It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


My new economic system idea

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 09:11 PM
So here's my idea for a new form of economy, well a very rough version of it anyway.

First of all, there's no taxes, no minimum wage, nothing like that, as none of it would be necessary in the new economy. In fact there's no wage at all, because no one is paid for work, as being paid to work will no longer be necessary. There will also be no such thing as debt or interest.

If you're wondering how this could possibly work? Well it involves taking advantage of the computational powers of modern technology. It involves taking advantage of fractions of cents, like extreme fractions of cents, assuming we stick with dollars at all.

Everyone gains a fraction of earning for everything they touch or take part in, how much of a fraction is determined based upon the amount of specialization and work necessary, as well as the role of the person in the endeavor. No one is paid to log wood, no one is paid to transport that wood, no one is paid to work the wood, no one is paid to do anything, instead, they each gain a claim to a small fractional percent of the final products earnings when sold. The government will also gain a small fraction of the sale of the product, which is kind of like a tax, but it doesn't exactly work the same as there's no such thing as a wage and here's why.

The government is responsible for providing basic housing, healthcare, and nutritious food, and basic clothing, no one needs to work for any of this. It's minimal though, there's no entertainment provided, the housing is minimal, the food is nutritious but nothing exceptional, nothing rare or hard to get. You can survive on it, but unless really into minimal living you won't really be happy, but at least you'll never have to worry about living day to day.

So at this point the only reason to work is to be able to acquire entertainment and a higher standard of living, everything is an improvement with no fear of finding yourself on the street if you don't work or have a medical condition, or any kind of emergency, all work exists to reward you, no more work to simply exist and avoid the punishment of starvation or homelessness. No more needing to worry about falling behind and further into debt if you need to be out of work for awhile.

Some people will say, “Well if people don't need to work, why will they?” and the answer is because they'll want to work, as work will become a rewarding experience as all work becomes at this point, profit used to make your life better and more rewarding. In order for this to work, though we need to give up a certain kind of ownership, we don't own personal property because as demonstrated before, we instead own a portion of every product or service we engage in and the profits thereof.

As a result of this, we don't “buy” anything, we sort of rent things, as a result we are always paying back into the economy, and as result, if we work, we are always earning from the economy so long as we work. Those with more specialized jobs will be able to afford to “rent” better things or services, but it also means they will be constantly putting more back into the economy to afford these goods or services. They'll rent their yacht, and pay a hefty price if they want to continually rent said yacht. Hording money will be self defeating, unless someone wants to rent something that requires a bit of savings temporarily, like said yacht to host a wedding on.

Now you can pay ahead, which will allow you to retire with some things you like, for example paying 40 years ahead for a gaming service would allow you to retire if you had 40 or less years to live and only cared about gaming your life away and didn't mind the minimum everywhere else. Or you could pay ahead with multiple things by working more and gaining more earnings. You could also in theory retire simply by working enough in long lasting products to simply live of the continual earnings of said products.

Since work is now a want and for pleasure and no longer a necessity, gone will be the days where someone can create a bigger and bigger wage gap, as once the threat of death is taken away the workers actually have the ability to not contribute somewhere and just walk away if being mistreated as opposed to currently where doing such can actually ruin you and your loved ones, potentially resulting in extremes like your child not being able to afford necessary medicine. It puts negotiating power back into the hands of the worker.

Wages are no longer necessary, since there is no monetary amount necessary for survival anymore, so minimum wage is no more, all earnings are determined by the success of the various endeavors a person has taken part in. If you succeed you succeed, if you fail you fail, but in either case, you'll never want for the basic needs of life. This will encourage entrepreneurs to take greater risks, as failure can never end in destitution, and the risk adverse will likewise be more prone to taking risks for the very same reason. This willingness to take risks, and for risks to be rewarded, without fear of losing everything will result in an explosion of advancements and new ideas.

Back to government. As stated government's earning is entirely based on the success of the economy, and every project and government employee, which will now include doctors and pharmaceuticals has their earnings determined by percentages of earnings as well. Keep in mind, everyone gets the basic care no matter what, so there's no need to worry about them getting paid too little, besides when their earnings become directly connected to how well the economy works, they might actually start caring about doing their jobs right. No more pharmaceuticals looking to profit off peoples' misery or looking for treatments rather than cures. In fact, the pharmaceutical industry will instead profit more by creating a happy healthy society that can work, produce and build more for longer periods, as doing so will improve the economy and in doing so increase their rate of pay.

Now obviously there's a lot to work out, and this is really just a rough idea with lots of kinks to work out, and there's probably a lot I've forgotten, but well, here's some ideas to look over, tell me what you think, and make suggestions.

posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 09:40 PM
What if professionals like doctors become lax and lazy ?


posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 09:43 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

Then people die, the economy falters, and they make less profit. I'm thinking doctors would be one of the higher paying government jobs in terms of percentages. Remember, in this system the better society does, the better government employees do. There's really no incentive for doctors to become lax, they'd get less as a result. Why would the doctor get any more lax or lazy than they do now? Also the doctor would only get government percentage based on the amount of specialization they have, the work they do, and how well they do. So a # doctor get's a # percentage.
edit on 6/12/2019 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 09:46 PM
a reply to: Puppylove

I see a couple of issues...

You say minimal housing will be provided to the people by the government. That means there will have to be sufficient minimal housing to house anyone who doesn't want to work. That housing is given for free; there is no monetary exchange according to your proposal. Your proposal also says that any profit comes form a fractional ownership on the final product when it sells. So why would anyone want to provide wood for minimal housing, windows for minimal housing, electricity for minimal housing, or work assembling the minimal housing when it has no monetary value for them to participate in? if it is given for free, then the fractional ownership is also given for free. People who did decide to work would work on fancier housing, since it would have a monetary value they could partake of when finished.

This sounds like it would lead to a shortage of the basic goods and services that would be given away to the people as a minimal standard.

My second concern is with the organization of work forces. Since everyone is free to work on what they want, what happens if no one wants to work on, say, assembling I-phones? Would there then be no I-phones? What about services during outages? We lose power relatively frequently here, but it almost never stays out for more than a couple of hours. Why? Because the work crew at the local power company are awesome at fixing the lines! They venture out in the dead middle of a storm to either get the line fixed then, or at least be ready to jump on the job as soon as weather permits.

If no one is required to work, then what happens if 50% of the people in the area lose power, but the line crew just doesn't want to go out into a storm. Will people have to wait longer, potentially days longer, for repairs to be made? How will that affect people who have medical conditions that depend on electricity? Say oxygen... the concentrators use electricity, and there are bottles as backup, but what happens if the bottles run out before the power comes back on? Similarly, why would doctors and nurses get out in a storm to man an Emergency Room, when there's really no reason to... doctors, maybe would, but nurses aren't paid that much to start with. What happens to the people who need medical care on that day when no one shows up to work?

That's the first two things that popped into my head.


posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 09:47 PM
I think people need to stop worrying about what others are going to do with their free time as automation changes the "work" landscape and worry more about what they themselves are going to do now that the "pay your bills now" monkey is off their backs

Majority of opposition to your idea is going to center around what people think about what people other than themselves are going to do

Its a really a projection of insecurity of themselves

What will you do now that you dont have your self worth and identity tied up in the rat race of proving how much better you are than the people around you

posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 09:48 PM
a reply to: TheRedneck

Not true, the people building government housing count as government employees for that construction, thus receive a fractional percentage of government funds for those projects. Nothing free here, just rotating through the economic engine.

As for the second point, not sure, but I'm sure there are incentives that can be in place for such scenarios to make it worth the risk and time. The goal of the system is positive reinforcement. As for no one wanting to work on iphones, I doubt that'll be a problem if there's a high demand, as people will want a piece of that action.
edit on 6/12/2019 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 09:54 PM
Crap, probably shouldn't have posted this just before bed... I'm a dumbass...

Addendum: To whoever gave me a star for this post, I was calling myself a dumbass for posting it when I can't properly respond, not the post itself...
edit on 6/12/2019 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 10:10 PM
a reply to: Puppylove

Ah , What Happens then when the Possibility of a Foreign Power Using an EMP Weapon Against the United States in a Preempted Attack actually Happens ? Our Entire Economic System Collapses due to a Dependence on Technology to Run Everything ? ..Hmm....No Thanks.....

posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 10:19 PM
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

You pretend like that isn't an issue now. Most of our money is already computational.

posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 10:28 PM
This is a good video and shows why systems like the OPs won't work. It talks about Cuba's economy and a thriving black market resulting in taxicab drivers making more than doctors....

posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 10:36 PM
a reply to: Edumakated

I watched a minute of it, and it's not even slightly close to what I'm talking about. My system is not socialism or even close to it.

posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 10:40 PM

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Edumakated

I watched a minute of it, and it's not even slightly close to what I'm talking about. My system is not socialism or even close to it.

Just because you don't call it socialism doesn't mean it isn't socialism...

watch the whole video... it talks about rations, government central planning, salaries, etc.

posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 10:48 PM
The problem with this idea is same thing that sinks communism every time. You're not accounting for the snakes in suits types among us that will head to where the power is and inevitably use it to their owns means. In your scenario all the power of control will be centralized in government. They will find a way to rig the system to enrich themselves and oppress others just as they always have.

Most people tend to get upset when the psychopaths in government and the psychopaths in the private sector start warring with each other when it is actually a positive sign. It means we have a balance of these types of people and they are not all centralized in one sector and working in unison to destroy us all from within.

The problem is we've simply jumped from one extreme to the other and decided it is somehow different when it is essentially another incarnation of the same damn thing. Capitalism has provided the greatest route to progress and the very best living standard than any system in human history. The problem we need to work out is getting the government and private sector back in a proper balance so neither one has dominion over the other.

It is really not even that big of a challenge. If, that is, we stop looking to the goddamn psychopaths for direction.

An important thing to remember from the Stanford Prison Experiment was that the prisoner that most visibly railed the hardest against the oppressive guards shared the same psychological makeup of the lead guard that influenced the oppressive behavior. Had the tables been turned that prisoner would have likely influenced the same outcome.

posted on Jun, 12 2019 @ 10:59 PM
Many people would be worried that they are getting ripped off, not getting their fair share. Pay for doing work should be based on how hard a person works and how taxing it is on the body. It should take into consideration risk. And a woman staying home and taking care of the family should get paid, that job is tough and the hours are long.

posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 03:07 AM

originally posted by: rickymouse
And a woman staying home and taking care of the family should get paid, that job is tough and the hours are long.

Erm, as a stay-at-home mom myself AND a homeschooling one to boot? It's not hard, and we don't need paid for it.

Frankly, I've noticed the only SAHs that gripe about deserving compensation for parenthood/wifehood are the uppity ones who are too high maintenance to be worth the trouble in the first place. My pay is by way of my husband busting his ass to provide for a fully stocked kitchen at all times, a roof over my head, electricity, water and gas services, cheap internet and cheap cell service. Considering the exchange, it's a fair one. The "market value" of what I do all day is subjective, at best. I would not personally ever pay someone else to do it because I'm not that lazy and I don't think I'm too good to clean something myself. Therein lies the great divide in housewives these days.

Quick edit: As to the OP, I've considered a similar system before myself. Something like it COULD work, but we have to get to the point of loving the work we do regardless of it's current perceived worth before it ever can be legitimately discussed. There are people who do the jobs they do because they genuinely love them and don't care what the pay is. I've known a few, they're a rare breed. Everyone else is still obsessed with the rat race competition. Otherwise there'd be more people happy to oblige a system such as yours.
edit on 6/13/2019 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 03:47 AM
a reply to: Puppylove

The purpose of work is not to provide a quality of life to the masses. The purpose of work is to provide privilege to a small group of billionaires. So the current system is working just fine.

posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 03:49 AM
a reply to: Puppylove

You ideas are very close to communism. You might enjoy this video:

If you decide to take 2 minutes to watch this video it's actually kind of scary the sense Marx makes.

posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 04:02 AM
You're forgetting about the corporate entity, these are major players in the economy and not people. They will not settle for a fraction, they want it all. And they have it all.
Slightly related to this issue, you say :

If you succeed you succeed, if you fail you fail, but in either case, you'll never want for the basic needs of life. This will encourage entrepreneurs to take greater risks, as failure can never end in destitution, and the risk adverse will likewise be more prone to taking risks for the very same reason. This willingness to take risks, and for risks to be rewarded, without fear of losing everything will result in an explosion of advancements and new ideas.

This is not the recipe for success, but rather for disaster. It will lead to numerous failures and zero Fs given

posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 07:35 AM
a reply to: sooth

That problem exists with capitalism just the same, it's not a sole issue of socialism, not that this is socialist, it's a hybrid capitalist and socialist system. Not sure where everyone thinks the government is deciding how much people are getting paid, and in what amounts. That's not an inherent part of the system in the least. Closest to it are the government jobs, and I've been considering ways around it to make it a government for the people, by the people.

One idea, make a new government position, whoever has it takes home a set percentage of the government pie, it's a one year position, it's sole purpose is to set the base percentage of pay for all government jobs and positions. ANY person that wants the position can run for it by purchasing time on a special channel and web page set aside for it, there is a set rate that is affordable for renting this time, and an upper limit that makes it so that anyone, not just the privileged can afford it. In order to get this job, you have a platform, a budgeting plan for where you think government resources should be going, every year the people vote for the plan they like best. This can even be split by district, or even go all the way down to specific senators, etc. Oh and doing anything OTHER than what this position ran on is illegal and a major felony. Most of the perks of the position come from being able to get a decent standard of living supposing your budget works and the economy is successful while doing literally nothing for that year, since the real work was coming up with a budget people can mostly agree on before hand.

Heck every senator or member of the house could have their percentage dictated between a range based on how well they're doing by a vote every year from their constituents, with the money they don't receive going back into the pie as if it were new funds. They could have rates based on, doing great, doing alright, doing poorly, and abysmal. If they get a doing great they get the maximum possible rate for their work (but only if), if the get doing alright they get the base pay, if they get doing poorly their pay is reduced, if they get abysmal then they aren't doing their job as a representative and public servant, they stop getting paid for the job and get one more chance to turn things around or the people have spoken and they are no longer in that position. We'd need to figure out what the exact numbers are, but these ideas might help combat corruption.

As for things like underpaid doctors, that's unlikely to be the case as well, guess what, no one in their right mind is going to vote a low government pay rate for doctors, the ones most likely to suffer a pay cut are the politicians and military.

Well things would be rocky at first, possibly with some mistakes and lean times, eventually things would find their equilibrium. In the end though, the government will only decide the rate of government employees in the sense that every citizen is a member of government and has a deciding vote on those pay rates.

Instead of saying it can't work, let's try brainstorming ideas. Nothing can ever improve or be fixed by naysayers.

Also this is not communism, because a key component to the system is the risk and competition of capitalism combined with the benefits of safety net of socialism, and now putting the power of government funding in the hands of citizens.

posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 07:42 AM
a reply to: Jubei42

At some point corporations will be powerful enough to wage real war against each other with employee casualties.

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in