What if the basic necessities of life were free?

[Trez-Nem]

Just a few pages back everyone was arguing about many people not wanting to work, now about how everything would collapse bacause there's no jobs. If people have no incentive to work (not that I would agree with that), it wouldn't matter if there was no jobs.

No-one has even attempted to address my argument that this is a price ceiling of $0.

I don't even understand what you are talking about.

[SD_Film Artists]

If that was theoretically possible, it'll be good assuming that the insentive to get the better quality things would be strong enough to ensure the internal and external security of the country. How that would practically work though, is a very different question.

It would never work, people need incentives to work, that's the welfare state will some day fail and bankrupt America.

Care to explain?

[GCMG]

No-one has even attempted to address my argument that this is a price ceiling of $0.

I don't even understand what you are talking about.

Exactly.

[Trez-Nem]

I don't even understand what you are talking about.

Exactly.

So what are you talking about?

[GCMG]

Exactly.

So what are you talking about?

I am complaining that my post was ignored.

[Trez-Nem]

So what are you talking about?

I am complaining that my post was ignored.

In your post that was ignored, what did you say?

[The Darwinian People]

Incentives to work: Civic virtue, Fear of violence and a decent wage.

The first is incredibly hard to achieve but I'm sure there is a way; if you have enough strong/good people with the patriotic feeling that would inspire them to work without ever receiving more than their peers then social pressure might do the rest for you. The fascists of the 1920s, especially in Italy, demonstrate this trait (picking up where striking workers left off, when they weren't just strike-breaking that it).

The second is fairly hard to achieve but, if you've got enough manpower, you can get it done and their are real-world examples. Stalinist Russia and Maoist China are prime but they were, by all accounts, terrifying places to live.

The third is the easiest to achieve; let the free market do its thing and screw the poor!

To be honest, I like the first one but, then again, the OP strikes me as one of these "Libertarian Socialists" so I doubt they'd like the idea of a large propaganda network.

[Cameroi]

welfare is only because there is money involved, and there are other ways (that have worked just fine for tens of thousands of year. and they don't involve whips and guns either.)

people DO like to do things. not everyone deals will with the formality of having to indenture themselves to someone else or some sort of organization in order to do so. many things that are necessities can be done by machines. most other things can be done by hobbyists who enjoy doing them.

if tools and materials are free, (and no other way of reselling them), people will make things, because the gratification of doing so is its own incentive. of course there needs to be an infrastructure of sorts to enable this. that is why my cameroi has craftufacturing centers, mathom houses, and work needs lists.

some people like to impress each other and some like excitement and some just enjoy doing and making the things that interest them. these, not being survival needs, need not be handed to them. but, if the tools and materials are available, people WILL be motivated, either by how they like to think of themselves, or what they like to do.

and those who will be content to live without, won't be hurting a damd thing to do so.

the problem has been a culture in which people are at the same time offended by those having or demonstrating less then themselves, while at the same time being impressed by what they purchase from each other instead of what they make with their own hands. and in which, a powerful minority even get away with creating conditions for the sole purpose of keeping others worse off then themselves, and imagining this makes them some kind of a big deal and better then others because of it. NONE of which, is intrinsically required for the well being, happiness, nor gratification, of anybody.

[The Darwinian People]

I am complaining that my post was ignored.

In your post that was ignored, what did you say?

...that this is a price ceiling of $0.

[Trez-Nem]

Incentives to work: Civil virtue, Fear of violence and a decent wage.

The first is incredibly hard to achieve but I'm sure there is a way; if you have enough strong/good people with the patriotic feeling that would inspire them to work without ever receiving more than their peers then social pressure might do the rest for you. The fascists of the 1920s, especially in Italy, demonstrate this trait (picking up where striking workers left off, when they weren't just strike-breaking that it).

The second is fairly hard to achieve but, if you've got enough manpower, you can get it done and their are real-world examples. Stalinist Russia and Maoist China are prime but they were, by all accounts, terrifying places to live.

The third is the easiest to achieve; let the free market do its thing and screw the poor!

To be honest, I like the first one but, then again, the OP strikes me as one of these "Libertarian Socialists" so I doubt they'd like the idea of a large propaganda network.

The thing is that by working you would get more money than your peers. Try to stay in the subject.

[Trez-Nem]

In your post that was ignored, what did you say?

...that this is a price ceiling of $0.

And what do you mean by that?

[Cameroi]

In your post that was ignored, what did you say?

...that this is a price ceiling of $0.

being ignored is the price of playing the game. EVERYONE is some of the time. also saying "this" is a price ceiling of $0.00 fails to indication, either which "this" nor whether by saying that is intended to mean it is good or bad. it is also of course, materially on the face of it, highly inaccurate, in the absence of more specific and limited contexts.

[The Darwinian People]

Incentives to work: Civil virtue, Fear of violence and a decent wage.

The first is incredibly hard to achieve but I'm sure there is a way; if you have enough strong/good people with the patriotic feeling that would inspire them to work without ever receiving more than their peers then social pressure might do the rest for you. The fascists of the 1920s, especially in Italy, demonstrate this trait (picking up where striking workers left off, when they weren't just strike-breaking that it).

The second is fairly hard to achieve but, if you've got enough manpower, you can get it done and their are real-world examples. Stalinist Russia and Maoist China are prime but they were, by all accounts, terrifying places to live.

The third is the easiest to achieve; let the free market do its thing and screw the poor!

To be honest, I like the first one but, then again, the OP strikes me as one of these "Libertarian Socialists" so I doubt they'd like the idea of a large propaganda network.

The thing is that by working you would get more money than your peers. Try to stay in the subject.

But you wouldn't; the incredibly high tax rate needed to give everyone a basic wage and the rest of the necessities would render any wage either superfluous or negligible.

[The Darwinian People]

...that this is a price ceiling of $0.

being ignored is the price of playing the game. EVERYONE is some of the time. also saying "this" is a price ceiling of $0.00 fails to indication, either which "this" nor whether by saying that is intended to mean it is good or bad. it is also of course, materially on the face of it, highly inaccurate, in the absence of more specific and limited contexts.

Just to be clear, I just repeated what the other guy said because the OP is trying to get out of responding to him.

[GCMG]

In your post that was ignored, what did you say?

...that this is a price ceiling of $0.

Pretty much.

We note that I start off by mentioning all the non free stuff that goes into what one person had as being free. Later someone spoke of taxes but you cannot tax much more than you can.

Say, for example, there is a shortage of food. It's free but it is now more expensive to produce enough... taxes go up. What if land is being used up at a faster rate, oil's gone up again, there's a drought and stuff like that which worsen the issue? Taxes go up. Eventually taxes can't go up any further, now what?

[GCMG]

...that this is a price ceiling of $0.

being ignored is the price of playing the game. EVERYONE is some of the time. also saying "this" is a price ceiling of $0.00 fails to indication, either which "this" nor whether by saying that is intended to mean it is good or bad. it is also of course, materially on the face of it, highly inaccurate, in the absence of more specific and limited contexts.

It is generally accepted that price controls are bad.

How so? We have a market (for example, housing). We have a price that cannot be exceeded ($0). How is that not a maximum price?

[Trez-Nem]

The thing is that by working you would get more money than your peers. Try to stay in the subject.

But you wouldn't; the incredibly high tax rate needed to give everyone a basic wage and the rest of the necessities would render any wage either superfluous or negligible.

The taxes don't have to be that high. You say tha when people are taxed, lets say 70%, they would get no more money than by not working. They would still get the 30%.

[Trez-Nem]

being ignored is the price of playing the game. EVERYONE is some of the time. also saying "this" is a price ceiling of $0.00 fails to indication, either which "this" nor whether by saying that is intended to mean it is good or bad. it is also of course, materially on the face of it, highly inaccurate, in the absence of more specific and limited contexts.

It is generally accepted that price controls are bad.

How so? We have a market (for example, housing). We have a price that cannot be exceeded ($0). How is that not a maximum price?

Not all food is free. You are only given freely the amount you need to live. The same applies to free housing: everyone doesn't get a mansion.

[Harkback Union]

It would work, and It would releive a lot of social stress.
Of course, everyone who needs these services would have to contribute a some hours every day to society, (so the system wouldn't hurt goverment budgets too much) but would still have enough time to study and become a more productive and wealthier worker.

[GCMG]

It is generally accepted that price controls are bad.

How so? We have a market (for example, housing). We have a price that cannot be exceeded ($0). How is that not a maximum price?

Not all food is free. You are only given freely the amount you need to live. The same applies to free housing: everyone doesn't get a mansion.

It still takes up land, materials and labour. And land is a biggie. A basic plot here can cost upwards of fifty grand. Depending on the area of course. It's that pesky idea of scarcity again.

And what, pray tell, is the amount needed to live? That's another issue.

[The Darwinian People]

But you wouldn't; the incredibly high tax rate needed to give everyone a basic wage and the rest of the necessities would render any wage either superfluous or negligible.

The taxes don't have to be that high. You say tha when people are taxed, lets say 70%, they would get no more money than by not working. They would still get the 30%.

I don't understand where this money is coming from. Who is paying for this?

People, under your proposed system, would have a basic wage and they'll be able to use that on luxuries because you are also providing the bare necessities for free. Most people would be content with that. This means that you'd have to work your small work force incredibly hard and then tax all of their income in order to give them to the rest of the people. Most nations have upwards of ten million people in them; so your small workforce would have to be making billions of pounds a year to support the rest. But where is the money coming from? The only market you've provided for in your system is a luxuries market but all the revenue supporting that market is coming from the government in the first place (the basic wages).

[Trez-Nem]

Not all food is free. You are only given freely the amount you need to live. The same applies to free housing: everyone doesn't get a mansion.

It still takes up land, materials and labour. And land is a biggie. A basic plot here can cost upwards of fifty grand. Depending on the area of course. It's that pesky idea of scarcity again.

And what, pray tell, is the amount needed to live? That's another issue.

What you need to live: a room in wich to sleep and eat. A bathroom would be nice too.

[Harkback Union]

What you need to live: a room in wich to sleep and eat. A bathroom would be nice too.

Yes, You could crowd lots of people cheaply into housing projects...
And If they dont like it there... well, That would be a great incentive for them to work and get the hell out of there.

[GCMG]

It still takes up land, materials and labour. And land is a biggie. A basic plot here can cost upwards of fifty grand. Depending on the area of course. It's that pesky idea of scarcity again.

And what, pray tell, is the amount needed to live? That's another issue.

What you need to live: a room in wich to sleep and eat. A bathroom would be nice too.

Still a matter of building it. Got to take into accounts the environment (massive faultline here, risk of flooding there etc.), the labour (it still exists and must be paid for, also finite), the materials and also convincing people to live in them (terror, lack of alternatives, maybe they already want to). Then it has to be maintained...

There's a lot that goes into everything... everything. Except for raw materials obviously like non-processed logs.

[GCMG]

What you need to live: a room in wich to sleep and eat. A bathroom would be nice too.

Yes, You could crowd lots of people cheaply into housing projects...
And If they dont like it there... well, That would be a great incentive for them to work and get the hell out of there.

The question is, is that even possible?

Do banks still exist? There's not enough information.