NationStates Jolt Archive

How about a system where you go to for eight hours a day, you get your card stamped (or more technologically, your card swipped) and receive benefits equal to the intensity/skill of your work times the length that you worked for. The government than feeds/houses/clothes/entertains you based on the value of your work. If you don't work, you don't get a "work cedit" the government won't feed you, and eventually will start re-posesing your property. (obviously you could have sick days and such, and you'd get warnings to go to work before you starved to death) So everyone works, as well as getting everything they need. The benefits of this system are
a) (greater)equality b) you don't need to have been working for a (long) time before you can meet your own needs.

Naturally there would have to be a rather large, rigorous and honest corps of "quality and time moniters" (or a better name) who would judge the quality and intensity of work of every person. This would be a rather difficult job as these are somewhat difficult qualities to judge. Electronic surveilance is a possibility if it were considered ethical by the country in which this system were installed.

Basically, the credit system will supplant regular money. In doing this though, you won't make more or less money based on your area of work. So yes, there would be people wealthier than others (hopefully not too much so). The main benefits of this system as I see it are:
a) that people aren't rewarded based on their ability to do things that others can't, they are rewarded based on their ability to do what they can do well and productivly. Thus I beleive it would increase the total production of the country, as people are motivated to do what they can with vigor moreso than modern society
b) I would hope that this would minimize people who do not contribute very much to society (I'm not talking about beaureaucrats/managers/organizers, but owners/investors/realestateagents who (as I see it) basically just live off the work of other (not that I have a problem with the people who fill those roles in modern society, I just don't think its the best way to do things.

So idealy everyone will work as hard as they can at what they can and then turn over their entire produce to the state to be re-distributed.

This system has flaws. It makes the assumption that all types of work are of equal value to the country, and thus are rewarded equally. Two, it would be hard to install in a country, and the first few years would undoubtedly be inefficient and wasteful. Three, its sucsess depends largely on the integrity and the dependibility of the "quality and time moniters". If they are not looking entirly at what is best for the system people will undobtedly bribe the moniters to make it look as if they've been working harder and longer than they have.

However, since there is no money, people could only use their own possessions to bribe the cultural managers I propose that there would be a limit on how much material wealth a person could acquire.

By now you're probably asking: If there's all this productivity and only limited posessions to a person, what becomes of all the rest of the wealth produced? The answer is 1) Public works, like parks, libraries etc. that everyone can enjoy 2) Improving public sysytems like education and health care that my country (Canada) has so much trouble maintaining.

Obviously, education would count as work, so those fit to be doctors/computper designers/artists/etc would still be working and being fed while they're in medical school/tech school/art school/etc. They would simply study instead of farming or producing goods etc.


What do ya'll think. Any sugesstions can be added to the theory. LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION!

Hmm. Theoretically interesting, but all but impossible to implement, and in the area of rights, liberties, and theft of property/produce, it isn't any better or less problematic than any other socialistic or communistic system. It's at least something of an improvement in the justice, productivity, and motivation department, though. Overall, I'd say the philosophical root is still just as flawed and wrong as the most radical communism, but it's certainly a much more functionally realistic system, even if it isn't realistic with regards to original initiation/implementation.

Hmm. Theoretically interesting, but all but impossible to implement, and in the area of rights, liberties, and theft of property/produce, it isn't any better or less problematic than any other socialistic or communistic system. It's at least something of an improvement in the justice, productivity, and motivation department, though. Overall, I'd say the philosophical root is still just as flawed and wrong as the most radical communism, but it's certainly a much more functionally realistic system, even if it isn't realistic with regards to original initiation/implementation.
Well tahnk you. I spent a whole five minutes developing and writing it

Excuse me for reading your post, evaluating its contents, and writing out a brief analysis. And here I was thinking that was the way people liked their serious threads to be responded to.

It'd be great if we were all robots.


But there is something about having everyone sucking at the teat of mother government that really turns me off.

I have questions.

How does one measure how well someone is at doing a particular job? Surely any measurement would be purely subjective and open to alternative scrutiny?

Secondly, if ones production were to be measured by a central authority that would then distribute your earned resources, how could any individual be able or even hope to properly appeal this central authority's decision when that authority is making a subjective analysis of your work from a position of monopolised power?

The biggest problem I have is that you would need to close it off. (Be a closed economy) because the highly educated people i.e professionalists(doctors) could simply move off to get a higher pay at another country. You could have a massive brain drain. So you would still need to award people with higher levels of training with better pay to keep them in your country unless you isolate them or brainwash them.

You would need to tweak it beacause people will not always see it form your point of view i.e why should I get the same pay as a garbo and i went to college for 6 yrs studying my ass off? stuff the country i'm looking after myself.

However i agree about cutting out the middle men who don't contribute to national GDP such as real estate people but keeping out investors that would mean corporate domination by the government and that would be very difficult to keep productive as you wouldn't have any competitors so you could make whatever you wanted and the people would have to purchase it as their is no other alternative.

How about a system where you go to for eight hours a day, you get your card stamped (or more technologically, your card swipped) and receive benefits equal to the intensity/skill of your work times the length that you worked for. The government than feeds/houses/clothes/entertains you based on the value of your work. If you don't work, you don't get a "work cedit" the government won't feed you, and eventually will start re-posesing your property. (obviously you could have sick days and such, and you'd get warnings to go to work before you starved to death) So everyone works, as well as getting everything they need. The benefits of this system are
a) (greater)equality b) you don't need to have been working for a (long) time before you can meet your own needs.

Naturally there would have to be a rather large, rigorous and honest corps of "quality and time moniters" (or a better name) who would judge the quality and intensity of work of every person. This would be a rather difficult job as these are somewhat difficult qualities to judge. Electronic surveilance is a possibility if it were considered ethical by the country in which this system were installed.

Basically, the credit system will supplant regular money. In doing this though, you won't make more or less money based on your area of work. So yes, there would be people wealthier than others (hopefully not too much so). The main benefits of this system as I see it are:
a) that people aren't rewarded based on their ability to do things that others can't, they are rewarded based on their ability to do what they can do well and productivly. Thus I beleive it would increase the total production of the country, as people are motivated to do what they can with vigor moreso than modern society
b) I would hope that this would minimize people who do not contribute very much to society (I'm not talking about beaureaucrats/managers/organizers, but owners/investors/realestateagents who (as I see it) basically just live off the work of other (not that I have a problem with the people who fill those roles in modern society, I just don't think its the best way to do things.

So idealy everyone will work as hard as they can at what they can and then turn over their entire produce to the state to be re-distributed.

This system has flaws. It makes the assumption that all types of work are of equal value to the country, and thus are rewarded equally. Two, it would be hard to install in a country, and the first few years would undoubtedly be inefficient and wasteful. Three, its sucsess depends largely on the integrity and the dependibility of the "quality and time moniters". If they are not looking entirly at what is best for the system people will undobtedly bribe the moniters to make it look as if they've been working harder and longer than they have.

However, since there is no money, people could only use their own possessions to bribe the cultural managers I propose that there would be a limit on how much material wealth a person could acquire.

By now you're probably asking: If there's all this productivity and only limited posessions to a person, what becomes of all the rest of the wealth produced? The answer is 1) Public works, like parks, libraries etc. that everyone can enjoy 2) Improving public sysytems like education and health care that my country (Canada) has so much trouble maintaining.

Obviously, education would count as work, so those fit to be doctors/computper designers/artists/etc would still be working and being fed while they're in medical school/tech school/art school/etc. They would simply study instead of farming or producing goods etc.


What do ya'll think. Any sugesstions can be added to the theory. LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION!
So basically, we hand over all companies to the government and they run it basically the same way (except for some beurocracy).

You know the reason some realestate agents and brokers are so wealthy is because they provide a service. A service that the common man is either unwiling or unable to do for themself. I can not think of a single wealthy broker that dose not work for a living and put a full 40 hour work week in an office or in there car, not to mention the time spent off the clock reaserching for deals. So rethink your veiw on the realestate agents and brokers before you call the worthless and al the do is ride on the back of society coatails.

By the wall the major benifit to socialism is also it biggest down fall. If everyone is equal than there is no need for a man to bust his hump for social progression.

Haha, I actually had this almost idea before (a mix of Socialism and pseudo-Capitalism, everything in credit, etc.), only that more strenuous jobs be allotted shorter hours (whatever is deemed appropriate by the government and advisors, that the price of essentials (food, healthcare, basic clothing, etc.) would be highly regulated, and that people could also pursue their own capitalistic ventures if they wish (say they invent some fantastic product for example) but their businesses would be highly regulated and taxed as well (to prevent any mistreatment of workers or illegal business practices occur). Basically my idea was to allow people to be ambitious if they wish, but also make sure that every working citizen is provided with what they need to live a full, happy life.

But I like your interpretation of socialism as well, it seems very balanced overall save the work hour flaw you already mentioned.

(EDIT - oh, except I'm not so sure about awarding it strongly on how well the person is able to perform at the job, just so long as they do well enough...)

Excuse me for reading your post, evaluating its contents, and writing out a brief analysis. And here I was thinking that was the way people liked their serious threads to be responded to.
No I was serious. Thanks. (tahts the prob with the internet, you never know if people are being sarcastic r what) but ya thanks

You know the reason some realestate agents and brokers are so wealthy is because they provide a service. A service that the common man is either unwiling or unable to do for themself. I can not think of a single wealthy broker that dose not work for a living and put a full 40 hour work week in an office or in there car, not to mention the time spent off the clock reaserching for deals. So rethink your veiw on the realestate agents and brokers before you call the worthless and al the do is ride on the back of society coatails.
.
I didn't say that brokers and real estate agents don't work hard; because I know they do. I was jsut saying that they contribute very little to society in terms of production. In a society where you have a house thats just like all the other houses real estate agents have no purpose and so can be used to produce things to the benefit of society.

So basically, we hand over all companies to the government and they run it basically the same way (except for some beurocracy).
Yes, except that being born with a better brain or opportunities (that you had no role in bringing about) won't mean that you have a significantly better life than the rest of the population

Socialism ignores one very important factor......HUMAN NATURE!

No I was serious. Thanks. (tahts the prob with the internet, you never know if people are being sarcastic r what) but ya thanks

[embarassed] Oops. Sorry.

Yes, except that being born with a better brain or opportunities (that you had no role in bringing about) won't mean that you have a significantly better life than the rest of the population

But the by-chance nature of being intelligent aside, intelligent people tend to also be the most useful, independent, and productive. Therefore, they would in fact be punished under a socialistic system, and would in any case lack the motivation and liberty of self-advancement that allows and drives such people to produce the value other people live off of.

At the current time, laborers, moochers, etc. are supported by the producers just as much as under a communistic system - producers are producers, and the value comes from them. The difference is that a communistic system steals the value from the producers and prevents them from gaining something in return for that greater value production, whereas capitalism allows them to distribute the value they produce willingly through the economic system and to their own benefit as well.