An Economic Thought Experiment.

[fandango]

Most people would probably cringe at the thought of an economy where everything was free. So how about this. Whenever you go to a store to buy anything, the store pays you to take it! Or what if as a private person, you wanted to sell a car. If you can't afford to pay them to take the car, they can't have it. Just as if under regular circumstances they didn't have the money to pay for the car, they couldn't have it.

For all the money you receive from buying things, you put it into a bank. At the end of the year the government takes all the money that you and the banks possess. Then they assign a fiat value on all of it. After that, they send the money back out to all the private persons and stores that "sell" things. (Or factories that make things) Then the whole cycle can start all over again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Most people would probably cringe at the thought of an economy where everything was free. So how about this. Whenever you go to a store to buy anything, the store pays you to take it! Or what if as a private person, you wanted to sell a car. If you can't afford to pay them to take the car, they can't have it. Just as if under regular circumstances they didn't have the money to pay for the car, they couldn't have it.

For all the money you receive from buying things, you put it into a bank. At the end of the year the government takes all the money that you and the banks possess. Then they assign a fiat value on all of it. After that, they send the money back out to all the private persons and stores that "sell" things. (Or factories that make things) Then the whole cycle can start all over again.

Read this three times, no idea what you're talking about

 

[fandango]

Most people would probably cringe at the thought of an economy where everything was free. So how about this. Whenever you go to a store to buy anything, the store pays you to take it! Or what if as a private person, you wanted to sell a car. If you can't afford to pay them to take the car, they can't have it. Just as if under regular circumstances they didn't have the money to pay for the car, they couldn't have it.

For all the money you receive from buying things, you put it into a bank. At the end of the year the government takes all the money that you and the banks possess. Then they assign a fiat value on all of it. After that, they send the money back out to all the private persons and stores that "sell" things. (Or factories that make things) Then the whole cycle can start all over again.

Read this three times, no idea what you're talking about

Then I guess for you the experiment failed. But try this on for size. Capitalism is a disease. Most people would be against people receiving things for free. The reason I hear the most is that it would remove the "profit motive." (Whip) So what could an alternative to free everything be.

 

[pinqy]

Most people would probably cringe at the thought of an economy where everything was free. So how about this. Whenever you go to a store to buy anything, the store pays you to take it! Or what if as a private person, you wanted to sell a car. If you can't afford to pay them to take the car, they can't have it. Just as if under regular circumstances they didn't have the money to pay for the car, they couldn't have it.

For all the money you receive from buying things, you put it into a bank. At the end of the year the government takes all the money that you and the banks possess. Then they assign a fiat value on all of it. After that, they send the money back out to all the private persons and stores that "sell" things. (Or factories that make things) Then the whole cycle can start all over again.

The seller receives no benefit, only a loss, in your scenario. You don't see how that might be a problem?

 

[fandango]

Most people would probably cringe at the thought of an economy where everything was free. So how about this. Whenever you go to a store to buy anything, the store pays you to take it! Or what if as a private person, you wanted to sell a car. If you can't afford to pay them to take the car, they can't have it. Just as if under regular circumstances they didn't have the money to pay for the car, they couldn't have it.

For all the money you receive from buying things, you put it into a bank. At the end of the year the government takes all the money that you and the banks possess. Then they assign a fiat value on all of it. After that, they send the money back out to all the private persons and stores that "sell" things. (Or factories that make things) Then the whole cycle can start all over again.

The seller receives no benefit, only a loss, in your scenario. You don't see how that might be a problem?

But the buyer would receive a benefit. And if the seller needed some extra cash, all he would have to do is go out and "buy" something. There is the benefit. Or incentive. Also, there is someplace out in the Pacific. Maybe it is New Guinea. Or some island out there. For the people there, the way they show wealth is in how much they can give away. If the other person can't give back at least just as much, then his status is lower.

 

[pinqy]

Most people would probably cringe at the thought of an economy where everything was free. So how about this. Whenever you go to a store to buy anything, the store pays you to take it! Or what if as a private person, you wanted to sell a car. If you can't afford to pay them to take the car, they can't have it. Just as if under regular circumstances they didn't have the money to pay for the car, they couldn't have it.

For all the money you receive from buying things, you put it into a bank. At the end of the year the government takes all the money that you and the banks possess. Then they assign a fiat value on all of it. After that, they send the money back out to all the private persons and stores that "sell" things. (Or factories that make things) Then the whole cycle can start all over again.

The seller receives no benefit, only a loss, in your scenario. You don't see how that might be a problem?

But the buyer would receive a benefit..

For any transaction, both parties have to benefit or what’s the point? Why sell anything if you give away goods and cash and gain nothing?

As for your Pacific Island example, an exchange of gifts is just that: an exchange. And the more generous giver gains reputation and a feeling of superiority.

 

[fandango]

Most people would probably cringe at the thought of an economy where everything was free. So how about this. Whenever you go to a store to buy anything, the store pays you to take it! Or what if as a private person, you wanted to sell a car. If you can't afford to pay them to take the car, they can't have it. Just as if under regular circumstances they didn't have the money to pay for the car, they couldn't have it.

For all the money you receive from buying things, you put it into a bank. At the end of the year the government takes all the money that you and the banks possess. Then they assign a fiat value on all of it. After that, they send the money back out to all the private persons and stores that "sell" things. (Or factories that make things) Then the whole cycle can start all over again.

The seller receives no benefit, only a loss, in your scenario. You don't see how that might be a problem?

But the buyer would receive a benefit..

For any transaction, both parties have to benefit or what’s the point? Why sell anything if you give away goods and cash and gain nothing?

As for your Pacific Island example, an exchange of gifts is just that: an exchange. And the more generous giver gains reputation and a feeling of superiority.

The benefit for the seller is that he would receive the same kind of treatment in any transaction he was involved in. And where he would "gain." And gain something.

As for the pacific island thing, I have to admit that I don't remember all that much about it. It may even have been a form of warfare. But in the end, the point was status. Though it may not be so in many cases. That is the whole point of wealth. Status. Even if it isn't intended, that is what it turns out to be.

 

[percysunshine]

Most people would probably cringe at the thought of an economy where everything was free. So how about this. Whenever you go to a store to buy anything, the store pays you to take it! Or what if as a private person, you wanted to sell a car. If you can't afford to pay them to take the car, they can't have it. Just as if under regular circumstances they didn't have the money to pay for the car, they couldn't have it.

For all the money you receive from buying things, you put it into a bank. At the end of the year the government takes all the money that you and the banks possess. Then they assign a fiat value on all of it. After that, they send the money back out to all the private persons and stores that "sell" things. (Or factories that make things) Then the whole cycle can start all over again.

"Whenever you go to a store to buy anything, the store pays you to take it! "

Sit down and contemplate this fact....there is no such thing as Santa Claus.

I know...when you were a child, your parents lied to you and invented the tooth fairy and Santa Claus...but ...it was not true.

Deal with it, and grow up.

 

[fandango]

Most people would probably cringe at the thought of an economy where everything was free. So how about this. Whenever you go to a store to buy anything, the store pays you to take it! Or what if as a private person, you wanted to sell a car. If you can't afford to pay them to take the car, they can't have it. Just as if under regular circumstances they didn't have the money to pay for the car, they couldn't have it.

For all the money you receive from buying things, you put it into a bank. At the end of the year the government takes all the money that you and the banks possess. Then they assign a fiat value on all of it. After that, they send the money back out to all the private persons and stores that "sell" things. (Or factories that make things) Then the whole cycle can start all over again.

"Whenever you go to a store to buy anything, the store pays you to take it! "

Sit down and contemplate this fact....there is no such thing as Santa Claus.

I know...when you were a child, your parents lied to you and invented the tooth fairy and Santa Claus...but ...it was not true.

Deal with it, and grow up.

You failed the thought experiment.

 

[pinqy]

Most people would probably cringe at the thought of an economy where everything was free. So how about this. Whenever you go to a store to buy anything, the store pays you to take it! Or what if as a private person, you wanted to sell a car. If you can't afford to pay them to take the car, they can't have it. Just as if under regular circumstances they didn't have the money to pay for the car, they couldn't have it.

For all the money you receive from buying things, you put it into a bank. At the end of the year the government takes all the money that you and the banks possess. Then they assign a fiat value on all of it. After that, they send the money back out to all the private persons and stores that "sell" things. (Or factories that make things) Then the whole cycle can start all over again.

The seller receives no benefit, only a loss, in your scenario. You don't see how that might be a problem?

But the buyer would receive a benefit..

For any transaction, both parties have to benefit or what’s the point? Why sell anything if you give away goods and cash and gain nothing?

As for your Pacific Island example, an exchange of gifts is just that: an exchange. And the more generous giver gains reputation and a feeling of superiority.

The benefit for the seller is that he would receive the same kind of treatment in any transaction he was involved in.

But under your system, anyone can do that even if they don’t give anything away. For any particular transaction, one person gains goods/services, and the other loses goods/labor.

In addition, money actually plays no role in your scenario: it serves no purpose and has no use or value.

Really, you are describing an indirect barter economy, or an odd variant of pure communism.

 

[fandango]

Most people would probably cringe at the thought of an economy where everything was free. So how about this. Whenever you go to a store to buy anything, the store pays you to take it! Or what if as a private person, you wanted to sell a car. If you can't afford to pay them to take the car, they can't have it. Just as if under regular circumstances they didn't have the money to pay for the car, they couldn't have it.

For all the money you receive from buying things, you put it into a bank. At the end of the year the government takes all the money that you and the banks possess. Then they assign a fiat value on all of it. After that, they send the money back out to all the private persons and stores that "sell" things. (Or factories that make things) Then the whole cycle can start all over again.

The seller receives no benefit, only a loss, in your scenario. You don't see how that might be a problem?

But the buyer would receive a benefit..

For any transaction, both parties have to benefit or what’s the point? Why sell anything if you give away goods and cash and gain nothing?

As for your Pacific Island example, an exchange of gifts is just that: an exchange. And the more generous giver gains reputation and a feeling of superiority.

The benefit for the seller is that he would receive the same kind of treatment in any transaction he was involved in.

But under your system, anyone can do that even if they don’t give anything away. For any particular transaction, one person gains goods/services, and the other loses goods/labor.

In addition, money actually plays no role in your scenario: it serves no purpose and has no use or value.

Really, you are describing an indirect barter economy, or an odd variant of pure communism.

I'm not sure where you are picking up from. As with "anyone can do that." The only thing I remember talking about anybody "doing" is selling a car and giving the buyer money to take it. So in that point, you are going to have to be more clear.

Though I will say this. People do need a little incentive. And you couldn't have some hobo going into a jewelry store and be given a lot of money to get the most expensive watch that they have. Just as if everything were free, what anybody received would have to depend on a sort consumer index. Based on a person's value to society. So a doctor would be able to get things of a greater value than a hobo.

Next, money does play a role in this scenario. And it does serve a purpose. In what somebody would receive for "buying" some item. Or service. That is its use and its value.

Next, it is a direct barter economy. Not in what they are willing to spend, but in what they are willing to receive. Also, ever see the movie THX1138? There was one part of the movie where a computer program told THX "Buy more. Buy more now." Under our capitalist consumerism driven economy, anybody who makes any product would probably love it for consumers to buy as many of those products as possible.

And the same applies for many services. Take car repair. It isn't unknown for mechanics to go down the highway and tell somebody driving an RV that they have some problem with it. When there is no problem. And direct them to the shop where they can get it repaired. I also had a friend who had a friend who worked as a mechanic at SEARS. Apparently he was told by his bosses that whenever he fixed anything to loosen something else up. So they would eventually have to come back to get that thing repaired.

You also bring up communism. That would be something different. But I will say this about it. A long time ago I saw probably two different programs where they talked about how sparse items on shelves were in their grocery stores. Crowing about it showing the failure of communism. But maybe, just maybe, it wasn't due to there being a shortage of supply. Maybe it was because the average person was more able to afford whatever they had.

 

[pinqy]

I'm not sure where you are picking up from. As with "anyone can do that." The only thing I remember talking about anybody "doing" is selling a car and giving the buyer money to take it. So in that point, you are going to have to be more clear.

Ok. My point was that for every transaction between two people, both must benefit from the transaction or there is no reason for the transaction to take place. Your rebuttal was that the seller could also get what he wanted from others. But that ability is a function of the overall system and not a factor in any individual transaction. In any isolated transaction, the seller gives up his goods/services in exchange for nothing, while the buyer gets the goods for nothing.

Though I will say this. People do need a little incentive. And you couldn't have some hobo going into a jewelry store and be given a lot of money to get the most expensive watch that they have.

. Why not? What difference does it make to the store?

Just as if everything were free, what anybody received would have to depend on a sort consumer index. Based on a person's value to society. So a doctor would be able to get things of a greater value than a hobo.

That completely changes your scenario. Now you are talking about an agency regulating who is allowed what and how much.

Next, money does play a role in this scenario. And it does serve a purpose. In what somebody would receive for "buying" some item. Or service. That is its use and its value.

Take money out of the equation. A person gives just his goods and receives just goods. What is the difference? Your money is just pieces of paper added on to giving away goods. No one gains any benefit from having money.

Next, it is a direct barter economy. Not in what they are willing to spend, but in what they are willing to receive.

No, a direct barter is when in any individual transaction, the two parties explicitly exchange goods and services. That’s not your scenario.

Also, ever see the movie THX1138? There was one part of the movie where a computer program told THX "Buy more. Buy more now." Under our capitalist consumerism driven economy, anybody who makes any product would probably love it for consumers to buy as many of those products as possible.

And the same applies for many services. Take car repair. It isn't unknown for mechanics to go down the highway and tell somebody driving an RV that they have some problem with it. When there is no problem. And direct them to the shop where they can get it repaired. I also had a friend who had a friend who worked as a mechanic at SEARS. Apparently he was told by his bosses that whenever he fixed anything to loosen something else up. So they would eventually have to come back to get that thing repaired.

And how does that relate to our discussion?

You also bring up communism. That would be something different. But I will say this about it. A long time ago I saw probably two different programs where they talked about how sparse items on shelves were in their grocery stores. Crowing about it showing the failure of communism. But maybe, just maybe, it wasn't due to there being a shortage of supply. Maybe it was because the average person was more able to afford whatever they had.

Both, actually. The State controlled wages and production without much regard for actual supply and demand. Normally, increased demand will raise prices to the point of equilibrium. But with set prices, people had plenty of money to spend, leading to shortages.

 

[fandango]

I'm not sure where you are picking up from. As with "anyone can do that." The only thing I remember talking about anybody "doing" is selling a car and giving the buyer money to take it. So in that point, you are going to have to be more clear.

Ok. My point was that for every transaction between two people, both must benefit from the transaction or there is no reason for the transaction to take place. Your rebuttal was that the seller could also get what he wanted from others. But that ability is a function of the overall system and not a factor in any individual transaction. In any isolated transaction, the seller gives up his goods/services in exchange for nothing, while the buyer gets the goods for nothing.

Though I will say this. People do need a little incentive. And you couldn't have some hobo going into a jewelry store and be given a lot of money to get the most expensive watch that they have.

. Why not? What difference does it make to the store?

Just as if everything were free, what anybody received would have to depend on a sort consumer index. Based on a person's value to society. So a doctor would be able to get things of a greater value than a hobo.

That completely changes your scenario. Now you are talking about an agency regulating who is allowed what and how much.

Next, money does play a role in this scenario. And it does serve a purpose. In what somebody would receive for "buying" some item. Or service. That is its use and its value.

Take money out of the equation. A person gives just his goods and receives just goods. What is the difference? Your money is just pieces of paper added on to giving away goods. No one gains any benefit from having money.

Next, it is a direct barter economy. Not in what they are willing to spend, but in what they are willing to receive.

No, a direct barter is when in any individual transaction, the two parties explicitly exchange goods and services. That’s not your scenario.

Also, ever see the movie THX1138? There was one part of the movie where a computer program told THX "Buy more. Buy more now." Under our capitalist consumerism driven economy, anybody who makes any product would probably love it for consumers to buy as many of those products as possible.

And the same applies for many services. Take car repair. It isn't unknown for mechanics to go down the highway and tell somebody driving an RV that they have some problem with it. When there is no problem. And direct them to the shop where they can get it repaired. I also had a friend who had a friend who worked as a mechanic at SEARS. Apparently he was told by his bosses that whenever he fixed anything to loosen something else up. So they would eventually have to come back to get that thing repaired.

And how does that relate to our discussion?

You also bring up communism. That would be something different. But I will say this about it. A long time ago I saw probably two different programs where they talked about how sparse items on shelves were in their grocery stores. Crowing about it showing the failure of communism. But maybe, just maybe, it wasn't due to there being a shortage of supply. Maybe it was because the average person was more able to afford whatever they had.

Both, actually. The State controlled wages and production without much regard for actual supply and demand. Normally, increased demand will raise prices to the point of equilibrium. But with set prices, people had plenty of money to spend, leading to shortages.

First, your idea of a transaction stems from economics as you understand it. I am talking about a transaction under a different economic system as they would understand it. In that kind of system, the seller would receive a benefit in as far as getting rid of a car he no longer wants.

As for the hobo and the expensive watch, part of the reason would be supply. Another reason is that societies need doctors more than they need hobos. And being a doctor is harder to do than being a hobo is. As an incentive to want somebody to want to be a doctor, they should be given the finer things in live. Not hobos.

Next, it doesn't change the scenario. It is just a matter of degrees as to how it is played out. Also, there are many in our society who receive a LOT even though they don't produce anything tangible toward the human condition.

Next, as i said, most people would balk at the idea of any system where somebody receives something for nothing. In my system, people would not only receive free things but actually get paid to do so. That would be the incentive of basically doing the free thing. And change their perception of a society where everything was free.

Next, the barter between two parties would be based on giving. Not receiving.

Next, in our economy, consumerism is king. If people who make products to buy more of them, pay them to do so. As for the crooked mechanics, if they had to pay people to do a false repair, they probably wouldn't do it. They would have other means of receiving what they need.