Reply
Tue 9 Oct, 2007 05:53 pm
We have common interest to better the world, correct? Capitalists, Communists, and Socialists should unite to become what I call Commonists. I'm here to convert all of the society. The APPS (Active Participation Pay Society) is a new society I propose to plant in the minds of everyone that will change the world from nation to nation. How does it go? Well, imagine money flowing in reverse to a society with a minor catch.
Examples:
You get paid to faithfully:
1) live in a particular apartment or house. (example: so if the rent is $1000 a month--instead that's what you'll get by the month)
2) own a particular automobile.
3) watch a particular program.
4) listen to a particular radio program.
5) use a particular business/company service or product. (example: if a box of crackers costs $2.99--instead that's what you'll get from the cashier. You get it now?)
6) wear particular hats, chothing, and shoes.
7) go to a particular school.
8) use utilities (like electric, gas, and water).
8) etc. else I cant think of right now.
EVERYTHING you would normally pay for in life pays you instead. The catch is this, you got to have a non-paying job (all jobs will be non-paying in this kind of society) which you pay to work for. You'd only be required be an active consumer and to pay-as-you-gain-along all that money you obtained to that employer you work for. In turn that employer would only use that money so their product/service can pay its consumers.
^^^Would that kind of reverse society work better than how this current capitalist society works? How do you think the economy would be in this kind of society?
In this I think companies/businesses would try to employ more so they can have more offered for growing consumers. That's a good thing, correct? There would be no more poor class since everyone is a consumer. And I think there would be no more need for credit cards any further. More ppl would have the means to put together a company or business plan and build that company or business, and get paid doing so.
Some ppl would think to say: Wouldn't ppl then only work at one kind of easy job? I dont think so. Money wouldnt flow if there were, say, too many DQs around because there wouldnt be that many DQ consumers to where it be an open season to where ppl could only then work for an easy job such as DQ. As easy jobs get filled, by less educated ppl, to the max capacity they would be taken off the average job seeker's list of a job to work for of course. Therefore job seekers would know they would have to be able to branch out into a well enough array of fields inorder to find that non-paying job they are more than likely qualified for by their educational/training background.
In this kind of society those that cant land a job, who dont wish to start a business/company, would have to pay for education. And if they wise it would be an education that would benefit them into the future. Let me make something clear... To avoid paying for, say, higher education one would somehow have to get themself what they can such as a low-skilled job to work until they finish their higher education to then get a job in the field they like that they are qualified for.
And understand those who get fired in this kind of society wouldnt be under the APPS until they get hired again.
^^^And the money saved over before APPS hit the society is what they'd have to live off of while being unemployed. Plus, if they got a pretty good friend under APPS they'd be doing o.k. in living from their help.
More from the mind that will change the world
The incentive to do a good job is still there because you could still get fired. Then you'd be out of the APPS.
I tell you, the companies by demand would create good products. Plus, the governmental laws in place to protect consumers would still be there. You know, so no one gets lead poisoned or killed by a product. The money a company pays out depends on how many employees that are active consumers they have so money can be obtained from them. Folks wouldn't have any business getting everything they could but if they did that would make it be more created jobs to meet the demands of the consumers. But to be wise about it... Every company should set up a pre-order system that ties into their consumers somehow. Imagine pre-ordering something at a store and maybe putting a down payment on it by the internet or by phone or in person... This way ppl would know ahead of time what all they'll be able to get with competing consumers to keep in mind. If the company wants more loyal consumers they would TRY to put each consumer first over an over wanted quanity from, say, one particular consumers. And consumers would know this and respect it we can only think. So companies would just work to balance out their pre-orders to meet the desires of more than just one single consumer.
One problem, which could be a big one that you haven't thought of is what if nobody wants to work if they don't get paid?
For example, as pertains to your Example #5, if you go to buy a box of crackers for $2.99 so that you could make $2.99 and eat crackers that day, you might instead buy a 100 boxes of crackers so that you could make $299 per day, plus eat crackers all day and all night, and then you get no sleep, and by the way what if there are not enough crackers on the shelf for everyone to buy them in the quantities desired? Nobody will be making crackers while everyone will be trying to buy them, what then? To answer my own question, you would probably have to set up a cracker council that would limit the boxes of crackers purchased by day, by week, by year, and this would all be pro-rated to the size of family, need, etc. The council would also have to look into how to increase the production of crackers without paying anyone to do it, which could be a huge bureaucratic problem. It could mean jail time for anyone refusing to do what the state told them to do? Hmmmm, don't tell your plan to Hillary, she might like it because it sounds like another great bureaucracy.
i like the idea of communists, socialists, and capitalists working together under a relatively unified system (or unified collection of systems,) rather than fighting an endless war of rhetoric, but i don't think it will happen anywhere along the lines you suggest.
rather than imagining a wholly new system, which is great for a lark (but i digress,) consider smaller changes to our current way of doing things that might appeal to all groups. no easy task, but if you can't do that, it's tough to see how you'd manage an even bigger change.
please explain the definition each group has for private property rights, and their theoretical basis for economic structuring of the means of production and show us how they dovetail in your fantasy?
because you have not done that with your example. and i ask it because of the things that the three politcal philosophies disagree upon, those are generally considered the most important.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace