A World Without Prices or Profit

[Xerographica]

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.

Why make the effort to get free stuff that doesn't match your preferences? If an organization wasn't using society's limited resources for your benefit...then why would you give them your positive feedback (money) if you didn't want them to have more influence over how society's limited resources were used?

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

You could give your positive feedback (money) to whoever you wanted.

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

It is money. Why did you jump to the conclusion that money wouldn't exist? My scenario simply eliminated prices and profits. Clearly that's not the status quo.

How would I, as a developing world researcher, get any gold stars with which to continue my research? I d so on personal private funds and I'm not serving anyone in the US.

If nobody gave you or your organization any positive feedback (money) then you wouldn't have much influence in determining how society's limited resources were used. Why in the world would we want your influence to exceed your benefit to society?

 

[Ontologuy]

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.

I applaud you for idealizing what you believe to be progress for the benefit of humanity.

The challenge with any transcendence from the hierachy of the Money System to something arguably more evolved is that the transition for doing this absolutely requires a drastic reduction in the population change rate, to a significant negative value, for at least a few generations.

Our current and continuing mass over-population nightmare is the direct facilitator of hierarchical systems like money and profit, as the lack of comparative production to keep up with over-populated need creates scarcity and resultant neurotic dog-eat-dog competition that hierarchical money and profit systems managably solve so very easily, and somewhat fairly too, as those more over-populated demographics are usually poorer and unemployment higher than in less-populated regions and thus suffer for their globally careless reproductive behavior.

Solve the dog-eat-dog neurotic competition over-population nightmare first.

Then the need for hierarchical compensation systems will diminish, and that will facilitate the possibility of the kind of changes you may be implicitly stating you would like to see.

 

[Xerographica]

The challenge with any transcendence from the hierachy of the Money System to something arguably more evolved is that the transition for doing this absolutely requires a drastic reduction in the population change rate, to a significant negative value, for at least a few generations.

Money would still exist...but prices and profit would not.

 

[Ontologuy]

Money would still exist...but prices and profit would not.

Money and the Money System, by the nature of the beast itself, require profitting.

R&D, investments to procure raw materials, borrowing compensation .. the list goes on and on .. are absolutely intrinsic to money and its system.

It is pure fantasy to imagine a profitless Money System.

It is more rational to imagine a system where instead of money the "currency", so to speak, would be hours worked, or the like, but in so doing, you can't treat hours worked like you treat money, as all of socioeconoimcs changes as a result.

 

[Xerographica]

Money and the Money System, by the nature of the beast itself, require profitting.

R&D, investments to procure raw materials, borrowing compensation .. the list goes on and on .. are absolutely intrinsic to money and its system.

A baker could spend his time trying to develop new recipes (R&D). If he came up with better recipes then he would receive more positive feedback (money) from consumers. The baker's revenue would simply increase...which would increase his influence over how society's limited resources are used. But there wouldn't be any profit or prices.

 

[Org]

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 order for that to be true, the rate of profit would have to be a major positive determinant of employment. This, of course, is nonsense. Without an increase in sales, an increased rate of profit either means higher prices to consumers, of lower wages to workers.

 

[TNAR]

I won't bother reading all of the other posts, but I will assume that someone beat me to the punchline: price and profit continues to exist in your hypothetical fairyland. Simply because you attempt to outlaw monetary prices does not mean that prices do not exist. If you trade a cow for three chickens, the price of the cow is three chickens and the price of a chicken is 1/3 of a cow. In your example, the price of a loaf of bread is positive feedback. Furthermore, without profit there would be no method available to purchase goods for oneself.

A better discussion would be why so many people have an issue with the general idea of "price" and "profit" to begin with?

 

[obvious Child]

Money would still exist...but prices and profit would not.

This topic is such fail. Without a benchmark of valuation, money itself has no value. So having no prices and no profit renders money pointless.

Stop watching so much Star Trek. Also, get out of your dorm room and enjoy college.

 

[Xerographica]

I won't bother reading all of the other posts, but I will assume that someone beat me to the punchline: price and profit continues to exist in your hypothetical fairyland. Simply because you attempt to outlaw monetary prices does not mean that prices do not exist. If you trade a cow for three chickens, the price of the cow is three chickens and the price of a chicken is 1/3 of a cow. In your example, the price of a loaf of bread is positive feedback.

Ok, sure, but there still wouldn't be literal price tags on the products/services. The important thing is that you would be able to consider the alternative uses of your money. This is the opportunity cost concept...which helps to ensure that resources are efficiently allocated.

Furthermore, without profit there would be no method available to purchase goods for oneself.

There would still be revenue. If you wanted to give the bakery positive feedback (money), then you could go to their website and submit a monetary contribution of any amount.

The bakery would use its revenue to give positive feedback (money) to the people who supplied the necessary inputs...land, labor, ovens, flour, sugar, etc.

 

[RGacky3]

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.

For most of human history cooperative tribal economies have done just fine without prices or profits.

 

[Xerographica]

For most of human history cooperative tribal economies have done just fine without prices or profits.

So you think pragmatarianism with the current tax rate is a terrible idea...but you have no problem with pragmatarianism with a 100% tax rate?

 

[obvious Child]

For most of human history cooperative tribal economies have done just fine without prices or profits.

But they did have value benchmarks. Also, they did have prices in terms of valuation. One cow was worth X amount of chickens. One basket was worth a ten stones of corn. Prices essentially functionally as the valuation benchmark whether they be in actual currency or in values of items.

Barter doesn't work if you don't have some form of value benchmark.

Thus, this whole thread is just fail because it places a form of currency transfer of assets and services without any form of accepted value benchmarking.

 

[RGacky3]

So you think pragmatarianism with the current tax rate is a terrible idea...but you have no problem with pragmatarianism with a 100% tax rate?

don't put words in my mouth, I wasn't proposing a tribal communal economy.

Also it wasn't a 100% tax rate, it was a sharing of the commons, there was no tax, you had communal land ownership and small time industry that was shared.

 

[RGacky3]

But they did have value benchmarks. Also, they did have prices in terms of valuation. One cow was worth X amount of chickens. One basket was worth a ten stones of corn. Prices essentially functionally as the valuation benchmark whether they be in actual currency or in values of items.

Barter doesn't work if you don't have some form of value benchmark.

Thus, this whole thread is just fail because it places a form of currency transfer of assets and services without any form of accepted value benchmarking.

Not really, trade didn't really happen within tribes, it was literally communal in many of those societies, trade did happen between tribes, but that's a different thing. The valuation was purely usevalue, not exchange value.

Barter was not the origional economic system internal to a community.

 

[obvious Child]

Not really, trade didn't really happen within tribes, it was literally communal in many of those societies, trade did happen between tribes, but that's a different thing. The valuation was purely usevalue, not exchange value.

But the use value itself was a benchmark. What Xerographica is proposing is a system entirely free of any benchmarks. What is the point of currency where everything is communal?

Barter was not the origional economic system internal to a community.

But once individualism arose, it was an economic system internal to communities.

 

[RGacky3]

But the use value itself was a benchmark. What Xerographica is proposing is a system entirely free of any benchmarks. What is the point of currency where everything is communal?

But once individualism arose, it was an economic system internal to communities.

It wasn't the rise of individualism (whatever that means), it was the rise of the state and landed property. Infact what that did was reduce the individualism for most of the people by excluding them from what used to be the commons and making them forced to serve the propertied class and the king/temple.

Use value is the most base of benchmarks, its basically "do we, or does someone need this"? There was no currency.

 

[obvious Child]

It wasn't the rise of individualism (whatever that means), it was the rise of the state and landed property.

Which is the same thing. Moving away from communality forced the use of barter as things were no longer communally owned.

Infact what that did was reduce the individualism for most of the people by excluding them from what used to be the commons and making them forced to serve the propertied class and the king/temple.

Use value is the most base of benchmarks, its basically "do we, or does someone need this"? There was no currency.

But how does this work in Xerographica's system? When things have no prices, but things are not necessarily communal, how does money even work?

 

[RGacky3]

Which is the same thing. Moving away from communality forced the use of barter as things were no longer communally owned.

But how does this work in Xerographica's system? When things have no prices, but things are not necessarily communal, how does money even work?

Fair enough, although in some economies (Ancient Eygpt is a prime example) It went from a communal economy to a sort of state command economy, but anyway, I get your point. Barter wasn't a big part in most (internal) economies for most of the time, most of the "barter."

As far as Xerographica, I have no idea, I havn't heard a theory of his that wasn't just silly, infact I've only heard one, his "tax-choice" system which every single thread he posts in he tries to turn into, and which has been debunked over and over again.

 

[Xerographica]

But how does this work in Xerographica's system? When things have no prices, but things are not necessarily communal, how does money even work?

Money would still function as the means by which you communicate your concerns. It allows you to indicate which of your priorities are more pressing. What concerns you more...the possibility of a shortage of bread...or the possibility of a shortage of environmental protection? If you didn't give any money to either your local bakery...or the EPA...then I'd venture that you had more pressing concerns. What would those concerns be? Whatever it was that you spent your money on.

Of course, it's also a possibility that you aren't even aware that you should be worried about the possibility of a lack of bread and/or environmental protection. If this is truly a pressing concern for me...then I will spend my time/money trying to inform you of the reality of these possibilities. Same thing with the local bakery and EPA. It's called advertising...where we spend time/money in order to try and inform people of the possibility of shortages that might concern them.

Of course it's reasonable to assume that communal goods would be underfunded...aka the free-rider problem. If the free-rider problem is truly a pressing concern of yours...then you would give your money to the IRS. And the IRS would try to ensure that individuals allocated the designated percentage of their money to communal goods.

And if you were truly concerned that the designated percentage was too low...then you could give your money to congress if they raised the percentage...and you could withhold your money from congress if they lowered the percentage. And congress, being concerned with maximizing its revenue, would be motivated to find the optimal percentage.

So money allows you to do two things at once...

1. accurately communicate what your most pressing concerns are
2. give positive feedback to the people who are using society's limited resources to alleviate your concerns

 

[obvious Child]

1. accurately communicate what your most pressing concerns are
2. give positive feedback to the people who are using society's limited resources to alleviate your concerns

This is a retarded argument. You just argued that money are Facebook likes.

 

[Captain Adverse]

This is a retarded argument. You just argued that money are Facebook likes.

Not only that, it completely explains how to handle all the costs of doing business...overhead, supplies, payroll, profits so you can buy other people's stuff. Totally brilliant! (NOT!!!) :roll:

 

[obvious Child]

Not only that, it completely explains how to handle all the costs of doing business...overhead, supplies, payroll, profits so you can buy other people's stuff. Totally brilliant! (NOT!!!) :roll:

Can I pay for my insurance with Facebook likes?

Why does every thread the OP makes turn out so incredibly foolish?

 

[Menard_K]

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.

Utopia! groovie stuff, but how do we get from here to there?
also have you ever read anything by Edward Bellamy?

Note also, that even in the earliest tribal societies TRADE was practiced,
tribes with an abundance of food traded with other tribes for animal hides & tools.
Right now, the MONEY system is suffering not because of a basic flaw in MONEY,
but the manipulation of the system by a few corrupt to the bone bankers & lawyers
who have allowed GREED to overtake their minds &
indeed posses them as if a demon had taken hold.

 

[Fisher]

Can I pay for my insurance with Facebook likes?

Why does every thread the OP makes turn out so incredibly foolish?

Well on the plus side, this thread has pretty much brought the entire political spectrum of DP together in a collective :doh

Group Hug :2grouphug:2usflag::good_job:

 

[Xerographica]

This is a retarded argument. You just argued that money are Facebook likes.

Facebook likes and money are similar in the sense that they both communicate preferences. However, the difference is that money allows you to effectively communicate the intensity of your preferences. This is because you exchanged your life for your money. You sacrificed your limited time on this planet for your money. You gave up valuable time with your friends and family for your money. In economic terms, earning your money had significant opportunity costs.

Because you paid dearly for your money, there's significant meaning when you spend it. Your willingness to pay (WTP) conveys your preferences far more accurately than your willingness to like (WTL) does. This is why shopping is far more important than voting when it comes to determining what people's real priorities are. As a result, we would immensely benefit as a society if taxpayers could shop for themselves in the public sector.