would society benefit from working a 3 or 4 day week?

Radiation said:
There would be laws with checks and balances to make sure the system functions fairly and everyone can make a fair profit and income.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on this as it reads too vague at the moment.

By simply removing the idea of supply and demand or the perception of value and replacing it with fair and calculated profits we have fixed a big problem when it comes to greed and wealth distrubution.
Click to expand...

So you would, let's say, put a max profit margin on the sale of goods and services? I guess that would be accompanied by minimum wages by profession or something alike?

Profits need to be made based on true value not percivied value, no one will be able to sell a piece of junk they call art for a million pounds in this system.
Click to expand...

So how would you measure the price of a painting between a very talented person and a very untalented person? I'm intrigued on the mechanism you would employee to determine the intrinsic value of art and services.

A house shouldn't cost much more than the materials and labour that created it, maintaining or losing value based on it's state, only gaining if improved.
Click to expand...

So the local amenities (or lack of them) wouldn't play a part on the value of accommodation? I presume under your plan a house in the heart of London would have the same price as a house in any other part of England - always assuming the cost of materials was equal.

So how would you decide who gets to buy the London house and who gets to buy the outside-London house, provided both buyers had the money? Would it be a first-come-first-served?

Making money off debt should be limited to whats reasonable etc.
Click to expand...

How would you calculate reasonable? Would lending to a homeless person carry the same interest rate as lending to someone with £1m in illiquid assets?
 
Jonny69 said:
Babel, what you described isn't completely accurate but it is a subject that has been written about. Tim Jackson describes a similar scenario in Prosperity Without Growth as a mechanism to reduce the amount of resources used and to lower environmental impacts. It does mean being less materialistic, relying on higher quality more expensive goods, and adopting more of a service culture than we currently have, but one of the spin-offs is we all have to work less and will have more time.

Economists hate the post-capitalist arguments presented in these sorts of books because they are convinced that economic growth is the only way to prosper. In fact, it isn't, because it results in economic crashes due to the way the capitalist economic structure works, and massive environmental degradation unless it is reeled in.
Click to expand...

I've been arguing this with my economist friends for years now. I keep saying what's wrong with 0% growth considering the european population is shrinking shouldn't our growth not be decline?

I get argued down all the time because I haven't found the means to explain it properly. This article should help.
 
Cruiser said:
very true

most people just want somewhere to live and while it's nice if you gain some value over the years, just expecting to buy a place and hope its worth 20k more for no reason is crazy.
it's ridiculous the amount of money made out of nothing
Click to expand...

And also lost for no reason, in theory.
 
kgi said:
Can you elaborate on this as it reads too vague at the moment.
Click to expand...

There will be laws and the proper system in place to make sure it's followed.

So you would, let's say, put a max profit margin on the sale of goods and services? I guess that would be accompanied by minimum wages by profession or something alike?
Click to expand...

Yeah, wages will also be calculated based on a number of variables.

So how would you measure the price of a painting between a very talented person and a very untalented person? I'm intrigued on the mechanism you would employee to determine the intrinsic value of art and services.
Click to expand...

It would be based on various variables, of course privatly theres nothing stopping someone selling something for however much they like but they could be reported and if it's advertised, an auction or business then it will have to be within the law of fair profits.

So the local amenities (or lack of them) wouldn't play a part on the value of accommodation? I presume under your plan a house in the heart of London would have the same price as a house in any other part of England - always assuming the cost of materials was equal.

So how would you decide who gets to buy the London house and who gets to buy the outside-London house, provided both buyers had the money? Would it be a first-come-first-served?
Click to expand...

Supply and demand means first to buy which is absolutely fair, there will of course be laws limiting how many propertys people can own, greed should have its consequences.

How would you calculate reasonable? Would lending to a homeless person carry the same interest rate as lending to someone with £1m in illiquid assets?
Click to expand...

Well interest is a bit unfair when you think about it, those that can afford things pay for them without the extra costs yet someone who can't and has to borrow ends up paying more...
 
jas72 said:
I've been arguing this with my economist friends for years now. I keep saying what's wrong with 0% growth considering the european population is shrinking shouldn't our growth not be decline?

I get argued down all the time because I haven't found the means to explain it properly. This article should help.
Click to expand...
Economists are only taught the growth model and that a low growth or stable no growth economy is a bad thing. The current problem is that an economy like that will probably fail when all the other economies around it are capitalist high growth, because it will slip behind, and no country is prepared to make the first move.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom