Quake3World

What Kracus is saying, when government takes over all big business and said big business is doing well because employees are working extra hard to produce "highly valued" products, government will equally distribute all increase in profit to the dedicated state employees.

Sounds plausible. Especially since government has been so great with budgeting money to date.

Not exactly and that's also why I mentioned that management issues should be voted on rather than managed by an individual. By removing decisions from individual people and by making it based on votes you eliminate personal biases and decisions and make things standard for everyone.

What I mean by high value items is that if there's a limited number of those items and they're in demand then they'll have a higher value because the market will dictate those prices, thus profits for that company would rise because the product has a higher value.

Κracus wrote:By removing decisions from individual people and by making it based on votes you eliminate personal biases and decisions and make things standard for everyone.

Yes, because history has shown that voting is always a purely fact-based decision with no emotions involved at all.

Κracus wrote:Not exactly and that's also why I mentioned that management issues should be voted on rather than managed by an individual. By removing decisions from individual people and by making it based on votes you eliminate personal biases and decisions and make things standard for everyone.

What I mean by high value items is that if there's a limited number of those items and they're in demand then they'll have a higher value because the market will dictate those prices, thus profits for that company would rise because the product has a higher value.

You believe that government would increase your pay after they take over big business and regulate production to create artificial higher values?

Interesting. I'm sure everyone would vote for that.

YourGrandpa wrote:

Κracus wrote:Not exactly and that's also why I mentioned that management issues should be voted on rather than managed by an individual. By removing decisions from individual people and by making it based on votes you eliminate personal biases and decisions and make things standard for everyone.

What I mean by high value items is that if there's a limited number of those items and they're in demand then they'll have a higher value because the market will dictate those prices, thus profits for that company would rise because the product has a higher value.

You believe that government would increase your pay after they take over big business and regulate production to create artificial higher values?

Interesting. I'm sure everyone would vote for that.

No, you're either putting words in my mouth or aren't understanding what I'm saying.

The whole point of this is to take money out of politics and what I'm suggesting is a more automated and ethical method of managing a business. They don't create artificial value, the value is dictated by the market directly. If no one wants to buy the product then the product doesn't sell for very much and would eventually stop being sold if no one is buying. The increase in pay is directly tied to the profitability of the product being sold. The more popular and higher priced the item is, the better the profits which gets passed down to those that directly aided with its production. Government has no say beyond recouping the base cost of running the business plus the taxes it would get from sales of the products.

Eraser wrote:

Κracus wrote:By removing decisions from individual people and by making it based on votes you eliminate personal biases and decisions and make things standard for everyone.

Yes, because history has shown that voting is always a purely fact-based decision with no emotions involved at all.

Without gerrymandering and lobbying I feel optimistic it might help. Nothing can ever be perfect but it can be better than it is now.

Κracus wrote:I do not, care to explain?

You said the product value would go up because no one wanted to work there, increasing profits. Then go to say that would give people incentive to work there. By that logic the value would go back down and you're back at square one. You're baked again, aren't you?

Κracus wrote: No, you're either putting words in my mouth or aren't understanding what I'm saying.

The whole point of this is to take money out of politics and what I'm suggesting is a more automated and ethical method of managing a business. They don't create artificial value, the value is dictated by the market directly. If no one wants to buy the product then the product doesn't sell for very much and would eventually stop being sold if no one is buying. The increase in pay is directly tied to the profitability of the product being sold. The more popular and higher priced the item is, the better the profits which gets passed down to those that directly aided with its production. Government has no say beyond recouping the base cost of running the business plus the taxes it would get from sales of the products.

If government runs business, how do the citizens track earnings? If business is government owned, how do we buy stock? If the government owned all big business, there's no competition and/or motivation for product/technical improvements. How many branches of government will be added to manage every aspect of these businesses? What's the motivation for entrepreneurs to invent new products and create new business, if ultimately the government is going to take it over? Why would you expect government to effectively run big business when everything they do runs at a deficit? Why would you trust the government with your weekly/monthly/annual salary, when they can't even guarantee your social security (retirement)? I could go on and on...

Your idea is an ill-conceived fantasy at best. Maybe you should smoke some more weed and dream up another utopia.

Scourge wrote:

Κracus wrote:I do not, care to explain?

You said the product value would go up because no one wanted to work there, increasing profits. Then go to say that would give people incentive to work there. By that logic the value would go back down and you're back at square one. You're baked again, aren't you?

Yes I am but supply is also a factor in how much of a thing you can produce. Let's use an iphone as an example, you can only obtain so much material and make so many phones a year. Not everyone can afford one so the prices will be what it costs to make, plus whatever the public will pay to own something that has a limited supply. Food and basic needs should be produced in enough quantity for it not to be subject to those same issues.

YourGrandpa wrote: If government runs business, how do the citizens track earnings? If business is government owned, how do we buy stock? If the government owned all big business, there's no competition and/or motivation for product/technical improvements. How many branches of government will be added to manage every aspect of these businesses? What's the motivation for entrepreneurs to invent new products and create new business, if ultimately the government is going to take it over? Why would you expect government to effectively run big business when everything they do runs at a deficit? Why would you trust the government with your weekly/monthly/annual salary, when they can't even guarantee your social security (retirement)? I could go on and on...

Your idea is an ill-conceived fantasy at best. Maybe you should smoke some more weed and dream up another utopia.

Government transparently tracks buisness earnings.

There probably wouldn't be stock in this style of government as business costs are run off tax dollars.

Technical improvements would be important because whoever worked on them and created them would get a lifetime royalty from that invention.

However many branches would be needed. Keep in mind a lot of this would be automated.

Creating new products, new businesses result in that lifetime royalty I mentioned.

In this scenario where an automated government is in place a lot of the policies and decisions are done via public votes so "trusting someone" is really out of the equation.

I'm not saying I've thought of everything here, but I do feel like a new style of government is needed across the globe, these are just musings of mine, very much like my ancient random thought threads I used to post. It's nice to have people pointing out things they might see as flaws though as I'm sure there are some aspects I may have missed and sure, maybe it's a little wishful thinking but hey, at least it's thinking.

I wouldn't be for any state-sponsored work forces like this. Despite the intentions, it won't end well. This is no different than a form of slavery.

Κracus wrote:

Government transparently tracks buisness earnings. LOL, like that's ever going to happen.

There probably wouldn't be stock in this style of government as business costs are run off tax dollars. What do we do about existing stocks?

Technical improvements would be important because whoever worked on them and created them would get a lifetime royalty from that invention. Who wants to surrender their inventions to the government for a state decided stipend? No one?

However many branches would be needed. Keep in mind a lot of this would be automated. You can't automate management and supervision.

Creating new products, new businesses result in that lifetime royalty I mentioned. Why one lifetime? Successful people build fortunes that take care of their families for several lifetimes.

In this scenario where an automated government is in place a lot of the policies and decisions are done via public votes so "trusting someone" is really out of the equation. In business there are unique, circumstantial decisions that could have monumental impact that need resolution on a daily basis. They can't wait for a vote. Nor would you want someone so removed from the situation voting on those decision.

I'm not saying I've thought of everything here, but I do feel like a new style of government is needed across the globe, these are just musings of mine, very much like my ancient random thought threads I used to post. It's nice to have people pointing out things they might see as flaws though as I'm sure there are some aspects I may have missed and sure, maybe it's a little wishful thinking but hey, at least it's thinking.

Keep thinking, you're not even close.

I'm not going to address your counter points because it's just a hypothetical thought. You don't know that it wouldn't work any more than you know it would but one thing you're dead wrong on is that you can automate management and supervision. I guarantee as automation becomes more and more complex that administrative tasks will start being taken over. It does make for a more rigid system but the current system is heavily flawed and absolutely rife with corruption.

Yeah, don't address the logistical problems with your nonsensical thoughts. Just keep ignorantly barreling forward.

Projecting much?

No.

i wonder how many people have believed they're discovered the magic formula for 'nice communism', and how much weed did they need to smoke to get there?

kinda what I was thinking.

Believing government will take in all the money and evenly distribute it back to the people has to be one of the most naive thoughts one could have.

Meanwhile, Kavanaugh.

MKJ wrote:Meanwhile, Kavanaugh.

The entire process surrounding him sickens me as an American.

raw wrote:The entire process surrounding him sickens me as an American.

Can you explain what specifically sickens you? Was it the selection of the specific person or his political affiliation? Was it the accusations or the timing of the accusations? I'm curious.

Good Wired piece over here. A bit depressing really, as how do you fight such entrenched, mass stupidity?

MKJ wrote:Meanwhile, Kavanaugh.

I got to watch the Kavanaugh-hearing as a european. It took me 5 minutes to realize I was not watching a Reality TV Show.
Upon realization I turned off the TV.
I mean, really? Are you US-guys still in your right minds?
How is it even possible to judge a person upon this presentation?