Comment on Open thread, Mar. 14 - Mar. 20, 2016

Mon, 14 Mar 2016 18:31:25 GMT

In the current system people produce goods for their subsistence.

Nope, that would be true in a subsistence economy. You don't want to live in one :-/

In the current system people produce goods to be exchanged for money which money will be used to buy other goods.

Maybe if you'd give subsistence to everyone (basic income for example) and let people produce in exchange for "more", the system would still be viable.

And do you have reasons to believe that would be so -- besides "maybe"?

It would increase the happiness of the persons concerned

Well, until their toilet clogged and stayed clogged because most plumbers became painters and the rest just went fishing. And until they got sick and found out that the line to see one of the few doctors left is a couple of months. And until the buses stopped running because being a bus mechanic is not such a great job and there are not enough guys who are willing to do it just for fun...

one could perfectly argue that since people not doing anything are harmful to the rest of the society (technically they are taking money from the productive part) so they should be forced to be productive.

Of course. See e.g. the Soviet Union or Mao's China: being unemployed was a crime. If you can't find a job, the state has a nice labour camp all ready for you.

I would be fine with giving unproductive persons incentives so they become productive

In money or bullets?

Discuss