society and can only dream of the lives that those who make a fortune on stock market speculation (or gambling as I like to call it) and yet those 'higher born' have never toiled a day in their lives. You get people who buy a second house as an investment property and sweat on the consumer confidence of those who have the money to pay off a home loan and then they sweat on the fiscal confidence of the banks who issue the home loans. Then these people with their own home will moan 'woe is me' because their second home has devalued yet people work their entire lives in pursuit of their one and only home.

The only winners are the ones who issue and take the money-banks and governments. Like i said, capitalism only works for those who have the capital.

No, the beauty of capitalism is that there is social mobility. Just because you are born poor does not mean you stay poor. In addition, just because you are born into wealth, does not mean you will stay wealthy. Must we really start running down the list of extremely wealthy people who have lost it all due to bad decisions? Or should we start a list of people who started off poor, but managed to become immensely wealthy? We won't even get into all the anonymous middle class and upper class people who have managed to carve out a nice life for themselves.