Poll A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

[Jayson1]

Between having a global market and Automation doesn't it make sense that no matter what system you use you got to have some kind of guarnteed living wage for everyone, even if they don't have a job? Seems to me no matter what system you use their simply not going to be enough jobs to go around for everyone.

Jason

 

[ll StarTrekFan ll]

Between having a global market and Automation doesn't it make sense that no matter what system you use you got to have some kind of guarnteed living wage for everyone, even if they don't have a job? Seems to me no matter what system you use their simply not going to be enough jobs to go around for everyone.

Jason

@Jayson1

You make a very sensible point based on our current system. With something along the lines I'm promoting, there would be nothing holding people back from creating far more intellectual work as well (in fact, it would incentivize it). The solid points you made are partly motivating drivers toward why a fundamental shift in the way we view work needs to occur.

 

[Relayer1]

There's been a thread about the inevitability of UBI and the end of capitalism.

Can't come quickly enough IMHO.

 

[Mudd]

There's no such thing as "objective value" where human beings are concerned. It's a self-contradicting phrase.

"Let's find a way to make people not want what they want, and instead want what we think they should want" has never been a good or workable plan for very long.

 

[ll StarTrekFan ll]

There's no such thing as "objective value" where human beings are concerned. It's a self-contradicting phrase.

"Let's find a way to make people not want what they want, and instead want what we think they should want" has never been a good or workable plan for very long.

Our society is based around Science & Tech--people have already decided that they value this (in a tangible sense). Currently, people are accepting all of the "toys" without any of the responsibility.

What is so interesting about our modern society is that if it were objectively looked at from an outside perspective, it would appear as though the average human is much more knowledgeable/intelligent/reasonable then we actually are. Really, we are all piggy-backing off of an extreme minority of people and most of those "piggy-backing" are not even cognizant of this dynamic (i.e. they never even think about it, they basically think it is magic and take it for granted-- Since most people don't recognize what goes into making a society such as ours function and do not understand who is responsible for all of the "toys" and how it was achieved, they naturally look elsewhere for "importance"/"value". However, I 100% guarantee you if the 1 million top technical researchers/developers/ect. were removed from Earth today, reality would hit the rest of humanity in the face hard as sh't real quick (it wouldn't even take the top 1 million, it is much more like the top 100,000 or so--or less) and would be forced to recognize how incredibly fragile our system is since people are trained that it is okay for them to have the worldview of any other Mammal while simultaneously basing society around technology that fundamentally requires a much higher level of knowledge/intelligence to operate/maintain properly/continue progressing.

 

[Gov Kodos]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Qonundrum]

Our society is based around Science & Tech--people have already decided that they value this (in a tangible sense). Currently, people are accepting all of the "toys" without any of the responsibility.

Like people who take numerous personal holiday trips to Europe every year via plane and then bitch about wasting fuel/global warming/etc. I personally know enough people who do just that. Though how many is too many may be a separate issue or who's to judge ore so on and everyone does have a valid point in the fray...

What is so interesting about our modern society is that if it were objectively looked at from an outside perspective, it would appear as though the average human is much more knowledgeable/intelligent/reasonable then we actually are. Really, we are all piggy-backing off of an extreme minority of people and most of those "piggy-backing" are not even cognizant of this dynamic (i.e. they never even think about it, they basically think it is magic and take it for granted--

You are not obligated to answer, but who are the minority? Assuming you think I think I might know what you know and even then is it as simple as that when even Presidents claim nobody has built anything alone.

Since most people don't recognize what goes into making a society such as ours function and do not understand who is responsible for all of the "toys" and how it was achieved,

What are the perceived "toys"? Again, no need to respond, there is no obligation nor is there any default inference either way (people like to do that...)

they naturally look elsewhere for "importance"/"value". However, I 100% guarantee you if the 1 million top technical researchers/developers/ect. were removed from Earth today, reality would hit the rest of humanity in the face hard as sh't real quick (it wouldn't even take the top 1 million, it is much more like the top 100,000 or so--or less) and would be forced to recognize how incredibly fragile our system is since people are trained that it is okay for them to have the worldview of any other Mammal while simultaneously basing society around technology that fundamentally requires a much higher level of knowledge/intelligence to operate/maintain properly/continue progressing.

Ah but wouldn't enough people below the 1 million mark be able to compensate somehow or are each of them having an IQ lower than 80?! It is also possible that some of the < 1 mil mark may have even taught those at the top 1m level? (or even peers who later excel)

Disclaimer: I too can be guilty of doing glib generalizations... I believe I understand (perhaps and hopefully sufficiently, most of) your points and can't exactly disagree with the big ones either. Especially as some professions, especially farming, just aren't economically feasible, the world largely ditched an agronomic system several decades ago due to reasons including those that people who might respond not not remember or consider. In other words, going backwards isn't a viable solution. It's probably improbable.

 

[Qonundrum]

There's been a thread about the inevitability of UBI and the end of capitalism.

Can't come quickly enough IMHO.

You didn't mention what the system that may or may not be ending may or may not be replaced with. There seem to be numerous scenarios, which are you wanting?

You are not obligated to respond, nor is anyone obligated to form a preemptive conclusion by lack of any response - but such disclaimers seem to be redundant to mention.

 

[Relayer1]

You didn't mention what the system that may or may not be ending may or may not be replaced with. There seem to be numerous scenarios, which are you wanting?

You are not obligated to respond, nor is anyone obligated to form a preemptive conclusion by lack of any response - but such disclaimers seem to be redundant to mention.

The discussion was regarding the loss of many, maybe most jobs in the future due to automisation.

Initially, savings in labour costs will boost profits, but as more and more jobs are lost, disposable income will fall and demand drop. If this continues, money will cease to circulate and the economy crash, bankrupting businesses.

What work remains would have to be shared out with vastly reduced hours still attracting a full salary (unlikely to be popular with businesses) OR a universal basic income must be given to everyone, paid for by taxation on business.

Either way, capitalism as we know it is done. We are heading for a post scarcity post work future and supply and demand won't work.

 

[BillJ]

Either way, capitalism as we know it is done. We are heading for a post scarcity post work future and supply and demand won't work.

And in the greatest traditions of humanity, we will figure it out about a century too late. See: climate change.

 

[Mudd]

Our society is based around Science & Tech--people have already decided that they value this

Now you're assuming the mantle of speaking authoritatively on behalf of an idea called "society."

This is never a good sign; that path rarely leads anywhere other than an attempt to enforce some kind of behavior on the unwilling.

 

[Spot261]

Now you're assuming the mantle of speaking authoritatively on behalf of an idea called "society."

This is never a good sign; that path rarely leads anywhere other than an attempt to enforce some kind of behavior on the unwilling.

Agreed, it isn't a good sign, but the statement has some objective validity, it wasn't made in an unjustified vacuum. For better or worse our society is largely shaped (if not driven) by our use of technology and has been for a long time. This holds in all economic and political systems, all that varies is the message which that technology is used to communicate and whether those systems can continue to operate in the formats we recognise. I suspect not, much of the way our world has operated has become altered by the very media which purpotes to reflect it.

Take as a (admittedly tired) example the extent to which Western politics have become so polarised, so partisan. It's hard to make the case that this isn't affected by social media and the tendency to reduce the sophistication of political debate. Policy is discussed in terms of tribalism on a global scale, with nuanced analysis replaced by confrontation and slogans hurled ad infinitum across an internet immersive in a way older communication models could not touch.

I'm never going to make the case in favour of mindless acceptance of all new technology as progess, as a "good thing", but @ll StarTrekFan ll s' statement here seems pretty realistic. Whether we should cheer or fear its' implications is a different matter.

 

[Mudd]

I'm never going to make the case in favour of mindless acceptance of all new technology as progess, as a "good thing", but @ll StarTrekFan ll s' statement here seems pretty realistic. Whether we should cheer or fear its' implications is a different matter.

How human beings respond to conditions and events are what matters.

Attempts to "incentivize" behavior because people are responding in ways that someone has decided are not good just about always involve coercion on some level. Communities continue to struggle to agree on to what extent, according to what standards and by what means people ought to be sanctioned for wrong behavior and problematic choices and rewarded for "good" choices - and on what authority. That is one of the essential ongoing negotiations and balancing processes required in order for people to live together in large numbers.

Every so often, too often, some people decide that they've found the "objectively correct" resolution of the problem, according to some set of values or principles that they've decided are proven. Then we're all supposed to kneel before Zod.

As the philosopher said, "Fuck that noise."

 

[Spot261]

How human beings respond to conditions and events are what matters.

Attempts to "incentivize" behavior because people are responding in ways that someone has decided are not good just about always involve coercion on some level. Communities continue to struggle to agree on to what extent, according to what standards and by what means people ought to be sanctioned for wrong behavior and problematic choices and rewarded for "good" choices - and on what authority. That is one of the essential ongoing negotiations and balancing processes required in order for people to live together in large numbers.

Every so often, too often, some people decide that they've found the "objectively correct" resolution of the problem, according to some set of values or principles that they've decided are proven. Then we're all supposed to kneel before Zod.

As the philosopher said, "Fuck that noise."

Of course there's no objectively correct solution to the worlds' problems, in the rare event that any policy or philosophy truly works per se in any given instance it is almost never replicable. I hardly make a secret of my socialism but even there I would happily concede the point that those beliefs don't exist in a vacuum, they exist in the context of my own society, my own upbringing, the community I inhabit and my place in it. That you personally lean more to the so called "right" (I detest the obvious oversimplification of structuring our worldviews according to an artificial and arbitrary binary model) is equally a product of context.

In many ways I would concede that in some ways the US as it stands has more valid reason to rely on a free market system than the UK does. Our existing economic structures and circumstances are far less correlated than many would have us believe and the tendency to reduce these things to winning tribal victories commonly bypasses the purpose of having a debate in the first instance

However my point above was much more specific, that our societies collectively do demonstratably tend to embrace technology as the way forward is hard to disregard. The merits or lack thereof inherent to that statement are completely separate and I do believe we are in many ways harming ourselves with shortsightedness, limiting the role humanity has to play within it's own future.

 

[UncleRogi]

However my point above was much more specific, that our societies collectively do demonstratably tend to embrace technology as the way forward is hard to disregard. The merits or lack thereof inherent to that statement are completely separate and I do believe we are in many ways harming ourselves with shortsightedness, limiting the role humanity has to play within it's own future.

It would seem to me that THIS was the whole point of Star Trek in the first place. We are gonna have
one shit-storm of a time before we ever get off this planet. How are we going to deal with radically
different alien ideals when we can't even agree on our own? It seems greed rules the Western world,
if not all of it, and that's just not an enduring or even mature position...

A "free market" promotes elitism, and that doesn't seem conducive to survival. The best "free
market" is one in which all and everyone is free. And there we have Star Trek.

One can only hope we make it that far...but it looks grim.

 

[Amaris]

It would seem to me that THIS was the whole point of Star Trek in the first place. We are gonna have
one shit-storm of a time before we ever get off this planet. How are we going to deal with radically
different alien ideals when we can't even agree on our own? It seems greed rules the Western world,
if not all of it, and that's just not an enduring or even mature position...

A "free market" promotes elitism, and that doesn't seem conducive to survival. The best "free
market" is one in which all and everyone is free. And there we have Star Trek.

One can only hope we make it that far...but it looks grim.

I do wish we'd all reach a "oh man, we're all in this together, aren't we?!" moment of realization, but it seems ever elusive.

 

[MacLeod]

Agreed, it isn't a good sign, but the statement has some objective validity, it wasn't made in an unjustified vacuum. For better or worse our society is largely shaped (if not driven) by our use of technology and has been for a long time.

True we have been shaped by technology for millenia.

 

[BillJ]

I am very much an amateur when it comes to history and economics. Though, what I seem to find is that it isn't the "system" that is so much the problem but that people eventually figure out how to manipulate it and get wealth and power into the hands of fewer and fewer individuals. Leaving behind the vast majority of the populace.

 

[rahullak]

At the heart of this discussion, what I see, is the values societies place on the different labor/job/work classifications. It has never been clear that these values are in any way rigid or static. In ancient India, there used to be the four classes: Kshatriya (warrior), Brahmana (priestly), Vaishya (businessmen) and Shudras (workers). As it was originally conceived, these were not meant to be strictly birth-based and there was no ordering of their relative worth. They were all equal and not birth-based. Each individual according to his desires and ability ought to choose one or the other. (That system got corrupted, became birth-based, became about hierarchy and India is struggling with the caste system - another discussion altogether). My point being that now, these classes are outmoded, there are many and varied forms of labor today and the values on forms of work are not static.

The values placed by nation states today are largely government incentivized. I would say that it is very much needed and a completely free market would be so rudderless as to completely derail economies and nations because there are far more ways in which things can go wrong, and very few ways in which luck or chance may get things right (right as in ensure survival and good living for everyone).

What @ll StarTrekFan ll is suggesting, already exists in our nations. The people choose their governments for the most part. Governments, ideally, work to steady and grow the economy. It does not grow by incentivizing only entertainment and not public works. Obviously today large part of the budgets are military and socio-economic, law and order etc. These incentives are artificially imposed by governments, yes, but not in a vacuum. At least today, most governments work off of data which shows the problems that exist and have to work out the solutions. The priority, at least in the developing world, is always going to be poverty-alleviation and welfare. Entertainment exists as it always has, and there will be a small part of the budget allocated there as well. At the same time, most democratic governments realize that artificially restricting innovation or culture is not that great...the USA has shown what wonders innovations can bring to the world, especially in technology. Indian culture still thrives today largely similar as it has for the past many millennia. Yet there are changes and the transition causes clashes. Still democratic governments would prefer not to regulate culture.

Today, we talk of automation - that would radically alter the jobs landscape in the coming decades. As a scenario, it is not inconceivable that all of the values placed on work which absolutely needs to be carried out may in fact be fully automated. Then the values we attach to other activities such as entertainment, arts, science, sport etc. would then be different.

 

[fonzob1]

A "Free Market" System is Not Sensible

Society does not necessarily always value rational things, and others are able to profit tremendously off of the stupidity/ignorance/ect. of the masses that support it. Examples of this are Musicians, actors, athletes, celebrities ect. ect. that in a rational society, are definitely not necessarily more deserving than an Engineer for instance (as our modern world is based on Science and Tech, not Rap/Justin Beiber-type Pop music, Kim Kardashian's , ect. ect).

Consider, a huge portion of the nation's wealth is being put into sectors of society that serve no real productive purpose/lack in value while areas of high value such as intellectual pursuits are dramatically underfunded and discouraged (in many respects). This is due to society at large sharing the same collective delusions and valuing trivial bullsh't over serious, productive endeavors. This will always incentivize and produce a non-rational society unless structures are fundamentally challenged/altered.

Lets take Professional athletes as the first example:

NBA- Out of 456 players in the league in 2017-18, 120 make $10,000,000 or more for one years worth of work and 389 make more than $1,000,000. The minimum salary for a 1st year player is over $800,000 per year. Links here:

A. http://www.espn.com/nba/salaries//page/1

B. http://www.cbafaq.com/minimums.htm

NFL- Minimum salary for 1st year players is over $450,000 per year. 656 players make at least $1,000,000 per year or more. Links here:

A. www.spotrac.com/blog/nfl-minimum-salaries-for-2017/

B. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/salary.htm

MLB- 112 players make $10,000,000 or more per year. Out of 251 players total, 240 make $1,000,000 or more per year

Actors and musicians that "make it" get huge salaries and the ones that don't get salaries on par with other "common" jobs.

Now, contrast that to absolutely necessary fields such as Science & Maths, Engineering, Architecture, Construction Work, Waste Management, Medical Doctors, Teachers, Repairs, Farming, Electricians, Labor Intensive work, ect. ect. and fields that, although not necessary, should be prioritized/held in high esteem in a non-superficial, deep, passionate, engaged society (i.e. rational) such as Literature, History, Philosophy, Art, ect. ect.

Consider the process of becoming a Scientist (which, depending on the subject matter, is perhaps the chief field pushing innovation forward that makes all of our lives orders of magnitude more comfortable than our ancestors could have ever dreamed of--as well as revealing deep truths about the nature of our existence and the universe). One must first pay large sums of money to attend a school for 4-5 years, then proceed to further schooling for another 5-7 years (while attempting to live off of a stipend of $15,000-$25,000 or so per year--i.e.very poor), then must find a post-doc position for another 3-7 years or so which is typically only $20,000-$35,000 a year, by which time a person has been nearly dirt poor for a 15 years or more and then, finally, may find a research/professorship position (however there is absolutely no guarantee since the funding is so low due to the irrationality I have discussed--thus competition is fierce) or they very well may end up empty handed (no Science research job and/or professorship) even after that approaching two decade long process. Here are some of the fundamental questions involved:

Why in the Hell do we treat some of the greatest minds amongst us doing work that is absolutely imperative so poorly? Why do we treat others doing necessary work (e.g. Construction Workers, sewer management, ect.) so poorly? Why are we putting people who do not contribute anything to the productivity of society and/or our expanding knowledge about ourselves/the Universe up on a pedestal (e.g. Katy Perry, Kardashians, Pro Athletes, ect. ect.)?


Do you see any problems with this, or do you believe that the Market is the best determining agent in matters such as this?

History repeats itself. Socialism is a far less productive economic system and often fails.