A World Without Prices or Profit

[Xerographica]

What limits an organization's resources?

The amount of influence that the bakery has over how society's limited resources are used depends on how much positive feedback (money) consumers give to it. More revenue means more influence. A bakery with more revenue will have more influence than a bakery with less revenue.

So a bakery with better bread will receive more positive feedback (revenue) than a bakery with crappy bread. This means that more flour will be directed to the bakery with more revenue. As a result we'll derive more value from society's limited resources.

This process did not involve prices nor profits. It simply involved giving consumers the freedom to choose which organizations they gave their money to.

 

[Fisher]

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

Good evening, Fisher. :2wave:

Good evening, Polgara.

Even to the point that Xero always comes back to, nobody is going to the allocate their tax dollars to things like the National Inter-Agency Fire Center because very few people have ever heard of the National Inter-Agency Fire Center or really care about the National Inter-Agency Fire Center, and when 5,000 acres of brush fire is heading in their direction and help isn't, they are not going to be jumping on their telephone to fund the National Inter-Agency Fire Center, and nobody will be talking about the need for a National Inter-Agency Fire Center at the coming funerals.

 

[Xerographica]

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.

What are you going to do with your money then? You can't buy anything with it. All you can do is use it to try and influence how society's limited resources are used.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

The amount of influence that the bakery has over how society's limited resources are used depends on how much positive feedback (money) consumers give to it. More revenue means more influence. A bakery with more revenue will have more influence than a bakery with less revenue.

So a bakery with better bread will receive more positive feedback (revenue) than a bakery with crappy bread. This means that more flour will be directed to the bakery with more revenue. As a result we'll derive more value from society's limited resources.

This process did not involve prices nor profits. It simply involved giving consumers the freedom to choose which organizations they gave their money to.

If there is no revenue or prices, where does influence factor into the equation, and what would be the impetus for one to produce?

 

[polgara]

Good evening, Polgara.

Even to the point that Xero always comes back to, nobody is going to the allocate their tax dollars to things like the National Inter-Agency Fire Center because very few people have ever heard of the National Inter-Agency Fire Center or really care about the National Inter-Agency Fire Center, and when 5,000 acres of brush fire is heading in their direction and help isn't, they are not going to be jumping on their telephone to fund the National Inter-Agency Fire Center, and nobody will be talking about the need for a National Inter-Agency Fire Center at the coming funerals.

:funny: True that! :thumbs: And who ever said that a sentence of seven lines didn't make perfect sense? :lamo

 

[Xerographica]

Good evening, Polgara.

Even to the point that Xero always comes back to, nobody is going to the allocate their tax dollars to things like the National Inter-Agency Fire Center because very few people have ever heard of the National Inter-Agency Fire Center or really care about the National Inter-Agency Fire Center, and when 5,000 acres of brush fire is heading in their direction and help isn't, they are not going to be jumping on their telephone to fund the National Inter-Agency Fire Center, and nobody will be talking about the need for a National Inter-Agency Fire Center at the coming funerals.

And I didn't know that you like rye bread. Markets don't work because of all the things that people don't know...they work because they incorporate everything that you do know. Everything that millions and millions of unique individuals in unique circumstances know...is infinitely greater than what a small handful of government planners know.

In case you missed it, this is why markets succeed and command economies fail. And because I don't want our resources to be allocated by government planners...it behooves me to share my knowledge with you.

If a government organization exists...then some people have to know of its existence. And if those people value its continued existence...then it would behoove them to share their knowledge with others. It's called advertising. Welcome to the obvious.

 

[Xerographica]

If there is no revenue or prices, where does influence factor into the equation, and what would be the impetus for one to produce?

Sorry...I guess I could have been clearer. Money would still exist. If you value how a bakery is using society's limited resources...then you can give them your money. Therefore, organizations would still earn revenue. The more revenue they earned...the more influence they would have over how society's limited resources are used.

Money, in essence, is the same thing as positive feedback. If you work at a bakery, and do a good job, then your boss will give you positive feedback (money). You can then go out and give your money to other organizations. The more money you receive...the more influence you'll have over how society's limited resources are used.

 

[ecofarm]

So why would you give your tax dollars to a government organization that would waste your money? You wouldn't...

Hahaha

Can I save my "tax dollars" and form collectives and thus amass a 'war chest' of influence? With sufficient minions all with "tax dollars", could I, for instance, declare war and establish monopolies?

 

[ecofarm]

Sorry...I guess I could have been clearer. Money would still exist. If you value how a bakery is using society's limited resources...then you can give them your money. Therefore, organizations would still earn revenue. The more revenue they earned...the more influence they would have over how society's limited resources are used.

Money, in essence, is the same thing as positive feedback. If you work at a bakery, and do a good job, then your boss will give you positive feedback (money). You can then go out and give your money to other organizations. The more money you receive...the more influence you'll have over how society's limited resources are used.

How is this not fascism?

 

[APACHERAT]

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)

The radical left still can't answere that question.

 

[Fisher]

And I didn't know that you like rye bread. Markets don't work because of all the things that people don't know...they work because they incorporate everything that you do know. Everything that millions and millions of unique individuals in unique circumstances know...is infinitely greater than what a small handful of government planners know.

In case you missed it, this is why markets succeed and command economies fail. And because I don't want our resources to be allocated by government planners...it behooves me to share my knowledge with you.

If a government organization exists...then some people have to know of its existence. And if those people value its continued existence...then it would behoove them to share their knowledge with others. It's called advertising. Welcome to the obvious.

The government does not operate like the free markets. In fact, the government often operates in areas where the free market has failed or in which there is no incentive for private enterprise to participate but to the extent that the government guarantees them business. There is no free market reason for me to put out a fire on my neighbor's property. In fact, I would have potential gain by not putting out said fire because I could purchase a very limited item--adjoining property--for less. If you cannot differentiate between abstract economic theory and basic government function...well, I will take away the if: you clearly cannot differentiate between abstract economic theory and government function.

 

[Xerographica]

The government does not operate like the free markets. In fact, the government often operates in areas where the free market has failed or in which there is no incentive for private enterprise to participate but to the extent that the government guarantees them business. There is no free market reason for me to put out a fire on my neighbor's property. In fact, I would have potential gain by not putting out said fire because I could purchase a very limited item--adjoining property--for less. If you cannot differentiate between abstract economic theory and basic government function...well, I will take away the if: you clearly cannot differentiate between abstract economic theory and government function.

What you fail to comprehend about government function and basic economic theory is that the government does not know how much of any public good should be supplied. Because if the government could supply the optimal amount of firemen then it could supply the optimal amount of doctors, lawyers and engineers.

The only way to know how much of any good should be supplied is to look at the demand. What's the demand for public goods? You don't know...nobody does. As a result, we end up with a surplus of some public goods and shortages of others.

But if taxpayers could choose where their taxes go, then the demand for public goods would determine the supply of public goods. The demand for firemen would determine the supply of firemen. We would determine the optimal amount of firemen without prices.

If we don't need prices to determine the optimal supply of firemen...then do we need prices to determine the optimal supply of doctors, lawyers and engineers? I don't know. That's the point of this thread.

 

[Lord of Planar]

A World Without Prices or Profit

The Ferengi would go nutz...

 

[Lord of Planar]

Wasn't Thanksgiving created after leaving the idea of sharing of common goods, since it allowed lazy people to have as much as hard workers?

 

[Xerographica]

The Ferengi would go nutz...

Naw, there would still be money.

 

[Xerographica]

Wasn't Thanksgiving created after leaving the idea of sharing of common goods, since it allowed lazy people to have as much as hard workers?

In a pragma-socialist system, lazy people would receive less positive feedback (money) than hard workers.

 

[Lord of Planar]

In a pragma-socialist system, lazy people would receive less positive feedback (money) than hard workers.

Well, that's not how it was. You should read Bradford's journals on the topic of changing their colony system of sharing to personal ownership and bartering.

Do you really think things will be different today? The human race hasn't changed enough since then in my opinion.

 

[Xerographica]

How is this not fascism?

How is it fascism? There's no authoritarianism. You could choose which organizations you give your money to. What's authoritarian about that?

 

[Xerographica]

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

What happened to the USSR?

 

[ecofarm]

How is it fascism? There's no authoritarianism. You could choose which organizations you give your money to. What's authoritarian about that?

State control of resources is fascism. Centralized monetary and distribution policy is authoritarian. Giving people gold stars with which to reward whomever they want (for God knows what reasons) does not constitute control by the people and individuals. All of the gold stars would go to family, friends and business and political allies.

Your system is not a meritocracy but a fraudocracy dominated by state control.

 

[Xerographica]

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.

Nope, not even close. The fact of the matter is that I have no idea what the proper scope of government truly is. Because taxpayers cannot give their feedback (tax dollars) to specific government organizations...I believe that the scope of government should be as limited as possible. But what about if taxpayers could choose where their taxes go? Then government organizations would be accountable and responsive to the preferences of taxpayers. So why would I argue in favor of limiting the scope of government? I wouldn't.

Therefore, this thread reflects my genuine interest in understanding whether a 100% tax rate would be even feasible. The first few times I contemplated it...I had an extremely difficult time "seeing" it. But each time I've contemplated it...I see it clearer and clearer.

In order for resources to be efficiently allocated, consumers need to be able to give producers feedback on how well they are using society's limited resources. This would occur in a pragmatarian system even if the tax rate was 100%. Therefore, resources could be efficiently allocated with pragma-socialism.

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.

Right now there's a demand for defense...just like there's a demand for milk. The difference is, you don't know what the demand for defense is but you do know what the demand for milk is. Why do you know what the demand for milk is? Because people are free to decide for themselves exactly how much they are willing to pay for milk. Why don't you know what the demand for defense is? Because people are not free to decide for themselves how much they are willing to pay for defense.

If people weren't free to shop for themselves, would the government know what everybody was willing to pay for milk? Obviously not. Yet, here you are arguing that the government knows what everybody would be willing to pay for defense. Or maybe you're not making that argument? If not, then you're arguing that the government's supply is superior to the market's supply. So why allow consumers to shop for themselves?

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.

You're saying that congress is the only valuable aspect of the government. But you're also arguing that in a pragmatarian system nobody would choose to give their taxes to congress. Both of those arguments can't be true. You know why? Because value is a function of how much you are willing to sacrifice for something. If nobody is willing to sacrifice any of their taxes to congress...then you wouldn't be able to say that society values congress. You wouldn't even be able to say that you valued congress. You know why? Because you didn't give them any of your tax dollars.

 

[Xerographica]

State control of resources is fascism. Centralized monetary and distribution policy is authoritarian. Giving people gold stars with which to reward whomever they want (for God knows what reasons) does not constitute control by the people and individuals. All of the gold stars would go to family, friends and business and political allies.

Your system is not a meritocracy but a fraudocracy dominated by state control.

Allowing people to shop for themselves is fascism? Then what do you call it when people aren't allowed to shop for themselves?

 

[ecofarm]

Allowing people to shop for themselves is fascism? Then what do you call it when people aren't allowed to shop for themselves?

It's not shopping. It's getting free stuff and deciding where to put ones gold stars of approval. There is no reason to believe that anyone would distribute their gold stars according to service satisfaction, but rather according to alliances (while gathering whatever free stuff they want anyway).

Why not just go with Marx instead of creating a utopia blatently inclined to individual (as opposed to state) corruption.

I'd give my gold stars to the developing world. Screw all us rich bastards. Unfortunately, I doubt the developing world could do anything with our gold stars, which isolates us economically and effectively ends any foreign aid and trade.

Do I get free flights to Africa? Does everyone get to fly anywhere they want any time?

 

[Xerographica]

It's getting free stuff and deciding where to put ones gold stars of approval. There is no reason to believe that anyone would distribute their gold stars according to service satisfaction, but rather according to alliances (while gathering whatever free stuff they want anyway).

There's no reason to believe that people would distribute their money according to service satisfaction? Ok, prove it by giving me $500.

Why not just go with Marx instead of creating a utopia blatently inclined to individual (as opposed to state) corruption.

How is shopping for yourself individual corruption?

I'd give my gold stars to the developing world. Screw all us rich bastards. Unfortunately, I doubt the developing world could do anything with our gold stars, which isolates us economically and effectively ends any foreign aid and trade.

You doubt the developing world could do anything with money? Uh, why are you talking nonsense?

Do I get free flights to Africa? Does everyone get to fly anywhere they want any time?

Like I said in my original post, the employees of the organization would have the final say on who gets their products/services. Would the president get a free plane? That depends on how much money (positive feedback) consumers gave to him. The more money he received the more influence he would have the higher his priority for receiving a plane.

So my guess is that space on flights would be determined by priority...and priority would be determined by influence...which is determined by how much positive feedback (money) other people have given you.

If you're happy with an airline's service...then you'd give them your money (positive feedback).

 

[ecofarm]

Look, dude, it's not shopping. It's not comparing products and prices and choosing the best one for your personal taste and resources. It's free stuff.

I see no reason that anyone would give gold stars for satisfaction. I would give mine to friends, family, business and political allies.

I could be denied services? Based on gold stars? Then I would definately make sure all of my gold stars went to family.

Like I said in my original post, the employees of the organization would have the final say on who gets their products/services. Would the president get a free plane? That depends on how much money (positive feedback) consumers gave to him. The more money he received the more influence he would have the higher his priority for receiving a plane.

That looks the same as money. Your scenario is breaking down to the status quo.

How would I, as a developing world researcher, get any gold stars with which to continue my research? I do so on personal private funds and I'm not serving anyone in the US. I don't work for any US NGO and I don't have any grants or other organizational ties. I do independent research with local (Kenyan) affiliations. Can Kenyans give me gold stars so that I can continue my (agricultural) development work?