A World Without Prices or Profit

[Xerographica]

Are prices or profit really necessary? For fun let's try and imagine a world without either.

If you wanted bread, you could go to your local bakery and select the quantity of bread that matched your preferences. You wouldn't have to pay for it...but the employees of the bakery would have the final say on your selection. They would approve or decline your selection when they were scanning your items for inventory purposes.

If you were happy with the experience and wanted to give the bakery positive feedback...then you could go to their website and make a contribution of any amount. Their website would display exactly how much positive feedback (revenue) they received.

When bakeries ordered flour from the same supplier...the supplier would use each bakery's revenue to help determine how to divvy up the flour. More revenue means more flour. Same thing with the wheat farmer. He would look at how much positive feedback the suppliers had received in order to determine how best to allocate his wheat.

Would you have an incentive to work hard? Let's say that you worked in a bakery. If you failed to work hard...if you did not improve on your recipes...if you wasted your flour...if you took really long lunch breaks...if you were rude to the customers...then your bakery would lose revenue and competing bakeries would gain revenue. If your bakery lost revenue then your boss wouldn't be able to give you as much positive feedback.

If you received less positive feedback...then you would have less influence over how society's limited resources were used. You wouldn't be able to give your favorite bands...favorite authors...favorite restaurants...as much positive feedback as you felt they deserved. Plus, your living accommodations and transportation wouldn't be as nice.

So would it work? No prices...or profit...but you'd still have the freedom to give positive feedback to those who were using society's limited resources for your benefit. And the amount of influence you had would depend on how much positive feedback other people gave you.

 

[lizzie]

Are prices or profit really necessary? For fun let's try and imagine a world without either.

Yes, they really are necessary. They are necessary because we require a tax base in order to support a lot of social welfare and other government programs, and if profits aren't being made, then tax receipts will plummet, and a lot of people will be going hungry and homeless.

 

[ecofarm]

I would convince people (locals, family [as many children as possible with multiple women], friends) to give me "positive feedback" and thus dominate the world with my minions. When I gained enough power to influence the system itself, I would abolish it and declare myself Emperor.


ps. Regarding the OP proposal... I'm against minors smoking pot.

 

[specklebang]

You might enjoy the techno-thriller DAEMON by [URL="http://www.amazon.com/Daemon-Daniel-Suarez/dp/0451228731/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376442781&sr=8-1&keywords=daemon"]Daniel Suarez[/URL] whose Darknet concept addresses this concept - sort of.

 

[Lutherf]

Are prices or profit really necessary? For fun let's try and imagine a world without either.

If you wanted bread, you could go to your local bakery and select the quantity of bread that matched your preferences. You wouldn't have to pay for it...but the employees of the bakery would have the final say on your selection. They would approve or decline your selection when they were scanning your items for inventory purposes.

If you were happy with the experience and wanted to give the bakery positive feedback...then you could go to their website and make a contribution of any amount. Their website would display exactly how much positive feedback (revenue) they received.

When bakeries ordered flour from the same supplier...the supplier would use each bakery's revenue to help determine how to divvy up the flour. More revenue means more flour. Same thing with the wheat farmer. He would look at how much positive feedback the suppliers had received in order to determine how best to allocate his wheat.

Would you have an incentive to work hard? Let's say that you worked in a bakery. If you failed to work hard...if you did not improve on your recipes...if you wasted your flour...if you took really long lunch breaks...if you were rude to the customers...then your bakery would lose revenue and competing bakeries would gain revenue. If your bakery lost revenue then your boss wouldn't be able to give you as much positive feedback.

If you received less positive feedback...then you would have less influence over how society's limited resources were used. You wouldn't be able to give your favorite bands...favorite authors...favorite restaurants...as much positive feedback as you felt they deserved. Plus, your living accommodations and transportation wouldn't be as nice.

So would it work? No prices...or profit...but you'd still have the freedom to give positive feedback to those who were using society's limited resources for your benefit. And the amount of influence you had would depend on how much positive feedback other people gave you.

There we go. Facebook "likes" are going to become the new currency:doh

I can see it now......"Quick honey! Log onto the IRS website and start clicking. I'll get it from the laptop."

 

[Fisher]

Why would anybody work at the bakery if they could get all they need in life for free? :coffeepap

(and yes, to save time, letting people have complete control over how their tax money is spent is still a horrible idea)

 

[Xerographica]

Yes, they really are necessary. They are necessary because we require a tax base in order to support a lot of social welfare and other government programs, and if profits aren't being made, then tax receipts will plummet, and a lot of people will be going hungry and homeless.

How could tax receipts possibly plummet when every dollar you spend is a tax dollar? In other words, in the world I described the tax rate is 100%...so every organization is a government agency...but you can choose which government agencies you give your taxes to.

So why would you give your tax dollars to a government organization that would waste your money? You wouldn't...so how could the supply of food possibly decrease?

 

[imagep]

Yes, they really are necessary. They are necessary because we require a tax base in order to support a lot of social welfare and other government programs, and if profits aren't being made, then tax receipts will plummet, and a lot of people will be going hungry and homeless.

In the scenario in the OP, there would be no need for social welfare.

The purpose of money and income and prices has nothing to do with the governments need to tax. Actually, the government doesn't even have a need for taxes as a form of revenue. the government can print all the money they chose to.

 

[lizzie]

How could tax receipts possibly plummet when every dollar you spend is a tax dollar? In other words, in the world I described the tax rate is 100%...so every organization is a government agency...but you can choose which government agencies you give your taxes to.

So why would you give your tax dollars to a government organization that would waste your money? You wouldn't...so how could the supply of food possibly decrease?

I would much rather NOT give my tax dollars to a government organization, but there are so many people who depend on my tax dollars for their very existence, that it's here to stay. Tax receipts depend on the ability of people and companies to make profits. If there were no profits, and people didn't make enough money to be required to pay taxes, then those people who depend on that money would not just go away.

 

[Xerographica]

Why would anybody work at the bakery if they could get all they need in life for free? :coffeepap

(and yes, to save time, letting people have complete control over how their tax money is spent is still a horrible idea)

How would you have any money if you didn't work at the bakery? If you didn't have any money then how could you influence how society's limited resources were used?

 

[AlabamaPaul]

I would much rather NOT give my tax dollars to a government organization, but there are so many people who depend on my tax dollars for their very existence, that it's here to stay. Tax receipts depend on the ability of people and companies to make profits. If there were no profits, and people didn't make enough money to be required to pay taxes, then those people who depend on that money would not just go away.

Arguing with a communist will never be productive...

 

[Goshin]

Are prices or profit really necessary? For fun let's try and imagine a world without either.

If you wanted bread, you could go to your local bakery and select the quantity of bread that matched your preferences. You wouldn't have to pay for it...but the employees of the bakery would have the final say on your selection. They would approve or decline your selection when they were scanning your items for inventory purposes.

If you were happy with the experience and wanted to give the bakery positive feedback...then you could go to their website and make a contribution of any amount. Their website would display exactly how much positive feedback (revenue) they received.

When bakeries ordered flour from the same supplier...the supplier would use each bakery's revenue to help determine how to divvy up the flour. More revenue means more flour. Same thing with the wheat farmer. He would look at how much positive feedback the suppliers had received in order to determine how best to allocate his wheat.

Would you have an incentive to work hard? Let's say that you worked in a bakery. If you failed to work hard...if you did not improve on your recipes...if you wasted your flour...if you took really long lunch breaks...if you were rude to the customers...then your bakery would lose revenue and competing bakeries would gain revenue. If your bakery lost revenue then your boss wouldn't be able to give you as much positive feedback.

If you received less positive feedback...then you would have less influence over how society's limited resources were used. You wouldn't be able to give your favorite bands...favorite authors...favorite restaurants...as much positive feedback as you felt they deserved. Plus, your living accommodations and transportation wouldn't be as nice.

So would it work? No prices...or profit...but you'd still have the freedom to give positive feedback to those who were using society's limited resources for your benefit. And the amount of influence you had would depend on how much positive feedback other people gave you.

Why try to reinvent the wheel? We already do this. It is called money.

 

[lizzie]

Arguing with a communist will never be productive...

I guess people just don't understand what happened in the USSR, and need to find out the hard way.

 

[Fisher]

How would you have any money if you didn't work at the bakery? If you didn't have any money then how could you influence how society's limited resources were used?

I wouldn't need any money. You already said I wouldn't have to pay for my bread. I will just trade imagep my whole wheat for his rye in the parking lot.

 

[imagep]

How would you have any money if you didn't work at the bakery? If you didn't have any money then how could you influence how society's limited resources were used?

If everything was free, why would you need any money?

 

[Xerographica]

Why try to reinvent the wheel? We already do this. It is called money.

Money would still be there. What would be missing were the prices and the profits. I don't know if prices and profits are necessary in a world where you can give positive feedback to organizations that are using their limited resources for your benefit. If you perceive that an organization is wasting your money...and hence...wasting society's limited resources...then resources can be efficiently allocated simply by you having the freedom to give your positive feedback to another organization instead.

 

[imagep]

Money would still be there. What would be missing were the prices and the profits. I don't know if prices and profits are necessary in a world where you can give positive feedback to organizations that are using their limited resources for your benefit. If you perceive that an organization is wasting your money...and hence...wasting society's limited resources...then resources can be efficiently allocated simply by you having the freedom to give your positive feedback to another organization instead.

Money might still be there, but if nothing had a price, and if there was no need for profits, then money would be valueless.

Which proves why money doesn't have to be backed by anything, other than prices and profits. Who knew that this thread would lead to proof that we have no need for the gold standard?

 

[Goshin]

Money would still be there. What would be missing were the prices and the profits. I don't know if prices and profits are necessary in a world where you can give positive feedback to organizations that are using their limited resources for your benefit. If you perceive that an organization is wasting your money...and hence...wasting society's limited resources...then resources can be efficiently allocated simply by you having the freedom to give your positive feedback to another organization instead.

No thanks. Sounds like a lovely way to **** everything up for good and all.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Money would still be there. What would be missing were the prices and the profits. I don't know if prices and profits are necessary in a world where you can give positive feedback to organizations that are using their limited resources for your benefit. If you perceive that an organization is wasting your money...and hence...wasting society's limited resources...then resources can be efficiently allocated simply by you having the freedom to give your positive feedback to another organization instead.

What limits an organization's resources?

 

[Fisher]

Money would still be there. What would be missing were the prices and the profits. I don't know if prices and profits are necessary in a world where you can give positive feedback to organizations that are using their limited resources for your benefit. If you perceive that an organization is wasting your money...and hence...wasting society's limited resources...then resources can be efficiently allocated simply by you having the freedom to give your positive feedback to another organization instead.

everything is free. You have already said this. Money gets you free stuff. No money gets you free stuff. Nobody is going to work in a world where everything is free and the reward for working is to get what you have already got.

 

[Xerographica]

I wouldn't need any money. You already said I wouldn't have to pay for my bread. I will just trade imagep my whole wheat for his rye in the parking lot.

If you like rye bread...but you don't have any money...then how can you try and ensure that more rye bread is produced? If the bakeries supplying rye bread don't receive any revenue...then they'll go bankrupt and no more rye bread will be produced. Therefore, if you want rye bread to be produced...then you'll have an incentive to get a job and earn money. The more money you earn...the more influence you'll have over how society's limited resources are used.

 

[imagep]

What he is getting at is that everyone should be able to "vote" where their tax dollars go, and he is "proving" it by using the private sector as an example. He knows quite well that what he is suggesting is ludicrous, and the OP believes that if he can prove that it is ludicrous in the private sector, that somehow proves that we should all individually allocate our tax dollars.

Of course that totally defeats the purpose of government, and essentially what we would have would be anarchy, where everyones tax dollars are only spent on welfare for themselves, instead of the common good. We might very well end up with no dollars funding our military, and everyone "voting" that their tax dollars should be returned to them in the form of welfare, based upon how much they paid in taxes.

I've agreed with the OP over and over again that it would be an interestesting experiment to try for a few years, and could certainly give some guidance to congress on what the people really want, but if it was binding, it would likely lead to totally eliminating all value of government.

 

[Fisher]

If you like rye bread...but you don't have any money...then how can you try and ensure that more rye bread is produced? If the bakeries supplying rye bread don't receive any revenue...then they'll go bankrupt and no more rye bread will be produced. Therefore, if you want rye bread to be produced...then you'll have an incentive to get a job and earn money. The more money you earn...the more influence you'll have over how society's limited resources are used.

The bakery is already going to be bankrupt because nobody will work there to begin with. I am not sure you have thought this through before you posted your OP.

 

[imagep]

If you like rye bread...but you don't have any money...then how can you try and ensure that more rye bread is produced? If the bakeries supplying rye bread don't receive any revenue...then they'll go bankrupt and no more rye bread will be produced. Therefore, if you want rye bread to be produced...then you'll have an incentive to get a job and earn money. The more money you earn...the more influence you'll have over how society's limited resources are used.

Your the one that said everything would be without a price, just a voluntary donation. Of course no one would ever bother to make those voluntary donations as they are voluntary and not required.

 

[polgara]

everything is free. You have already said this. Money gets you free stuff. No money gets you free stuff. Nobody is going to work in a world where everything is free and the reward for working is to get what you have already got.

Wish I could give you a bunch of likes for this post! :thumbs:

Good evening, Fisher. :2wave: