The possibilities for obtaining limited items, not produced by the technocracy, would be somewhere between gift economy and mutual credit; all it would take to obtain a fur coat is to know someone who enjoys making fur. If you intend to drink, you might want to befriend the guy who's known for an exceptionally good home brew or distillery.
That sounds very much like a step back in terms of efficient production.
How would you prevent, or, if not taking active steps to prevent it, why wouldn't you expect a capitalist economy to re-emerge? The guy who makes fur coats and also happens to like to drink isn't necessarily going to wait until he has a friend who both likes fur and runs a micro-brewery.
Instead, he will productionise his enterprise so as to make many fur coats efficiently. Acquire machinery, recruit employees, publish the availability of his furs, etc.
You don't seem to be grasping this- there is no money.
Money will emerge spontaneously, as it had on countless occasions in the past. Prisoner of war camps didn't have money, so cigarettes played the role. In every economy, one can find a commodity (actual or virtual) which is relatively-widely-desired. In some cases, it can serve as money directly (gold, cigarettes). In other cases, "warehouse receipts" for that commodity can serve as a more convenient alternative (tobacco in some of the early colonies).
What does a business do, fire them and replace them?
Yes. In time, irresponsible people are weeded out. In addition, business pays up for unpleasant, highly-skilled, dangerous or otherwise unattractive jobs. That way, virtually every position can be filled if it is sufficiently in demand.
Take away wages, and you'll see many people volunteering to play with puppies, many fewer volunteering to exterminate termites.
People don't want to "talk to a machine" (I prefer it, tbh), but it doesn't mean call centers couldn't and shouldn't be automated.
So even though people are willing to pay more for the privilege of talking to a live person, you will deny them (and corporate runners of call centres) the right to set up such centres because your opinions are somehow superior?
Throughout you writing and, presumably in a much greater dose, in your technocracy, I detect the desire to substitute the judgement of the elite to that of individuals in their capacity as either consumers or workers. Is that fair?
It doesn't mean self-driving forklifts couldn't increase productivity
And the reason we don't have self-driving forklifts is that despite their potential to increase productivity, the private sector cannot afford to develop them?
That's a non-sequitor; I could give two shits about the variety if healthy food is increasingly unaffordable. Congrats, you've produced three ways to kill people with diabetes and nutrient-deficiencies instead of one, capitalism must be so proud of itself.
Actually, I gave the examples of chopped onions and ready-mixed salads, developments that tend to encourage people to consume healthier food.
And again, you are intent on substituting your judgement and preference to that of consumers.
You might not value variety, but other people obviously do.
The cause is you, it's austrians and austerians and libertarians of all stripes bitching and moaning about debt w/ out understanding what sovereign currency is, who demand everyone believes the market is always right even when it's not. I already explained the cause, it's economy of scale- low scale means the cost of producing a line of MagLev rail is high, so there's less demand; less demand means there's less profit, meaning they can't increase their economy of scale. Only the government can increase the scale of production, as it's the only one who can provide enough capital to bring down the cost of production.
Not every government is the size of the US. Some private sector conglomerates have as much access to investment capital as medium (not to mention small) governments, and with it the ability to fund and create economies of scale.
Intel, for example, sells chips to the entire world. It lacks nothing in scale, and neither do the major auto-makers.
The huge efficiency advantage of the market (which isn't always right, but is right more often than any other decision-making system) is that it is intrinsically geared towards only engaging in profitable projects, that is projects for which the value of the outputs is greater than the value of the inputs - value-creating projects.
Government, on the other hand, isn't subject to any such constraint. Consequently, government is just as likely to build "bridges to nowhere" and engage in other projects which, whether knowingly or out of ignorance, are actually value-destroying.
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.
Yeah, that's why vegetables are more and more expensive and our crops have increasing amounts of carcinogens, right?
- By Robert Urbanek
- By noemon
- By litwin