"How the heck is "credits" different than money?"

With credits you do a half-arsed job for about 1 week of every month, not caring about whether digging holes is actually worthwhile, and then your good to get anything you want for the month. Except everyone does the same, so the world economic output is slashed to under a tenth of what it once was (<1/3rd the working time and <1/3rd the efficiency), so people form queues for everything, when they realise they aren't getting a loaf of bread today they start fighting for what's there and low and behold you have a riot.

The only advantage I can think of is that no bread would ever be left to go stale... but I'm not even sure that that's true either, given that transport systems will collapse without anyone skilled enough in prospecting for oil.

Ah, Jamiet, wonderful.

Private Enterprise, iirc, you would allow it, but wouldn't allow employees, am I correct?

(What does 'iirc' mean, Ghost? I'm not very l33t, I'm afraid.)

"iirc" stands for "if i recall correctly," iirc.

lol abge

Ah, got it - 'If I Remember Correctly"

Yes - well, basically yes, anyway. During the transition to full communism, the system I propose would allow very small private businesses, to a limited degree. The point is that there's little difference between a worker and an entrepreneur, when the entrepreneur just operates one small hotdog stand. The system would allow him to operate his hotdog stand, but would not allow him to become McDonalds.

@CM - you say your credits don't go away when you "buy" something. So when do they go away? And, more to the point, what's to stop me from buying multiple somethings one day then the next and again the next... Once I hit enough credits, if you don't take them away, I can go get a new Corvette every damn day. Then I can go give all my friends who may be a little shy a Corvette to have.

But if you take the credits away, then you have a form of monetary system. Your premise is flawed from the start in that you assume people will be honest int he use of their "credits" and not abuse the system. The only way to prevent that abuse is to debit their credits and that, then, becomes a monetary system.

@Draug

I think the basic idea is that the credits give you a certain amount of certain things. For instance, everyone would have basic food, clothes, living, but if you had more credits, you might also get a car every 10 years, or vacation every month, etc.

That's pretty much it, Draugnar. On the basis of the way he describes it, I think we have to conclude that CM's 'credits' system would either:

a) Function exactly the same as currency - so what would be the point?
or
b) Fail to function at all, leading to economic collapse.

"Yes - well, basically yes, anyway. During the transition to full communism, the system I propose would allow very small private businesses, to a limited degree. The point is that there's little difference between a worker and an entrepreneur, when the entrepreneur just operates one small hotdog stand. The system would allow him to operate his hotdog stand, but would not allow him to become McDonalds."

Would you allow two people to work together on a larger hot-dog stand?

Of course, if he could get it to work, I'd happily put in 40 hours hard labour a month in exchange for being able to relax the rest of the time.

@Ghost: "Would you allow two people to work together on a larger hot-dog stand?"

Potentially, if it was set up as a geniune co-operative and each person had an equal share of the enterprise, perhaps, yes.

Where are we going with this?

"Potentially, if it was set up as a geniune co-operative and each person had an equal share of the enterprise, perhaps, yes.

Where are we going with this?"

What if one of them was working serving the hotdogs, and the other was slaving away over the fire (because he was a better cook). Would it be okay if they took consideration of that and split it 60:40 in recognition that at 50:50 the server was exploiting the cook's working in less pleasant conditions?

"Where are we going with this?"

Am I that subtle?

Oh and, just because I can't possibly let this pass:

@ Ghostmaker: "Nobody is exploited in capitalism."

Don't be silly. Yes they are.

@ Ghostmaker: "What if one of them was working serving the hotdogs, and the other was slaving away over the fire (because he was a better cook). Would it be okay if they took consideration of that and split it 60:40 in recognition that at 50:50 the server was exploiting the cook's working in less pleasant conditions?"

No. Perhaps the cook could be compensated in some other way, such as letting him go home 30 minutes early at the end of the day while the server (who otherwise has the easier job) has to stay behind and clean up. But no, a 60/40 split in ownership would be a step in the wrong direction.

(Time for bed now, will pick this thread up in the morning)

Jamie, you should watch a PBS documentary called Commanding Heights. It's available for free on their website.

Communism will destroy everything with its centralized control. The trick about not allowing the hot dog stand to become McDonalds is figuring out just how big the hot dog stand can become before you curb its growth. The difficulty also lies in figuring out how to prevent people from circumventing the control system by owning multiple businesses.

Only people who choose not to work hard and try to get ahead are exploited in capitalism. In short, only those who wantt o be exploited are. I got tired of the "exploitation" and went independent, twice... When times got really tight, I went back to coroprate work, but even then I went back with a pay raise over my present situation by going to work for one of my clients as a FTE with full benefits.

Work hard, be smart, get ahead. It works in capitalism. Be lazy, be happy with just what you have, stay stagnant and exploited. That's the way of it.

The key here is that you think certain things I consider luxuries are necessities that should be provided to everyone. You don't want to live in a shelter or gevernment funded housing, go work your ass off. You can do it. But don't expect me to give you a3 bedroom ranch house when you aren't willing to get ahead and eran even a one bedroom apartment. While my name isn't Ebeneezer, I believe certain aspects of his view were perfectly acceptable in today's society - specifically the workhouses. 5 days labor earns one a safe, clean, and dry place to lay their head and 3 squares for seven days plus assistance in finding a better position outside the workhouse where they might have a place to take pride in and call their own along with a choice of what those three squares are. The current welfare system is abused and f'd up allowing people who could work to do nothign and still have choices. Sorry, you don't contribute and you get gruel. It's that f'ing simple.

"@ Ghostmaker: "Nobody is exploited in capitalism."

Don't be silly. Yes they are."

I cannot consider it exploitation to offer him a job to do work of a nature and for payment of a size that he will accept.

"@ Ghostmaker: "What if one of them was working serving the hotdogs, and the other was slaving away over the fire (because he was a better cook). Would it be okay if they took consideration of that and split it 60:40 in recognition that at 50:50 the server was exploiting the cook's working in less pleasant conditions?"

No. Perhaps the cook could be compensated in some other way, such as letting him go home 30 minutes early at the end of the day while the server (who otherwise has the easier job) has to stay behind and clean up. But no, a 60/40 split in ownership would be a step in the wrong direction."

So the work they do has to be made equal in order to compensate... and if this isn't feasible, the business will be shut down by the interim government?

@Jamiet: I was saying the credit values would be decided before the system was implemented. You misunderstood me.

@Ghost: Why would efficiency go down? I think it would double. And I'm changing the credit requirements to 120 after 2 weeks, so 3/4 of the amount of time will be spent working, and multiply that by the double efficiency, you get a 50% economic increase.

@Draugnar - The credits go away after 2 weeks.

@Draugnar again: This is because the credits merely serve as a mechanism to prove you have worked. Nothing more.

"Why would efficiency go down? I think it would double."

Because the measure that matters in your system is purely how long you spend doing the work; because you can't get an education; because you have Nobel prize winning scientists doing manual labour; because you disincentivise innovation; because everything is *totally fucked up* in your bullshit system.

If that was implemented, I would go cycling every day, hard, really hard, and argue that I was out there doing work: anyone who wanted to could get into my slipstream and pick up on my tow to get an easy, fast transport. Can I have a new bike, three course dinner, mansion house and a cutting edge laptop please?

@Ghost: It is exploitation because if the worker does not accept a job, he will die because he has no money. He must work to receive his paycheck, or he will die. So he has no choice, so it is exploitation.

"@Ghost: It is exploitation because if the worker does not accept a job, he will die because he has no money. He must work to receive his paycheck, or he will die. So he has no choice, so it is exploitation."

And your system is different because you are forced to work to earn credits or else you die?

Everyone has to work, because without work, you can't make food. The guy could go for any job he wanted to, what he cannot do is expect anyone else to just give him food.

He has a choice- if he wants to live, he can work to maintain himself, if he thinks that is too terrible for him, he can choose to starve, or he can find another option.

A world with only one employer is not analogous to capitalism.

I should add on that: It is also exploitation because he gets less than what he deserves for what he created. Everyone should get something proportional to what they contributed, however it is impossible to determine for example, what an accountant contributes in a company's making of something, which is why I'm suggesting this system.