Merging Altruist and Capitalist Economics

[Pozessed]

 

I agree that giving away cash is easily exploited. People treat "found" money differently than earned money, and I think that would influence this type of program.

 

What's the spirit of this new program, to circulate capital or to take care of basic needs?

 

Any fund that comes from private sources is going to have plenty of caveats attached to it. I'm struggling to envision the Koch Brothers donating to a $6T program that gives their money away to just anybody. I'm sure they'd put provisions in where anyone who gets money from the Kochs has to use Angel Soft toilet paper.

 

I can't say how this program would be funded. I imagine if this program were put in place there would be provisions but I am not able to speculate what those provisions would be.

 

I assume the spirit of this program would be to spread capital by funding some of many peoples basic needs.

[Skeptic134]

Yes, many jobs are done solely because people require money and are unable to find better jobs elsewhere for whatever reason. However, you do yourself a disservice if you fail to acknowledge that a great many people also do their jobs solely because they love it or take enormous pride in what they produce or the service they offer... Many of these people would quite contentedly work for free.

 

Following your logic, we'd be forced to assume that rich people never work, and yet they do. The world is not as monolithic as you seem to assume, and it's important when thinking in terms of motivation to recall that money is not the only motivator. You are right that we inherently need motivation, but passion and psychological fulfillment and a desire to give back to the world around us (for example) can be powerful motivators, too.

 

There are definitely people that enjoy what they do or feel pride in what they do, no question. I’m not sure how many would do it for free though, volunteers exist but people also need to pay bills. I love being an engineer, solving problems and feeling like what I do matters but I’m not going to do it for free, I might take less pay (don’t tell my boss) but I have bills too

 

My initial post might have been too vague, I’ll clarify. I don't think money is the sole motivation of why people work, but I feel it is definitely one of the motivations and for some people and certain jobs the largest or possibly the sole motivation.

 

Some people are self motivators no doubt but I do feel that money is a big motivator for a lot of people especially in a consumerist culture.

[Pozessed]

60 dollar daily not a big deal

People would have less(no) need to work/produce as well, so less will get produced and prices would go up very hard, towards a point where 60 dollar daily realy isn't a big deal, i 'd estimate this point to be around 50% devaluation.

 

I don't like the concept of giving away cash to everyone. I think it's already been shown that the OP is far too costly.

 

Can we continue discussion based on the title of the thread (if not, I can start a different thread)? That's what really attracted me in the first place. How do we merge a society that needs a healthy economy with one where basic needs are met for everybody?

 

Can we start with the premise that anyone living here should expect minimum subsistence with regard to food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare? Eliminating hunger and homelessness should be Job One for any country calling themselves both altruistic and a first world nation. I define minimum subsistence as being able to survive without spending any money (which seems reasonable if this program is aimed at poor people). To be fair, such a system would need to apply to Charles Koch as well should he go bankrupt and need America's help to keep from sleeping in the streets.

 

This discussion can be taken whichever direction you and the community would like to direct it. I was simply curious of the economic outcome if an establishment like this were possibly in place.Considering it was completely hypothetical I didn't consider the costs or any demographic research.

 

I disagree.

 

I think we are creatures that inherently need motivation and that there are many jobs that are done solely because people require the money to sustain their lives.

 

People are motivated by inherent wants not needs. People don't need to go to a grocery store and buy $300 worth of food per month on food when they could spend that $300 on a bow and arrows. That person would have food for a year instead of 1 month. They buy that food because they want to, not because they need to. I think the motivation for luxuries and personal goals will still be inherent.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Pozessed

[Phi for All]

People don't need to go to a grocery store and buy $300 worth of food per month on food when they could spend that $300 on a bow and arrows. That person would have food for a year instead of 1 month. They buy that food because they want to, not because they need to. I think the motivation for luxuries and personal goals will still be inherent.

 

I want food but need to stay out of prison to provide for my family. Hunting with a bow and arrow wouldn't get me a year's worth of food, it would get me a year in jail. I'd rather be around a bunch of people shopping for food than a bunch of people shooting arrows so they can eat.

 

Are you really serious about taking such a huge backward evolutionary step? Do you know how much time is involved in hunting/gathering? We're able to go to the store today because our ancestors discovered farming and animal husbandry fed a much greater number of people, and allowed the non-farmers to specialize in other areas.

[swansont]

 

People are motivated by inherent wants not needs. People don't need to go to a grocery store and buy $300 worth of food per month on food when they could spend that $300 on a bow and arrows. That person would have food for a year instead of 1 month.

 

What are you going to hunt in the middle of a city that will keep you in food for a year? (Other than Soylent Green on the hoof.)

[Pozessed]

 

I want food but need to stay out of prison to provide for my family. Hunting with a bow and arrow wouldn't get me a year's worth of food, it would get me a year in jail. I'd rather be around a bunch of people shopping for food than a bunch of people shooting arrows so they can eat.

 

Are you really serious about taking such a huge backward evolutionary step? Do you know how much time is involved in hunting/gathering? We're able to go to the store today because our ancestors discovered farming and animal husbandry fed a much greater number of people, and allowed the non-farmers to specialize in other areas.

 

 

 

What are you going to hunt in the middle of a city that will keep you in food for a year? (Other than Soylent Green on the hoof.)

You're both missing the point. The point is that there are cheaper means of obtaining sustenance than most urbanized individuals don't consider. The fact is, the way we choose to shelter, water, and feed ourselves in America are luxurious compared to what other people in impoverish nations have to do. Taking that into consideration it should be easy to realize that we don't have production in America because people want necessitates, it's because we want luxuries.

 

As long as there is a demand for trades or goods there will be a supplier wanting to make a profit. It will be up to that supplier to drive competitive wages that entice production for that supplier to generate profit. The desire to have more will always be at the heart of the American economy.

[swansont]

You're both missing the point. The point is that there are cheaper means of obtaining sustenance than most urbanized individuals don't consider.

 

"Buy a bow and arrow" is supposed to represent "there are cheaper means of sustenance" but does not represent hunting?

 

OK, what are these cheaper means? (assuming you don't simply mean "put up with being malnourished")

[Pozessed]

 

"Buy a bow and arrow" is supposed to represent "there are cheaper means of sustenance" but does not represent hunting?

 

OK, what are these cheaper means? (assuming you don't simply mean "put up with being malnourished")

 

I never said it does not represent hunting, I said you were missing the point and tried elaborating on why. Apparently you either disagree with my opinion or you still don't understand it.

 

A bow and arrow would do little good in an urbanized area for food, there are other means though.

 

Insects are a nutritional source of food that 80% of the worlds population eat. Beetles and grasshoppers are even stated to be more nutritional than beef.

There is also the idea of foraging plants in urban communaties such as flowers and weeds. I'm not sure how much sustenance they offer but coupled with insects, it could be a sustainable way of life in urban areas for people who wish to live that way.

[Skeptic134]

You're both missing the point. The point is that there are cheaper means of obtaining sustenance than most urbanized individuals don't consider. The fact is, the way we choose to shelter, water, and feed ourselves in America are luxurious compared to what other people in impoverish nations have to do. Taking that into consideration it should be easy to realize that we don't have production in America because people want necessitates, it's because we want luxuries.

 

 

I get your point about the subtle difference between wants and needs but I think your argument just turns things into semantics. After all, I don’t need to eat, I want too. I just need nutrients to enter my body and be metabolized. It would be much more efficient if I just used nutrient injections instead of relying on the messy process of food gathering, preparation, consumption, etc.

 

And as such I disagree with the idea that production in America is because of wanting luxuries as opposed to needing necessities. Some of it is wants but to say none of it is due to needs I believe is merely a semantics argument.

Insects are a nutritional source of food that 80% of the worlds population eat. Beetles and grasshoppers are even stated to be more nutritional than beef.

There is also the idea of foraging plants in urban communaties such as flowers and weeds. I'm not sure how much sustenance they offer but coupled with insects, it could be a sustainable way of life in urban areas for people who wish to live that way.

 

And this is why your argument isn't credible.

 

Because people are going to grocery stores instead of eating grasshoppers American production is due to wants and not needs....

[Ten oz]

I never said it does not represent hunting, I said you were missing the point and tried elaborating on why. Apparently you either disagree with my opinion or you still don't understand it.

 

A bow and arrow would do little good in an urbanized area for food, there are other means though.

 

Insects are a nutritional source of food that 80% of the worlds population eat. Beetles and grasshoppers are even stated to be more nutritional than beef.

There is also the idea of foraging plants in urban communaties such as flowers and weeds. I'm not sure how much sustenance they offer but coupled with insects, it could be a sustainable way of life in urban areas for people who wish to live that way.

Many aspects of human society could be changed. You started this thread asking about money, $60 made availible per day. Money itself as a system of managing trade is not necessary. Humans invented, learned, created, and thrived long before money became the standard. The existence of money, the implementation of a currency, was not a need.

Yes, we could eat grasshoppers and it would be more sustainable and possibly healthier than many of the things we choose to eat. I feel the idea of such moves this conversation significantly away from where it start. Giving people a little extra spending money and transforming the worlds agricultural industry are two very different things. I no longer understand your position or goal in the discussion. I had thought, from the OP, it was to improve the basic standard of living for people through altruism?

[Pozessed]

 

I get your point about the subtle difference between wants and needs but I think your argument just turns things into semantics. After all, I don’t need to eat, I want too. I just need nutrients to enter my body and be metabolized. It would be much more efficient if I just used nutrient injections instead of relying on the messy process of food gathering, preparation, consumption, etc.

 

And as such I disagree with the idea that production in America is because of wanting luxuries as opposed to needing necessities. Some of it is wants but to say none of it is due to needs I believe is merely a semantics argument.

 

And this is why your argument isn't credible.

 

Because people are going to grocery stores instead of eating grasshoppers American production is due to wants and not needs....

Your last comment should be "Americas population is productive due to luxurious needs not essential needs" and you'd have nailed my emphasis.

 

Why do you find my comment to have no credibility? Would you like sources that claim insects are more nutritious? Maybe sources that cite which urban plants are best for eating and the nutrional values they retain?

 

Considering I'm pointing out that Americans don't produce for monetary necessities as often as they produce for monetary luxuries, I think my arguments aren't only credible but relevent as well.

 

What are the semantics in my argument?

Many aspects of human society could be changed. You started this thread asking about money, $60 made availible per day. Money itself as a system of managing trade is not necessary. Humans invented, learned, created, and thrived long before money became the standard. The existence of money, the implementation of a currency, was not a need.

Yes, we could eat grasshoppers and it would be more sustainable and possibly healthier than many of the things we choose to eat. I feel the idea of such moves this conversation significantly away from where it start. Giving people a little extra spending money and transforming the worlds agricultural industry are two very different things. I no longer understand your position or goal in the discussion. I had thought, from the OP, it was to improve the basic standard of living for people through altruism?

I was using my ideas of agriculture to point out that Americans aren't motivated to produce for monetary necessities as often as they produce for monetary luxuries. Some people were arguing that if people were given $60 per day America would lose production value due to lack of motivation. I disagreed and my views on agriculture and hunting were used to explain myself.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Pozessed

[Skeptic134]

Your last comment should be "Americas population is productive due to luxurious needs not essential needs" and you'd have nailed my emphasis.

 

Why do you find my comment to have no credibility? Would you like sources that claim insects are more nutritious? Maybe sources that cite which urban plants are best for eating and the nutrional values they retain?

 

Considering I'm pointing out that Americans don't produce for monetary necessities as often as they produce for monetary luxuries, I think my arguments aren't only credible but relevent as well.

 

What are the semantics in my argument?

 

Your argument has turned into semantics because now you are trying to differentiate luxurious needs from essential needs. The definition of need already assumes essential, why are you adding the adjective?

 

The assertion that American production is due to wants and not needs because the citizens aren’t eating grasshoppers IMO isn’t a credible argument. But let’s examine it anyway.

 

I would be interested in citations regarding the nutrition and calories of a grasshopper, how many will an average person need to eat a day. Will humans truly be receiving the proper vitamins, proteins, etc from an insect diet? What will happen to any industry related to food, farming, restaurants, etc and thus the economy and production? Will this be entirely counter to the original intent of the thread?

 

You initially claimed that people “want” groceries as opposed to needing them, ok, people also will “want” to eat (insert insect) they won’t need too, because fundamentally we don’t “need” to eat, we just want too. It is an argument that just doesn’t get you anywhere.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Skeptic134

[Phi for All]

You're both missing the point. The point is that there are cheaper means of obtaining sustenance than most urbanized individuals don't consider. The fact is, the way we choose to shelter, water, and feed ourselves in America are luxurious compared to what other people in impoverish nations have to do. Taking that into consideration it should be easy to realize that we don't have production in America because people want necessitates, it's because we want luxuries.

As long as there is a demand for trades or goods there will be a supplier wanting to make a profit. It will be up to that supplier to drive competitive wages that entice production for that supplier to generate profit. The desire to have more will always be at the heart of the American economy.

 

I think you're letting your resentment of modern lifestyles lead you to some absurd conclusions.

 

I would also point out that what you're really attacking probably isn't the whole lifestyle, it's the emphasis on convenience. Convenience in the marketplace today means giving up the efficiency of healthier food for instant gratification, among other things. What you're suggesting is the opposite, to take up more of our time and lose all the efficiency of supermarkets for distributing nutrients to the populace.

 

Surely some sort of middle ground might be a better choice than choosing either extreme end?

[swansont]

 

I never said it does not represent hunting, I said you were missing the point and tried elaborating on why. Apparently you either disagree with my opinion or you still don't understand it.

 

A bow and arrow would do little good in an urbanized area for food, there are other means though.

 

Insects are a nutritional source of food that 80% of the worlds population eat. Beetles and grasshoppers are even stated to be more nutritional than beef.

There is also the idea of foraging plants in urban communaties such as flowers and weeds. I'm not sure how much sustenance they offer but coupled with insects, it could be a sustainable way of life in urban areas for people who wish to live that way.

 

I think you've mistaken future dystopia movies for documentaries. The issue here isn't that you have an opinion, it's that you're asserting this opinion as truth, and a haand-wavy one at that, with no support. You claim 80% of the world's population eat insects, with no citation. The one I found (which is cited in the Wikipedia article on entomophagy, but is still only a newspaper article) says insects are eaten by people in 80% of the countries in the world, which is not the same thing. Nor does that imply that insects are a main source of nutrition for any or all of them.

[Roamer]

We have stores because at some point in history people tried them out and liked them, that we're dependent on them now is a result of this, not a cause.

That said, we don't want food, we need it to maintain our bodies.

[iNow]

None of this really matters anyway. It's like an argument over the best color to paint on a wall.

 

The original idea was to give everyone basic minimum funding. A response was made that nobody would work without pay. A rebuttal was made and the point stipulated, but with the caveat that our current mode of existence is too convenient. This personal opinion was presented as fact and has dragged us away from the actual thread topic since people are arguing if grocery stores are inherently better than hunting, and if hunting with bow and arrow is inherently better than hunting in other ways. None of these things are objective or inherent, though. There are pluses and minuses with each, and where you land overall is subjective.

 

You may as well be arguing over the best paint color for walls. More people are clearly able to survive today because we have grouped our resources and advanced as groups instead of going it alone as individuals. Our health and lifespan and abilities have all expanded as a result.

 

The question in this thread now is whether or not a next logical step is to also provide basic minimum funding to all to people to further expand these benefits, and if so, what potential downstream issues might arise and how could they be mitigated.

[Pozessed]

None of this really matters anyway. It's like an argument over the best color to paint on a wall.

 

The original idea was to give everyone basic minimum funding. A response was made that nobody would work without pay. A rebuttal was made and the point stipulated, but with the caveat that our current mode of existence is too convenient. This personal opinion was presented as fact and has dragged us away from the actual thread topic since people are arguing if grocery stores are inherently better than hunting, and if hunting with bow and arrow is inherently better than hunting in other ways. None of these things are objective or inherent, though. There are pluses and minuses with each, and where you land overall is subjective.

 

You may as well be arguing over the best paint color for walls. More people are clearly able to survive today because we have grouped our resources and advanced as groups instead of going it alone as individuals. Our health and lifespan and abilities have all expanded as a result.

 

The question in this thread now is whether or not a next logical step is to also provide basic minimum funding to all to people to further expand these benefits, and if so, what potential downstream issues might arise and how could they be mitigated.

 

I totally agree. I am sorry my opinions were presented in such a naive fashion. I only wished to show the perspective that the majority of people in America live above their most basic of needs. Everything above the most limited amount of necesseties was being considered a luxury.

This seems obvious to me. I suspect that the majority of Americas economy is supported because of convenient and luxurious living as opposed to solely monetary gain.

I suspect that if money had no merit there would still be trade for products and services in some means. There will always be an economy in any society which has goods and services needed. The society defines what is of value and the worth. Or at least I suspect they do.

I think that the luxuries and conveniences would inflate as would wages to keep people enticed to work. To what extent Is what I am concerned with.

 

This was all just hypothetcals. There are some studies done on insects and their potential to sustain societies nutritional needs though. The ones I found were conducted by the UN. I will digress with my own misinformed argument on eating insects. I was only trying to give an extreme means of food as opposed to ones that we take for granted at times. I am by no means against technology, luxury, education, or convenience. I was just trying to imply that those are the engine of our economy, not money. Therefore I beleive the motive to produce will still remain in our communaties.

 

Anyways, what if we scale the idea down to a city? And specualate 67% of the city is above the age 16. Only residents 16 and over can register. 12 hour business days. There is a population of 15,000 inside the city and a population of 60,000 in a 30 mile radius. The establishments can maintain 35,000 people per day.

Referring back to the OP the same rules apply except for making establishments locally available across the nation will be replaced with placing the establishments in this mock city.

 

I am curious of the negative consequences that are most probable to occur if this idea were brought to fuitition.

 

http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e.pdf

Page 84 - 96 in my pdf viewer were some listings of insects nutritional values.

 

Further on in the report are industrialization costs and projections.

Page 144 - 152 in my pdf viewer were some of their thoughts.