Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Companies need to obviously generate enough revenue to meet their costs.
New companies would be provided with enough capital to pay their employees until they became financially viable on their own.
I love that. Money would "just be provided." Just print it. Dollars would equal pesos. And for my basic product, I would have to inflate the price, just to cover the cost of an entry-level position. IOW, I would not have any entry level positions.
If everyone had a minimum income of $115,000 a year, then it would only raise the bar as everything would cost a lot more to purchase, at least 6-10 times more because things would cost more to make because of higher wages and a shorter work week. $115,000 a year would be the new poverty level.
LMAO. I think I'll take my chances stuffing my suitcase full of cash and making an escape to Mexico.
But this country would have to build some sort of wall or curtain, maybe a concrete or an iron curtain and heavily guarded to discourage that type of activity.
Surely the OP's system could only work in a fully communist society.
Communism is a hypothetical stage society will reach once it develops the technology to eliminate scarcity. Once you eliminate scarcity, you don't need money or property or government. Technology enables you to reach such an abundance that you no longer need goods and services to be rationed with money, people can take all they want. And automation is so advanced, all the jobs nobody wants to do are done by machines, so you don't need to pay people to work.
No society has ever achieved communism. We do not have the technology to achieve it. I advocate the use of money, prices, markets for goods and services and working for an income. So I do not advocate communism.
At first I thought it was a right winger trying to be sarcastic. However, after reading it, I saw that the OP was way too intelligent to be a right winger. I must say the shear volume of the thread gave me a good laugh this morning.
This has to get the medal for the most substantive post ever published on CD.
Thanks!
You should also go through some of the comments. There is a lot of comedy in this thread. The logic of the right wing and their unwavering confidence in subjects they know nothing about is pretty funny.
2 points by DemandTheGoodLifeDotCom(2534) 2 months ago Here is a link to a yahoo article which reports on the census press release explaining that 50% of Americans are living in poverty or close to it.
Democracy is a system of equal political power. But your political power depends on your income. And income is allocated based on the economic system. Capitalism maximizes income inequality. We have some people making 50,000 times more than others. So they have 50,000 times more political power. Therefore a capitalist society can never be democratic.
In order to have democracy, a society where power rests with everyone equally, income must rest with everyone equally. But income is also used as an incentive to get people to do difficult work and give their maximum effort.
So the only way to have a society that is democratic and the only way to also have an economy that works well, is to have a system where differences in income are limited by law to just what is necessary to get people to do difficult work and to get people to give their maximum effort.
This is all explained in detail in the post I linked to. I do want communism. You also want communism. Everyone wants communism. Communism is a society where all jobs are automated so work is completely voluntary. And our productive capacity is so great, we no longer need to ration goods and services. So everything is free. Unfortunately, we do not have the technology yet to achieve communism.
Show evidence that the cost the central banks incur is greater than the amount we pay in interest. The claim is absurd.
I didn't suggest that it was. I was making a remark about this idea of yours:
Quote:
The central bank's mandate will be to provide enough investment money to launch or expand enough businesses to fully employ everyone who wants to work. If the natural savings rate is not enough, they would levy a tax on gross sales in order to make up the difference.
If a central bank can't generate enough capital from their monopoly of an investment market, then they'll take it from the people anyways via taxes? Yeah that sounds real efficient.
If a banker doesn't know how to manage their spreads, then they have no business running a teller window, much less a central bank.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dollars would equal pesos. And for my basic product, I would have to inflate the price, just to cover the cost of an entry-level position. IOW, I would not have any entry level positions.
