Billionaire says Technology Will Kill White-Collar Jobs...

[_just me]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

You, sir, are a Marxist.

BUZZ WRONG.....!

There is no "from" and "to" in my system.
Socialism/Communism/Marxism whatever is take and give.
My system is ENTIRELY individual production based, and the only give and take is to each other in the form of good and services, not from some centralized entity a.k.a. government. The "credits" don't come from anyone but ones OWN production. That's capitalism. There are also no taxes.... that's the most pure capitalism.

You would have the government doling out "credits" to people. Do you not realize that some of each persons production or labor will be going to fund the credits given to the people not capable of producing? Do you not realize that the government will be using credits funded by the labor of others to fund the universal healthcare?

How is the military funded in your world? By credits....from the government that were produced by the labor of others. Just because you don't call it taxes doesn't mean that isn't what it is.

[_just me]

1. Do you even know how few people there are that "actually 'can't' do anything" very few compared to the amount of people out there not working, on welfare, etc.?
Take me for example.... Me, I couldn't get a real job given my health of late, but if it was required that I work, there are plenty of businesses that could easily use me for a couple hours a day according to the amount I'm able to physically work, such as a computer job, similar. Like I'm doing now. I can function enough to at least do things on the computer a lot through the day, so being a capable skilled person, businesses would be required to be more open and allow me to work as I'm able.

To be fair, I work directly with people who are not capable of any form of work on a daily basis. I am very familiar with the many, many people who cannot work and depend on the government to subsist. Yes, I do know that there are some receiving assistance who could do some form of work.

Take you, for example, you are obviously capable of some sort of work.. However, I certainly wouldn't want to be forced by the government to employ you.

What you're forgeting is that "credits" aren't taken from anyone to support someone who really can't work at all.
The "labor" of the entire society pays for his care, NOT "money" from the society, i.e. taking from the rich to pay for the poor.

How do you think money works? You are literally describing how money works. I give labor in exchange for money (or credits, if you will) and the government uses some of the money (credits) I created with my labor to assist the needy, fund military, etc.

The tiny labor the crop producer contributed to that persons care, the house builder, on and on. Labor and the goods produced is the real "spreading of wealth" without actually hurting anyone.
Under actual socialism or communism, wealth is "taken" from others, as if there is a "limited pie" rather then wealth created, thus it's entirely self destructive. There is a reason why Freedom and Capitalism is the only system in history that actually works the best at spreading the wealth around. No socialist/communist country EVER has been able to do as well as Capitalism and Freedom, and less government.

The system you imagine would require a massive government. In fact, it sounds like the government owns everything because they are the only one doling out your credits. Or, you might be imagining a system where everything is owned by the people. You are not describing capitalism at all.

2. The only reason it goes through the government is so it can all be tracked and centralized a.k.a. like the "Federation". They give the "legality" of the "Credit".

Again, you need a massive government to do what you describe. And your credit is still just another name for money.

It isn't really that much different from what's currently done. Businesses report their employment and earners and the government does it's junk.
That reminds me of something else.... there are no longer "taxes" personally or business wise. Everyone is producing in some form and since credit isn't "actual" money, there is no actual need for taxes.

Credits are actually money. The government will still be using the labor of the people to fund the military, hospitals, schools, first responders, government, roads, needy, etc, etc.

3. Yes.... but better. Me, like I mentioned above, I could still work to a degree as my health allowed, thus I would be a producer instead of a moocher.

So the government will force businesses to employ people they normally would not hire. That's not capitalism.

But the current business system and laws make it so even those in difficulty or health issues have to "compete", yet they can't compete. So, businesses would be required to be open to hire extra people as needed and as able. Like, say a call center were to open up more positions in order to provide work for those like me. They are busy, thus can open several positions up. This would cause me to work, as well reduce the load for others so they can also enjoy their job more, as well as improve themselves in other ways as they have interest, and/or contribute to improving the business, society, etc. Say for example it opened more time for a business to do more "service" in some form. Seriously, I see how all this works, every connection in my mind.

Again, this is not capitalism at all. Competition is the very essence of capitalism. The government would be directly affecting a businesses ability to make profit. Of course, that is probably not an issue since the government is the one gaining the profit, as they seem to own everything.

The system can be run in that aspect mostly by businesses themselves. A simple few laws put into place, and businesses simply hire and otherwise as normal, then they allow a certain amount of extra positions. Government and employment agency's can still work similar.... if someones in need of particular work, qualified in whatever ways, they find company's who can take that person, creating a position if necessary. In other words, there would not need to be much different with government itself, though some agency's would be eliminted because they are no longer needed.

No, the government would be involved in every aspect. A business couldn't hire unless they knew the government would provide credits to a new hire.

A movie couldn't be made unless the government said it was willing to provide credits to the people working on the film.

A new house couldn't be built unless the government approved the credits for the work.

Yes, people can retire..... Yes, like I've said, people will be paid in credits similar to how they currently are for the skill set, type of work, responsibility, etc. So yes, people can still get wealthy in the sense that if they want more, then they can get more. The only difference would be that everyone at the lower scale will have all their needs met because the credits they recieve will be according to what things cost credit wise. Basically, you'll have a type of "Bank Card" and according to your production you will get credits into the account. There will be a certain level that local governments designate according to what things cost, being similar to the welfare system and calculations, but it would be streamlined into a lump sum, so all a persons bills and basic needs would be paid. So, that's like the base level a business would pay in credits for those at the low end.

Your credits are the equivalent of money.

Yes, there can be stay at home parents, because the credit scale can be abjusted if one has children. And of course, if one has worked or is rich in credits, then of course they can stay home until their credits run out etc. Remember, the system works on "producing"..... if you are a producer then you get credits. Credits can buy businesses, etc. etc. Everything almost entirely works as it currently does, that way there is "insentive" still. When people don't have incentive, society's fail. There is no such thing as people being "self motivated" if they have nothing to push them. Some do sure..... but most people are in fact lazy and won't produce anything if they aren't required to work or do something that creates.

4. Yes, there are still things that can be improved with society, such as labor law. I think it's wrong for example for a person to get a Salary and then be forced to work 60-80 hour weeks, especially if it's a lower end Salary. I understand that a business has needs, but if your working more than 50 hours a week on a salary for more than 30 days in a year, then your pay should go up if you choose to keep doing it, or not be required to if you don't want to. Of course, under my system you can choose to work as much as you want if you want more credits. Like, say you make enough credits to live comfortable, but you want to eventually start a business, you can work more and make more credits. One thing that would be different in my system also with that is that if there is a business needed, such as a factory, another construction crew etc. in order to meet a particular demand for services and/or resources, then like "job boards" there can be "business boards" where people qualified can start a new business, and that would work with the Government or otherwise Employment Agency's similar to how jobs work, but needed new businesses would be added also, instead of it just being "Jobs" only.

5. Yes.... but remember.... "credits" don't actually "exist". Yes, production will produce credits, but similar to the Federal Reserve and the huge debt liberals have been creating in government, if more credits are needed, the government simply creates them. The difference between current and my system, the credits aren't actually "tied" to anything. People simply work at their level, that level is reported to the government, and the government issues the credits for that work/production level. There is no such thing as "dept" when it concerns the government, unless it's with other country's in which the government "barters" goods and services with. And there is no such thing as debt in relation to credits as well as personal debt unless someone is buying a business, etc.. Otherwise, all production and credits simply remain in the system. All people have to do is work, and according to their credit pay scale, that's what they get. So, there is no "finite" credits to pay people, etc. People just work, and then they are compensated. Even the homeless guy is required to work, which is a part of my other system of resolving the homeless and other ill's of society, which I won't get into here.

6. Like I said above, there are no "taxes"..... again, there no "take" and spread the wealth. The government simply issues credits according to ones pay scale. Period.
There is no "taxing" businesses, no taxing the rich, etc. because there is no longer "money" that's tied to "goods". Money, a.k.a. Credits becomes tied to "production". There is simply a set scale at every level similar to current pay scales, the government simply provides the credits.

No, the government is not "holding" credits.... It simply issues them. So, it's not "spreading the wealth" at all. Wealth is instead spread and created by individual labor and production. You are the master of your destiny. Nobody takes from you or gives to you, accept in relation to goods and services.

[/quote]

I'm too tired right now to point out the problems with all this.

[_ldsfaqs]

Like I said, the credits don't actually "exist".
Everyone is producing. The credits only exist to provide a contractual barter system between the people themselves for purchasing, to create insentive, progress, i.e. more production, such as businesses, inventions, etc. etc. just like now, no different, that's still capitalism, not socialism.

The current economy is still based on "something". Money is still based/backed by goods/services, etc.
In the past it was backed by Gold, many country's still have it that way.
The more debt liberals are creating etc. can still cause the economy to completely crash, Inflation, Recession, Depression, etc.
There is no "unlimited" money/credits in our current economy. It entirely functions on money. My system doesn't function on money, but on production.

My currency isn't based on anything. It doesn't actually exist.
It only exists so the people can barter between each other having no value other than "contractual", not substance based.
Everyones "substance" is provided for, and then people have greater substance according to their contribution to society.

Karl Marx's book was based on the old economy's and systems, not my system. Thus, it's not at all the same.
My system is still Capitalist in function, just not in foundation. "Currency" is completely different. I know it's a bit hard to understand, one has to completely change how they think about money. You need to resist the temptation to think it's socialism or otherwise. An element or two similar in "results" (i.e. everything provided and everyone working for the good) is not the same as being the same in actual function in how that's achieved.

[_just me]

If your currency is not based on anything and does not actually exist than how do people acquire for food?

[_Analytics]

Like I said, the credits don't actually "exist".
Everyone is producing. The credits only exist to provide a contractual barter system between the people themselves for purchasing, to create insentive, progress, i.e. more production, such as businesses, inventions, etc. etc. just like now, no different, that's still capitalism, not socialism.

The current economy is still based on "something". Money is still based/backed by goods/services, etc.

First of all, I want to give you some sincere credit on this thread--you posted links to two very interesting articles--the Forbes article and the "Star Trek Economy" article. They were both very interesting and well-worth talking about.

Having said that, let me ask you some questions to flesh out how these credits would work.

Say I had an idea and wanted to start a new business.

In the current system, I'd need to invest my own money for all of the start-up costs, and the money I was able to make would depend upon how well I produce goods and services that consumers want. In theory, this mechanism creates systems where an abundance of goods and services are produced, the things that are produced best meet the wants and needs of society, they are being produced as efficiently as possible, things are distributed fairly, and all of the prices are fair. Everyone gets compensated for what they produce--if your employer doesn't pay you what you are worth, change jobs to someone that will. In theory, if your time is worth $12 an hour then anybody would gladly hire you for $11.99.

In American capitalism, millions of people do business this way, and two key things result from it: first it determines what good and services are produced, and second it determines how much the goods and services cost.

That's how things would work in capitalism if I wanted to start a business. But how would it work in your Star Trek system? Perhaps the three most basic questions are these: First, who gets to decide what the companies will produce? Second, who gets to decide how many "credits" people receive for what they produce? Who gets to decide how many credits various goods and services cost?

[_The CCC]

Like I said, the credits don't actually "exist".
Everyone is producing. The credits only exist to provide a contractual barter system between the people themselves for purchasing, to create insentive, progress, i.e. more production, such as businesses, inventions, etc. etc. just like now, no different, that's still capitalism, not socialism.

The current economy is still based on "something". Money is still based/backed by goods/services, etc.

First of all, I want to give you some sincere credit on this thread--you posted links to two very interesting articles--the Forbes article and the "Star Trek Economy" article. They were both very interesting and well-worth talking about.

Having said that, let me ask you some questions to flesh out how these credits would work.

Say I had an idea and wanted to start a new business.

In the current system, I'd need to invest my own money for all of the start-up costs, and the money I was able to make would depend upon how well I produce goods and services that consumers want. In theory, this mechanism creates systems where an abundance of goods and services are produced, the things that are produced best meet the wants and needs of society, they are being produced as efficiently as possible, things are distributed fairly, and all of the prices are fair. Everyone gets compensated for what they produce--if your employer doesn't pay you what you are worth, change jobs to someone that will. In theory, if your time is worth $12 an hour then anybody would gladly hire you for $11.99.

In American capitalism, millions of people do business this way, and two key things result from it: first it determines what good and services are produced, and second it determines how much the goods and services cost.

That's how things would work in capitalism if I wanted to start a business. But how would it work in your Star Trek system? Perhaps the three most basic questions are these: First, who gets to decide what the companies will produce? Second, who gets to decide how many "credits" people receive for what they produce? Who gets to decide how many credits various goods and services cost?

If all things were equal then that might be an argument. But Markets are not Magic. They respond the customer bigotry as well as choice.

[_Analytics]

If all things were equal then that might be an argument. But Markets are not Magic. They respond the customer bigotry as well as choice.

Of course. By way of introduction, I'm a hard-core Marxist--I have a thick beard and everything. I'm just trying to lay out the theoretical benefits of Capitalism to see how well ldsfaq's Star Trek economy achieves the same benefits.

[_The CCC]

If all things were equal then that might be an argument. But Markets are not Magic. They respond the customer bigotry as well as choice.

Of course. By way of introduction, I'm a hard-core Marxist--I have a thick beard and everything. I'm just trying to lay out the theoretical benefits of Capitalism to see how well ldsfaq's Star Trek economy achieves the same benefits.

I've had a bushy mustache for more years than I like to count. Does that count?

I'm a Capitalist albeit a well regulated type of one. Build a better mouse trap and charge what I consider a reasonable price for one and I'll beat a path to your door.

The Star Trek analogy falls apart pretty quickly.
One is it is a dictatorship, albeit a semi-benevolent one in John Luke Pickard.
Two is that the star ship has unlimited energy to make things like food, clothing, and is already shelter for crew and their families. Plus they have the Holodecks and Synthale at the lounge for unlimited diversion.
Three is there a strict division of labor with very little overlap.

[_Analytics]

I've had a bushy mustache for more years than I like to count. Does that count?

I'm a Capitalist albeit a well regulated type of one. Build a better mouse trap and charge what I consider a reasonable price for one and I'll beat a path to your door.

The Star Trek analogy falls apart pretty quickly.
One is it is a dictatorship, albeit a semi-benevolent one in John Luke Pickard.
Two is that the star ship has unlimited energy to make things like food, clothing, and is already shelter for crew and their families. Plus they have the Holodecks and Synthale at the lounge for unlimited diversion.
Three is there a strict division of labor with very little overlap.

Anybody with Nietzsche-like facial hair is a comrade in my book!

You should read the blog entry about the Star Trek economy. For your reference:

https://medium.com/@RickWebb/the-econom ... .18utg61z6

It's written by one Rick Webb who is apparently a successful venture capitalist in his own right. Clearly, he's a smart guy. The point of the article is how might a post-scarcity economy work, or at least a proto-post-scarcity economy. The economy he's trying to infer isn't based upon the activities going on within a starship, but rather upon the civilian universe around it. Of course there isn't such an economy--the point is to infer what Roddenberry thought that universe was like based upon scattered clues in Stark Trek, and to fill in the gaps with something that would somehow work and meet those ideals.

The whole concept is more Utopian than Moore's Utopia because it assumes that everybody would act really noble with how they spend their time and energy when nobody has to work in order for everybody to have the basic necessities and comforts of life.

[_Analytics]

As an example of what ldsfaqs was trying to say, here is a brief quote from what Rick Webb said:

I believe the federation is a proto-post scarcity society evolved from democratic capitalism. It is, essentially, European socialist capitalism vastly expanded to the point where no one has to work unless they want to.

It is massively productive and efficient, allowing for the effective decoupling of labor and salary for the vast majority (but not all) of economic activity. The amount of welfare benefits available to all citizens is in excess of the needs of the citizens. Therefore, money is irrelevant to the lives of the citizenry, whether it exists or not. Resources are still accounted for and allocated in some manner, presumably by the amount of energy required to produce them (say Joules). And they are indeed credited to and debited from each citizen’s “account.” However, the average citizen doesn’t even notice it, though the government does, and again, it is not measured in currency units — definitely not Federation Credits. There is some level of scarcity — the Federation cannot manufacture a million starships, for example. This massive accounting is done by the Federation government in the background (witness the authority of the Federation President over planetary power supplies).

Because the welfare benefit is so large, and social pressure is so strong against conspicuous consumption, the average citizen never pays any attention to the amounts allocated to them, because it’s perpetually more than they need. But if they go crazy and try and purchase, say, 10 planets or 100 starships, the system simply says “no.”

Citizens have no financial need to work, as their benefits are more than enough to provide a comfortable life, and there is, clearly, universal health care and education. The Federation has clearly taken the plunge to the other side of people’s fears about European socialist capitalism: yes, some people might not work. So What? Good for them. We think most still will.

emphasis added