The perfect economic system

Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 01:09 pm
What do you guys think the perfect economic system would look like?

Personally, I think the world should be the following:
1) consolidate into one global exchange (stock markets etc)
2) one global government,
3) one global set of constitutions, including legislation that governs every moving part in the economy.
4) globalized intelligence/skill/aptitude/potentiality tests that determine which jobs an individual would be best suited for. I.E usually you end up in a job that best suits your strengths, and place these individuals on a track plan to be the best at these things.
5) Limit maximum potential wealth so that more demanding jobs are higher paying, but not so much so that it exploits lower demanding jobs that are equally important to the sustenance of the global economy. For example, in mcdonalds, someone needs to make the burger. If you lose all your burger flippers, you're suddenly losing out on efficiency. In a competitive market, this leads to loss of revenue.

On a side note:

I also think that all drug addicts and homeless( those non working/ those mentally unstable people should be placed outside of the city and be rehabilitated to be reintegrated back into society. They will be provided with medical care, housing, food all at no cost. In exchange, they are required to do minimal hours of labour for sustenance of that community and are paid a low wage. Over time, the hope is that, the minimal labour resocializes them to want to work in areas they want. In terms of drug addicts, provide these individuals with gradual diminishing doses of w.e their poison be in exchange for labour. In that sense, the belief is that, this weens the body to be not dependent on it.

Convicts should be turned into a global workforce that does the shitty of the shitty jobs. That way they are earning their keep. In canada, the average prisoner costs the system about $100,000. They shouldn't be rewarded for going to jail. One prisoner is equivalent to hiring two employees in another field. Those convicts convicted of murder/rape/etc with intent, should be put into the hardest of labour jobs. Or just house all these people into one large cell and let them police themselves. Why should convicts go into prison skinny and come out jacked ? why should these people who've disregarded other people's rights be given rights? Humanity in this sense is a joke. The old adage an eye for an eye and the world is blind, is moot here. You rid the world of killers and rapists, and you'll likely have less people willing to do those things.

What do you guys think?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 5 • Views: 5,019 • Replies: 10
No top replies

Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 02:13 pm

Sounds like Communism to me. No thank you.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 02:32 pm
Where is the freedom of choice? I get tested and the govt tells me what type of work I'm suited for? Limit wealth? Why would you limit wealth? Does that mean you work harder and get the same things as someone who doesn't work as hard? I work in the enterprise storage field, should I make the same as someone who only does basic desktop support?
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2014 03:31 pm
I agree, sounds very much like communism/totalitarianism.
That has already been tried.
0 Replies
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2014 01:16 pm
1) freedom of choice is perception. You're already working in a field that compliments your strengths. So, what difference is it that you're tested and the government recommends fields that you'd be best suited for based on your aptitude and strengths. If you want to pursue something you're not strong at, do it as a hobby, not as a career.

2) By limiting wealth, I'm not referring to paying everyone equally. I'm referring to paying people equally with what they produce. For example, a manager should not make exponentially more than the front line workers. They have a mutual relationship. Likewise, a hedge fund manager should not be making billions of dollars when their performance is mediocre at best; usually that salary is a % of all the money managed and not necessarily based on the performance; its practically stealing other people's hard earned money.

3) I'm not saying that we have a society where people leech off the system. I'm saying we have one that works in harmony, where every person's being is important. Just like in the military, people dong the missions are just as important as those doing the planning. You can't win a war unless you have both.

4) If you're paying people based on their strengths and likes, chances are you're going to have people who are happy with what they do and will gladly do it for less. For example, hockey players, anyone who loves the sport would probably play it for less than they do. Its like why some CEO's take token salaries.

5) and no, you don't get compensated the same as someone doing a job that's easier. However, I'd make the argument that if you're doing something you love, you'd likely do it for less than something you don't love doing. Thats what I can say for myself. I'd do personal training for free or educate people on trading stocks because I like doing it. If someone wants to pay me, then so be it. As long as the exchange is mutually beneficial.

6) Most corporations can afford to pay their employees more. Like mcdonalds for example, yeah flipping burgers isn't hard, but the excess revenue they generate, where does it go? into the pockets of people who likely don't need the money anymore.

I'm not suggesting we do a communist system where everyone makes the same. I'm saying we work towards a system that doesn't have money/or at least compensates people equally based on their job, so that you don't have the owner of the business who is able to buy 3 houses and 1 person who is generating that business' revenue barely being able to afford 1.
Reply Wed 12 Mar, 2014 02:35 pm
1) Sorry it's not a perception. I started my adult life working in the Construction field. Based on your model, I would be stuck in that job because that's what the govt thought my strengths were. I'm in the start up IT storage field. 180 degree's from what I was doing before. A govt backed system would keep me locked into a job I no longer wanted to do. Sorry I prefer my freedom of choice of what I want to do. Govt already tells me what to do enough as it is.

2) People do not produce the same amount of work. Even in the same field, you can have someone who is a hard worker and produces a lot of material, and have someone right next to them that hardly produces anything at all. They might do what is required, where the other worker is producing more. Do they get paid the same?

Paychecks are and should be based on what you bring to the table as a skilled employee. Your assumption that money managers are "stealing money" is false. People give them their money so that they can invest it and make them more money. Once again it is paying them for a skill that not everyone has.

3) Sorry to tell you this, but the military doesn't work this way. You have the special operators who get special privileges that the regular military soldier doesn't get. Their skills are not the same, the missions they do are not the same. In fact the only thing that everyone gets that is the same, is a base pay. All E-5's with the same amount of time served get the same base pay. If you are aviation or special forces, you get additional pay based on the danger of your missions and the skills you bring to the table.

4) I disagree with this thought. I like my job, but I wouldn't take less to do it. In fact I'm almost ready for another raise. I work too many hours and take on too much stress to get paid less simply because I enjoy what I do. Yesterday was a good example, I worked a 5 hour call yesterday. Client had a major issue with their data, and I had to stay after work to help them. Since it ran so long, I had to call them back once I got home to finish helping them. It was a long call with a very stressed out client. This adds to my stress. Take a 6 hour long call with someone yelling at you for most it, and you wouldn't do the same work for less money either.

5) Good luck paying your bills with good will. Let me know when you work out an exchange system with the electric company.

6) Here's the problem with your owner/worker compensation. Did the worker start the company? Did the worker come up with the idea and spend hours and days away from their family to develop that idea into a workable business?

The answer to that question is no. No they didn't. Why should the person who came up with the idea and put all the hard work into THEIR business not be allowed to own 3 homes? If it wasn't for the business owner, that worker wouldn't have a job. The lions share should go to the owner, the worker only came along after the fact. They didn't spend the money, time or blood to create a company from scratch and make it successful.

No where in any of these responses, have you shown where the individual is responsible for their own advancement. It seems to me that you think no one is able to make it in the world because the man is looking to take them out. It seems like you want to dismantle the system, not improve it.
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2014 02:53 am
1) So you're saying in your current line of work, you aren't working in a job that compliments your strengths? No you wouldn't be stuck, because assessments don't limit you to 1 Specific job. It gives you a range of jobs that fit your personality, interests, and strengths. Freedom of choice within a spectrum of jobs that you'd be best fit for. Chances are your current job is complimenting strength of yours, otherwise you wouldn't be successful at it. And yes you can get better at things, but most people take the path of least resistance. If you're a shitty actor and you know it, chances are you're not going to pursue it or you'll pursue it only until you realize you won't get anywhere.

2) No they get ranged compensation. Just like piece rates etc.

3) I'm in the military. So I speak from experience. Not sure about you, but I've been in the military for going on 7 years now. People have different skill sets, but every role is vital and important to the mission. Special ops do a special task, but they also have support by the regular infantry. Without their support, they won't be successful. They aren't going to fly themselves into combat, they aren't going to provide their own security, they aren't going to conduct check points for operations. For example, in the canadian forces, when spec ops conduct missions, they require support from regular infantry units to provide security or training or resupp or w.e all are vital to the mission. So yeah the military does work that way. Every role is important. pay differs usually by danger and influence.

4) Okay, so if you could switch jobs would you? Any job in the world? You know the saying, work isnt work if you enjoy it. So is your job work? or would you rather do something else? For example, I like helping people in fitness and in learning about the financial markets. I do both those for free. Could I get paid to do it? yeah, but i choose not to.

5) no comment.

6) regardless of who started it, the business won't operate with either of them. Its a mutual dependence in the end, one can't survive without the other. I'm not saying that the owner should get the same compensation as their employee, of course they shouldnt. I'm saying there should be a set limit as to how much the owner can make at the expense of the employee. It limits exploitation. People should be working together to help each other, not stop on each others dicks to get ahead. Would the persons company still function if they had no employees?

Let me ask you this, because this will settle whether theres any point debating this, IF you had 1 billion in the bank, would you take that opportunity to at least make 500 of your employees millionaires? Because I would. I'd probably make most of them millionaires if I could afford to as long as I'm able to still survive and maintain a simple standard of living. i.e good food, nice place, simple car, etc.

Of course there's accountability, you need to put in effort to get something. I never once suggested people sit on their asses and collect welfare. I'm not saying anyone is keeping anyone down. I'm saying you'd have a lot less problems if everyone worked together.
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2014 09:26 am
1) Freedom of choice with limited selection isn't freedom of choice. No one should be stuck in a job field. If they want to change fields then they should have that ability without the govt limiting them.

2) So the whole of the US system of pay defaults to "piece work"? How would such a system work for most jobs? For my job do I get paid by the phone call? There are days when I take 1 call that lasts for hours and other days where I take 10 calls that are only 30 minutes long each. Would I get more pay for the 10 calls? The more calls I take the more money I get?

3) I was in the military as well. I served 13 months between Pakistan and Afghanistan back in 2005-2006 and I hardly ever saw Special Forces and regular infantry working together. SF troops are more then likely working with Rangers or Green Berets, but usually not regular infantry. You are right that every position is important but they also very different. What type of military pay is handed out due to influence?

4) Would I change jobs if I could? Depends on what is available for me to do. Would I work for free in any job I chose? More then likely not, I like to receive compensation for what I do. Now I have done side work in the computer world, and I change a very low amount because of the work. Helping someone fix their computer isn't that much of a challenge so I see no reason to charge huge sums of money for my skills on the side jobs. I save the high price work cost for companies and my job.

5) No comment? Why? Haven't figured out how to pay your bills while working for free? Why am I not surprised.

6) At the expense of the employee? What does that mean?

If I had 1 billion in the bank would I share with my employees? That is an interesting question. I don't know if I would or not, and that's an honest answer. It would depend on what type of work I did and what type of company I had. I don't think I would be handing out a million dollars to each person, I would base it on the importance of the person to the company. Some would get more then others but I'm not going to give it all away. Now if I had won the money, that would be a different story because I didn't earn that money, it was free. I would be more giving of free money than I would be with money I had earned. I'm selfish that way. Plus I have kids and I would want to make sure I had plenty for them as well. I have always been told that charity starts at home.

What do you do in the military, which branch are you in?
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2014 12:12 am
1)So you're suggesting that its okay for people to pursue jobs that they're shitty at even though it will likely be detrimental to them? The point I'm trying to make is that people should stay within the limits of the strengths and what they're good at. No one is good at EVERY job.

2) Its more based on productivity. However, I think that we should move to narrow jobs down to only those that promote the progression of society as a whole and not those that only serve to satisfy greed. We should also work towards being more efficient and less wasteful.

3) Lucky you! I didn't even get to go overseas. I did 3 years with the Canadian forces infantry 1RCR. They wanted me to sign another 3 to go overseas. We work with SF in training scenarios, other times we just assist with admin stuff for them i.e bitch work. Not sure what you're asking in your last question. You're paid based on your level of influence/importance of job. Clarification please.

4) Work isn't work if you enjoy what you're doing. For me, if all my basics were covered in terms of living conditions and what not, if I got to do what I loved to do, I'd take that in a heart beat. For example, if my entertainment, an food, and a reasonable living space was provided in exchange for doing a job I love, I'd take that in a heart beat. I'm sure you can think of a job that you'd do for free if your basics were covered.

5) I would just choose to have as little bills as possible. You might not be able to pay your bills by working for free, but you can certainly find a job you enjoy doing where work isn't really work that can pay your bills.

6) For me, I would share my wealth regardless of earned or not earned. In my opinion, once you reach a certain level of wealth, any dollar amount above that is just too greedy. I would provide for my kids as well, but they should understand that they can't rely on the money I've provided them and that their goal should be to earn a living as well. To me, anything above 5 million is excessive. People don't need a personal jet, a dozen lambos, and 10 mansions that you only live in once a year. That's too much. There are too many other people out there suffering (not to say that you just give them money, but more so, provide them with some form of training so they can be productive or so they can create new jobs). So if I had a 1 billion cash, I'd likely distribute wealth more or less equally because generally everyone has a role to play and are interdependent. In terms of saving for my kids, well, after I'm dead I don't really have any worries right? If they can't survive with the huge leg up I've given them, then they aren't earning what they have. I believe people need to generally earn what they have, but I also think everyone can prosper somewhat equally if we align our goals.

In our current society, I don't think its possible due to the stratification of everything from race to class. The way it works now, someone has to be the one making pennies in order for someone else to get rich off them.

What branch?

I served with the canadian forces Infantry 1st battalion Royal Canadian Regiment from 2007-2010. I was supposed to go over to afghanistan as part of an Afghan army training group. Now I'm serving part-time as a reservist while I'm completing my degree.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2014 03:12 pm
Sound Money; free choice; and individual responsibility.
0 Replies
One Eyed Mind
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2014 03:36 pm
I have an idea.

Let's stop applying meaning to objects that benefit us on a personal level and let's start applying meaning to objects that benefit us on a universal level.

There - life has been restored. Only a fool could turn an object into a value greater than ourselves.
0 Replies

Related Topics

Who or What is Responsible? - Discussion by Merry Andrew
Debt ceiling? - Question by Buffalo
More Proof that HPQ SUCKS! - Discussion by hawkeye10
The Legacy of the Reagan Revolution - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Let it crash - Discussion by FreeDuck
The Bush/Obunga Dark Age - Discussion by gungasnake
No real limits to growth - Discussion by gungasnake
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
Wage discrimination - Question by zewittykitty
  1. Forums
  2. » The perfect economic system
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/21/2021 at 02:46:26