Any time I do all the work and someone else gets the benefit against my consent, that is slavery. why can't we just employ everyone half as much? If they refuse to work then they don't get to eat
( ... )
Employing everyone half as much is a valid implementation. You still have half the population living off the other half, the level of socialism has not changed.
The problem with your concept of luxury/service production is that when the 50% who are producing necessities (enough to supply everyone) stop buying luxuries (like, say, now), the other 50% start starving. They cannot produce their own necessities, all the available land is already farmed, all the accessible ore mined, etc, all by the first 50%. Most people who are opposed to socialism would be equally opposed to a communistic approach of taking land/mines/etc away from the producers and giving it to the non-producers who need it to live.
I don't think we are too that point yet , perhaps in some dystopian future yes, there will be a time when service industry just cannot exist, but if we collapse that far most people will be dying from whatever trauma befell our world in the first place rather then from starvation because they couldn't sell anyone an ice cream.
have you ever taken macro or micro echonomics in college?
I have. there will always be epople who produce more then they consume, and they will generally trade their excess for some sort of favor or improvement to thier industry or thier living conditions. there will always be a market for secondary goods
you know I could say something awful like, we tried having only 50% of the population employed once but the feminist movement put a stop to that.
But we also live under the work ethic system that if you want money/cars/BIG screen TV/etc/etc, you MUST work. Now there is nothing wrong about going on welfare but if you are you are only entitled to drive the beat up, rusty, 86 Monte Carlo vs a 2008 hybrid Escalade. I am in firm agreement with this system. Not everyone can be Warren Buffet, we need janitors and yes bums too. I personally do not want someone living high on the hog and not do a blessed thing to better themselves. The only way I would be happy with this is if replicators from Star Trek were around. AA still firmly believe that a kid from the ghetto can still be president, but it takes work. Nothing is for free and it should not be for free. Its nice to get things for free but y'no I too would like a pony.
I agree whole-heartedly. In the present economy, an indigent person can be housed, fed, and respectably educated for well under $5k/yr. I am not advocating giving everyone a [current day equivalent] $100k/yr lifestyle. Just the necessities.
Comments 6
Reply
Reply
The problem with your concept of luxury/service production is that when the 50% who are producing necessities (enough to supply everyone) stop buying luxuries (like, say, now), the other 50% start starving. They cannot produce their own necessities, all the available land is already farmed, all the accessible ore mined, etc, all by the first 50%. Most people who are opposed to socialism would be equally opposed to a communistic approach of taking land/mines/etc away from the producers and giving it to the non-producers who need it to live.
Reply
, perhaps in some dystopian future yes, there will be a time when service industry just cannot exist, but if we collapse that far most people will be dying from whatever trauma befell our world in the first place rather then from starvation because they couldn't sell anyone an ice cream.
have you ever taken macro or micro echonomics in college?
I have. there will always be epople who produce more then they consume, and they will generally trade their excess for some sort of favor or improvement to thier industry or thier living conditions. there will always be a market for secondary goods
you know I could say something awful like, we tried having only 50% of the population employed once but the feminist movement put a stop to that.
Reply
:{)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment