Debate on debt and false pretenses

[Obamot]

What do we mean by "earn a living"?

Until then OK.

If they now want to trade, they're going to have to work as hard again to each produce the commodity value of "1" and then trade.

Except that at this point everyone is at "1", but the only goods they can buy belong to the initiator. And he will not sell them these goods at the cost price of "1", otherwise no interest for him he does not make a living.

Except that in the "real life", what is a price «decent"?

From 1 to 40 (and more), as with the price of rubber?
From 1 to 1000, as with the price of tea?
etc ..

With the universal dividend, one would not avoid competition, but at least a percentage of the profits (to be defined ... hypothesis ...) would return naturiellement / mechanically to the company. This would prevent a drop in the consumption of essential goods in times of lean cow ...

So yes, of course, we should not fall back into Stalinist collectivism ... We are just talking about minima and human dignity ...

And so human work would be better valued

In fact, wars would lose their geostrategic interest and the money allocated to the defense could be better placed! In prevention campaigns, for example ...

Ditto for the very suspicious demographic weapons ... There would be more interest to reduce the progression of the birth rate, since the populations stabilize themselves naturally with the arrival of a certain prosperity ... (phenomenon well known and often cited by the promoters of globalization ...)

People would be much less sick, less seriously, and less long ...

All that is ALSO of the "growth" no?

[pb2488]

(..) at least a percentage of the profits (to be defined ... hypothesis ...) would come back naturally / mechanically to society. (...)

This is not already the case?

[swift2540]

But on average, everyone will produce merchandise and sell it, and the monetary economic process will continue as long as a sufficient portion of the currency is in circulation, ie is not blocked by some who have managed to accumulate it.

It's still OK ?

No it's not okay, because you forget important things, it is that even on the island to produce goods and sell them it will be necessary at a stage "to invest money".
That is to say that if you feel a need for a property that does not exist, you will want to create it but to do it you have to dig deep to recover the raw material. Before you start selling you have to spend, but you can not dig the machine is too expensive.
The situation is blocked you can not buy the machine and the guy in front can not sell it

So everyone apparently prefers the 2 solution, finds it more accurate, but nothing goes?
Amha, it's because 2 things are badly chosen at the beginning:
1) Do not create 1 / pers but eg 20 / pers.
2) we leave growth aside, but we must take it into account.

Let's start from the following postulate:
life costs 2 / month in the island (call it minimum vital)
You have 20 at the beginning is 10 month of existence in front of you to choose your activity, to create it and to begin to produce thus to sell.

For growth, you are given 2 / month per person and 1 / month per child (because kho lanta will quickly turn into the island of temptation) ) the minimum subsistence level.

From there everything can happen:
- you can be content with your 2 / month and survive (wanted unemployment *) or be forced (accident, pension, study to change job, pregnant, ...)
You can work and earn 10 / month full time, or work part time.
-you can associate with others to buy machines and earn more

* Unemployment is not especially wanted pejorative: you can take 1 10 sabbatical after years of working full time, or stop you qq weeks / months to transform your house after a birth, death or what not.

In short you are master of your life, you decide.

And for very large investments (eg a bridge or the drinking water supply) you appeal to all (taxes) or you create additional money for this occasion.

How are things better?

By the way Bernardd, did I understand the idea

[Obamot]

No, it's not okay, because you forget important things, it is that even on the island to produce goods and sell them you will have to "invest money" at a stage

Yes, but you can save first, then use your captial ... later. Nobody forces anyone to borrow from others what they do not have ...

We are talking about a virtuous system where the rules described above would be respected ...

[nlc]

How are things better?

No, not for me, it's totally naive as a system and can not work: to give just enough to live every month to everyone (in monetary creation and more), by definition more and more people are going to take it easy, and little by little there will be less and less good and services offered since everyone will just get it smooth. As a result, prices will rise because more demand than supply. The company and its monetary system is a very complex system that is in my opinion impossible to simulate with 100 people who arrive on a desert island.
And those who will have the niak and who will work hard to win more will not hesitate to do it, and in the end we will cry scandal because differences in wealth will quickly be created.

[Philippe Schutt]

And on the other hand, if in the neighboring country the bank loans without having the money, the companies of this country will be able to invest before the others and to occupy the market.

[Obamot]

How are things better?

Not for me, it remains totally naive as a system and can not work: to give just enough to live every month to everyone (in monetary creation and more), makes that by definition more and more people are going to take it easy, and small to small there will be less and less good and services offered since everyone goes precisely take it easy.

No, not more than currently. It all depends on how it would be done and what kind of measures would be taken. There is evidence that in society, normally constituted people seek by nature to make themselves useful ...! Moreover, on pain of falling sick if they are not enough active. Thus nothing would prevent encouraging people to work of general interest ... Nothing would prevent valuing part of the neglected actions of civil society (due to non-profitability). One of the first sectors which would benefit from it would be that of so-called "arduous" work, as in the agricultural world.

Moreover we must remember the figures of absenteeism in the world today! About 4 to 5%


Source:
http://www.sd.be/site/website/be/fr/100 ... _060309_15

Figures for Belgium, but this trend is European:
http://www.cairn.info/revue-etudes-econ ... age-79.htm

Absenteeism is progressing, so it is not the current trend towards ultra-liberalism that provides a solution to this problem.

We see that the system in place does not escape! Curiously, we can see that abenteism can vary from simple to triple depending on the number of people involved (!!!):

Absences from work due to health reasons: an increasing rate of absenteeism, which varies according to the workforce, in communities or health institutions

In 2008, absenteeism rate varies between 5,9 and 8,7% according to the size of the community and between 8,8 and 13% following membership of the hospital [...]

Trends to remember:

* depending on the size of the community, from 70 to 80% of the absent agents stop because of ordinary illness (61 to 75% in health facilities);
* the standard illness alone represents 40 and 52% of community days off, and between 33 and 46% in institutions;
* agents stop three times more often in communities of 350 agents or more than in those of less than 10 agents.


[...] it should be noted that the average annual direct cost of absences varies, depending on the workforce, between 1 171 and 1 798 euros in local authorities and between 2 317 and 3 368 euros in hospitals (2008 figures) .

(Although other studies do not corroborate, there are significant trends that show that it is not related to a general phenomenon tending toward idleness ...)

This bends the neck with this received idea, according to which we would be feigners by nature ... By cons the "framework" of work plays a key role!

As an example, stress abentism can last - for chronic cases - up to several years for severe cases (I mean medical absenteeism).

What makes me say that in a new system anchored on a minimum base salary, we should take into account ALL the parameters, before saying that people absolutely want to "take it easy"! A typical example that contradicts this is the school field, where children are NOT paid, the rate of absenteeism hardly varies from that of the "world of work":


Source: http://pedagogie.ac-toulouse.fr/zep/tab ... 00/2b.html

So, on the total mass of employees only 2,5% of the workforce would be absent for unjustified reasons:


Source: http://chroniques-ordinaires-jr.blogspot.com/2010/11/contre-visites-medicales-vendre-plutot.html

... Paradox: absenteeism could well disappear when there is no longer a need to "be absent" to be paid.

One could then ask the real questions to know by virtue of which some collaborators are absent and find the real parries adapted by modifying for example the production tool. On this subject, here is an interesting graph showing that absenteeism has several variables, but the trend that emerges shows many questions more specifically related to motivation and not necessarily due to idleness:


Source: http://www.uimm.fr/fr/publications/enquete.html

Because since 1998, the growth of the frequency and the dangerousness of the accidents is alarming:


Source: Dexia PDF: ...>

Another graph would tend to show that absenteeism is more "cultural" in the regional sense:


Source: Alma Consulting, ...>

The simple prospect of WINNING MORE Actually would make the difference anyway ... And the principle of natural competition would apply anyway.

By cons yes: it would require imagination and other efforts ...

As a result, prices will rise because more demand than supply. The company and its monetary system is a very complex system that is in my opinion impossible to simulate with 100 people who arrive on a desert island.

And so ... The fact that prices would go up would allow the system to self-regulate, since immediately others would start offering what has value (although what is at the center is not so much a a question of price than a question of the real value of goods and services ... => hence the secondary question which poses a fundamental reflection on the need to absolutely make an exchange of service VS against service by the vector of change). It is however a normal reflex induced by fear, amha!

And those who will have the niak and who will work hard to win more will not hesitate to do it, and in the end we will cry scandal because differences in wealth will quickly be created.

But that will not happen, for the principles described above. We just have to put the cursors back where our moral sense should make us place it naturally. So we would have to legislate. Although everyone is aware that such a system could not emerge spontaneously, but at least it gives us clues to question what exists for good reasons ... If you know what I mean

[sen-no-sen]

Beautiful analysis Obamot, however, I share somewhat the opinion of nlc.
The principle of a universal dividend amounts in a way to returning the national profits to its citizens, like the bonus of participation in a company, paid to its employees? Is not it?

[swift2540]

Beautiful analysis Obamot, however, I share somewhat the opinion of nlc.
The principle of a universal dividend amounts in a way to returning the national profits to its citizens, like the bonus of participation in a company, paid to its employees? Is not it?

No, or I misunderstood.
The universal dividend replaces ALL state aid.
According to the principle described, you receive from birth 1 / 2 dividend until your majority, and then the full dividend.
AND THAT'S ALL
So more than:
-prime birth / childbirth
-party childbirth
-Family allowances
-allocations back to school
-unemployment
-RSA RMI or other insertion income
-revenue mutual illness / accident (unless private but individual as non compulsory insurance)
-pension
And all that you can receive as help from the political refugee to the widow of war through where you want (non-exhaustive list and varying countries).

And so basically, from the majority, a person receives the dividend (and only that, not 1 hundred more) whatever his age, sex, marital status or professional.

Advantage in my opinion:
You can no longer point your finger at your neighbor, this "professional unemployed", this "foreigner who takes the bread out of his mouth", this "system profiteer" of all kinds.
As, basically, everyone has enough to live (at least), you avoid the quarter-world and extremist drifts.

After you are master of your life, it's up to you to do what you want. But nothing prevents you from taking paternity leave, returning to school for a better job, or ... working as you do now

[Obamot]

To everyone to see ... Everything is possible ... No opinion decided on my side.

One thing is certain, the current theoretical model is destined to a certain end.

Deep down, I think the CIA's use of social raisins to create the Arab Spring from scratch and overthrow the Arab puppet governments with which the West has been pacting for decades is a serious double-edged precedent: the "actors" of globalization could well then be forced to review their copy ....

If the situation gets worse, people could eventually gather and go down the street for reasons more "civil" ... We have already seen the outcry created by Wikileaks on certain topics calling for more transparency.

Social changes will inevitably follow, as much prepare mentally and ... economically!

Invest also in the stone with a piece of land to cultivate a garden ... it could serve one day!