reply to post by bittersocialist
No, in no way is that the translation. Like I've said you've just ignorantly waded through my argument and reasserted your point.
We will spend more time in the voting booth trying to figure out how much someone should be paid than we will actually working. Do we just write in
what we think the job is worth? Are we going on an hourly wage or a salary? If we are going salary - do we vote on the amount of hours they work,
too?
This is impractical. What will happen is we will vote to pay everyone roughly the same (as in most cases), adopt some arbitrary pay grading system
(the way it is for most government employees at both the state and federal level), or anything other than your rose-tinted view of things.
I actually laughed reading this. You seem to have some idealistic view of capitalism. It does not work like that in the real world. The
unemployed are not 'free' to pursue anything. They are forced to pursue whatever employment opportunity is available. Unless of course they have a
significant amount of capital and the know how to ivnest it - most do not.
This is, frankly, ignorant. I'm something of a legend among my peers for being able to simply touch a computer and make it work again. I,
typically, do not charge for the service (I used to turn down payment offers, but I can't afford to do that, anymore - so I accept them when
offered). Is that not a form of employment?
"But if they are unemployed - they won't have money to pay you."
Perhaps they will invite me to eat with them. This is one of the most archaic forms of bartering for service out there - a family receives a service
and pays the person who provided it with a meal.
You are too caught up on the "big industry" and fail to realize that the way we live as of now is about to come to an end. Society is going to
collapse back into much smaller and more regional markets with localized bartering for service. There is, already, a massive "underground" economy
(called "underground" because it isn't tracked by the IRS) - the family of my ex girlfriend own a truck and trailer and regularly help people move.
They don't have any kind of fixed fees - but are often paid in the way of "We have what we needed - anything that is left you all can have, and
here's some cash on the side."
Cash and hard financial assets will be used mostly as an external interface. Self-organized communities will purchase food stocks in bulk and the
home-makers will prepare food for the whole of that community as the laborers/workers go to their jobs (which may be for a company, where they are
paid in a hard financial asset the community will value for its universal bartering power; or it may be as simple as chopping wood, driving posts, or
keeping up on maintenance of the community assets).
"But, Aim, that sounds like socialism... talk of community and all."
Like I said - socialism and the free market are very similar in more ideal settings. However, at larger scales, socialism collapses, entirely. It
does not function as a broad, universal economic policy. It works on the small scales where payment comes in the form of reliable food and shelter
within a small community (that interfaces with other communities via the free market). It doesn't work on larger scales.
A very common misconception is that under socialism the state would plan the economy, the economy would be democratically planned, learn to
read my posts.
And, as respectfully as I can put this... this is why I said you are lacking in intelligence.
In 1920, the transistor didn't exist. In 1950, the personal computer didn't exist. The Transistor came about because Bell laboratories was looking
for a way to reduce noise in their telecommunications switching networks and reducing power overhead (which reduces operating costs and generally
means less down-time due to component failure).
The Transistor radio came about because we realized that the transistor was not just an electronically controlled switch - but an amplifier with more
ideal performance than many vacuum tubes.
All of this was invented as something new because someone could then turn around and sell it to someone who would want/need it and improve their life
by using it. In return - they would provide something in exchange that would also improve the life of the person who built and/or invented it.
How do you plan for that? How do you say: "Alright... let's plan to build a personal computer."
"What's that?"
"We, actually have no idea. No one has invented or produced one. But here's what it's worth, and here's how much people should be paid to build
one."
Which directly applies to your wealth argument. The above is what wealth is - producing something valuable. The amount of wealth in the world today
has increased because of -new- productivity.
