The Doughnut Economic System

While we have gone on and on agnausium about capitalism vs socialism, a new economic system is being developed which is supposed to be much more sustainable. The Doughnut Economic System.

I admit I do not know much about it, but I would rather talk about it then the old tired debate about capitalism vs socialism.
«1

Comments

  • I looked up the word you used "agnausium" but didn't a definition. From looking at it does it mean not believing in something?

    My first association to to the doughnut idea was to think of the dachshund of time
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 26
    Do you doubt feeling sick? I keep my subscriptions to an absolute minimum.
  • I looked up the word you used "agnausium" but didn't a definition. From looking at it does it mean not believing in something?
    I assume what was meant was ad nauseam—to the point of nausea.

  • Ahhh. Silly me!
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    While we have gone on and on agnausium about capitalism vs socialism, a new economic system is being developed which is supposed to be much more sustainable. The Doughnut Economic System.

    I admit I do not know much about it, but I would rather talk about it then the old tired debate about capitalism vs socialism.

    Well, unfortunately for you, it's very much mired in the old tired debate about capitalism vs socialism.

    Doughnut Economics relies on deliberately restricting over-exploitation of natural resources beyond which the environment cannot regenerate, so that a population lives in a status quo with its surroundings. Capitalism, with its fetishisation of private ownership and unlimited growth is inimical to sustainable living, and thus to Doughnut economics. Socialism, and in particular a form of communitarianism that holds the natural environment as a Commons, is broadly compatible with it.

    Having read the book (and seen her talk a couple of times) I'd critique it as having very little wiggle room between over-consumption of the environment and the poverty of the population, if you try and keep capitalist structures in place - which she tries to do.
  • wabalewabale Shipmate
    I read 'Doughnut Economics' a few years ago. I confess it was the first book about the subject of Economics I've ever finished reading (although I've read quite a bit of Economic History). She begins by pulling apart the diagram which formed the basis of the standard economics textbook used in American universities. This likened the economic system to a plumbing circuit. An real-life model with water-filled pipes was made to celebrate at the launching of the textbook. Unfortunately the water wouldn't move around! It needed power to get the thing working. Perhaps this incident highlighted something about the 'model' being flawed.

    Raworth's argument was that 20th century Economics put 'economic man' at the centre, as it were, and worked the whole system around 'him', failing to take into account that this left out many important features of the economy, such as the work of women in the home or the phenomenon of families looking after their older members. 'Man' was treated purely as an economic animal. The result of this was to elevate Money to a position that even Adam Smith would probably not have been happy with. I would like to think Doughnut Economics offers an answer. It certainly highlights the problem that Economics 'is not enough'.
  • I agree with @wabale that the first part of the book, identifying the problems with the current capitalist system, and the vast amount of unpaid labour that's required to support it (most recent estimate for the UK is £1tn/pa).

    As I said, the solutions ought to require the almost total dismantling of the entire capitalist economic system, but I'm really not sure that she goes there. I should probably re-read the book at some point.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    You do know you can put all the Economists together and never reach a conclusion.
  • If agnostic means someone who doesn't know, surely agnausia would mean someone who isn't sick.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Doc Tor: I agree with @wabale that the first part of the book, identifying the problems with the current capitalist system, and the vast amount of unpaid labour that's required to support it (most recent estimate for the UK is £1tn/pa).

    Isn't 'a vast amount of unpaid labour' a feature of other economic systems also?

    I don't think the concept of 'economic man' is designed to encompass the whole range of human activity and values, but is an ideal type used to model and explain economic activity, including unpaid labour. Without such a model Keynes, for example, would not have been able to generate his theories that have been so beneficial to the social democracies so many of the contributors to the ship applaud.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    If agnostic means someone who doesn't know, surely agnausia would mean someone who isn't sick.

    That would be "anausia", surely? In "agnostic" the a- prefix modifies the Greek "gnostic".
  • Spoilsport
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    Isn't 'a vast amount of unpaid labour' a feature of other economic systems also?

    In some of the more extreme forms of socialism all labour is unpaid.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 27
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Isn't 'a vast amount of unpaid labour' a feature of other economic systems also?

    In some of the more extreme forms of socialism all labour is unpaid.

    By unpaid labour we mean care for one's household fellows, who actually don't need it, child raising beyond child allowance, and ultimately oneself? Is there any other? It's a feature of life.
  • More simply, I think it refers to any and all work for which the worker does not get paid. That will include the things you mention, but is not restricted to them.
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    Isn't 'a vast amount of unpaid labour' a feature of other economic systems also?

    In some of the more extreme forms of socialism all labour is unpaid.
    That depends on how you define "paid". If it's solely in terms of being given money in return for labour then you're right. And, it's probably also true from the little I know of doughnut theory that the definition of everything just in terms of money is part of the problem that it tries to address.

    If we bypass the money and ask what the money is for then the need for payment to be in the form of money is not obviously necessary. If the system provides everyone with a quality home to live in, the utilities needed to keep it warm and lit, the food needed to put on the table, clothing and all other essentials for a quality life, then is that not a form of payment? Even if no money changes hand.
  • If we bypass the money and ask what the money is for then the need for payment to be in the form of money is not obviously necessary. If the system provides everyone with a quality home to live in, the utilities needed to keep it warm and lit, the food needed to put on the table, clothing and all other essentials for a quality life, then is that not a form of payment? Even if no money changes hand.

    You're quite right that the form of payment is irrelevant, and what the payment is for is what's important.

    If everybody gets the same home, utilities, food, clothing and other essentials then that payment is simply for existing, rather than for any work that might be done. It's the baseline, the amount that everyone gets whether they work 12 hours a day 7 days a week or never work at all. It follows that any work done under such a system is unrewarded, and thus all work is unpaid. The fundamental problem with such a system should be evident.

    This obviously only applies to systems in which everyone is given the same access to resources with no (legal) ability to get more. A system that, say, provides a minimum income to all but allows people to earn as much on top of that minimum as they want/are able wouldn't necessarily have the same problem. But that's why I specified "extreme forms".
  • It was written about recently in a news magazine, Time. Amsterdam Is Embracing a Radical New Economic Theory to Help Save the Environment. Could It Also Replace Capitalism?

    It does not appear to be about "capitalism versus socialism", and it is not just about the pay workers get. Discussed is the "true price initiative" where consumers will pay actual costs for things: these are the things economists call "externals" or some such: things they leave out of their economic analysis.

    Some examples might be the cost of the fuel to send, say an apple to the store, the impact of the farming on the climate, that the store workers need to have paid sick leave. This reminds me of "natural capitalism" which has the same concepts aimed at the environmental costs. We've discussed factoring into costs the costs of pollution. Thus: you pay for car fuel, but also must pay to discharge carbon dioxide out the tailpipe, the embodied cost of the manufacturing of the car in terms of coal to make the steel and oil pollutants costs for the plastics, in advance paying for the recycling costs for the car**. It is a socialist outcome but it is also about paying true costs.

    ** this one is interesting: for your car, you should pay the cost when you buy it, for the plastic, metal recycling, the cost to ship the electronics to Bangladesh where workers will cook the electronic parts on the beach to harvest rare metals, the pollutant costs of doing that and everything else, then the landfill (garbage dump) costs.

    Do you have anything like this where you live? When I buy any drinkable liquid, there is a recycling deposit paid. For example a 750ml wine bottle I pay an extra 32¢ to buy it. I get 25¢ back if I return the bottle for recycling.
  • If we bypass the money and ask what the money is for then the need for payment to be in the form of money is not obviously necessary. If the system provides everyone with a quality home to live in, the utilities needed to keep it warm and lit, the food needed to put on the table, clothing and all other essentials for a quality life, then is that not a form of payment? Even if no money changes hand.

    You're quite right that the form of payment is irrelevant, and what the payment is for is what's important.

    If everybody gets the same home, utilities, food, clothing and other essentials then that payment is simply for existing, rather than for any work that might be done. It's the baseline, the amount that everyone gets whether they work 12 hours a day 7 days a week or never work at all. It follows that any work done under such a system is unrewarded, and thus all work is unpaid. The fundamental problem with such a system should be evident.
    OK ... what's the fundamental problem? I suppose it's probably that someone hasn't decided that some work is more valuable than other work. Under the current system it's been decreed (without evidence that it's the case) that working in a factory making widgets is more valuable than looking after children or elderly relatives - because working in the factory has a wage associated with it, but looking after children or elderly relatives has no financial reward. Why should that be? Why should shuffling data representing commodities on a computer be considered of greater value than making widgets, with the commodity trader earning far more? What would be wrong with saying that someone working 40h per week (whether that's shuffling commodities, making widgets or looking after children) has earned the right to live in a decent home, with enough food and other essentials? Even if there's no bits of paper called "money" (or electronic equivalents) involved. What if the incentives to do more are simply personal satisfaction, the appreciation of your peers and other intangibles?

    It's good enough for Star Trek.
  • It was written about recently in a news magazine, Time. Amsterdam Is Embracing a Radical New Economic Theory to Help Save the Environment. Could It Also Replace Capitalism?

    It does not appear to be about "capitalism versus socialism", and it is not just about the pay workers get. Discussed is the "true price initiative" where consumers will pay actual costs for things: these are the things economists call "externals" or some such: things they leave out of their economic analysis.

    Some examples might be the cost of the fuel to send, say an apple to the store, the impact of the farming on the climate, that the store workers need to have paid sick leave.
    Some of those examples should already be factored into the 'true price' - cost of fuel and paid sick leave, for example. But, I agree there are a lot of external costs where it's simply the case that someone else pays. Sometimes that "someone else" is the whole of society through our contributions in tax - maintenance of infrastructure such as the railway the freight is moved on, provision of universal education and healthcare etc. (and even then, they make their way into prices - the costs will include the taxes paid by the employees who were needed to get the product from primary producer to final consumer). Environmental impact is probably the biggest external cost that far too often is left with no one picking up the tab, even when there's a "carbon offset" (for example) applied it very often doesn't cover the full cost, instead the planet as a whole pays and/or it's a bill that's been passed to future generations to pay.
  • "carbon tax" or carbon pricing figures strongly into Canadian politics right now. Depending on who you are it is "job killing carbon tax" or "true cost of doing business". It is clear that western Canada, particularly Alberta and Saskatchewan, have been able to have relatively low income taxes for businesses and individuals, relatively generous social welfare programs and education, by not factoring into the cost of oil production the costs of carbon pollution, water pollution (heavy oil from tarsands/oilsands takes lots of water) as just two examples. Industrial use of natural gas for oil extraction from "bitumen" (tar) also gets natural gas at about 50% of normal costs, and numerous "credits" against tax (e.g., explore for more oil deposits and deduct exploration costs from taxed income). And I haven't even begun: there's at least $10billion spent recently by govts on pipelines, some of which are now shelved.

    Thus, this doughnut idea, how does it fit with a generous social welfare situation funded by specifically not paying the true costs of things re the environment?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Unpaid labor also includes volunteer work. If I go up to the church and take care of the leaves that have fallen as a volunteer, that is unpaid labor.
  • "Did I get paid?" is not enough of the question. Slaves had housing and meals, so in that sense they were "paid".
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    Isn't 'a vast amount of unpaid labour' a feature of other economic systems also?

    In some of the more extreme forms of socialism all labour is unpaid.

    No, you're thinking of capitalism. The corollary is that those who don't labour are the ones who get paid.
  • If we bypass the money and ask what the money is for then the need for payment to be in the form of money is not obviously necessary. If the system provides everyone with a quality home to live in, the utilities needed to keep it warm and lit, the food needed to put on the table, clothing and all other essentials for a quality life, then is that not a form of payment? Even if no money changes hand.

    You're quite right that the form of payment is irrelevant, and what the payment is for is what's important.

    If everybody gets the same home, utilities, food, clothing and other essentials then that payment is simply for existing, rather than for any work that might be done. It's the baseline, the amount that everyone gets whether they work 12 hours a day 7 days a week or never work at all. It follows that any work done under such a system is unrewarded, and thus all work is unpaid. The fundamental problem with such a system should be evident.
    OK ... what's the fundamental problem? I suppose it's probably that someone hasn't decided that some work is more valuable than other work. Under the current system it's been decreed (without evidence that it's the case) that working in a factory making widgets is more valuable than looking after children or elderly relatives - because working in the factory has a wage associated with it, but looking after children or elderly relatives has no financial reward. Why should that be? Why should shuffling data representing commodities on a computer be considered of greater value than making widgets, with the commodity trader earning far more?

    The other way of looking at it is that (most) people will freely choose to look after their relatives, but there’s no way they’ll make widgets in a factory unless they’re getting paid for it.

    You need a way to convince people to do things they don’t want to do. Altruism or an appeal to their better nature will work for some, but not nearly enough. Appealing to their self-interest (by offering a reward - i.e. payment) is far more effective.
    What would be wrong with saying that someone working 40h per week (whether that's shuffling commodities, making widgets or looking after children) has earned the right to live in a decent home, with enough food and other essentials?

    The problem is the assumption that everyone will want to work, rather than living a life of leisure.

    The alternative problem, seen in many real-life extreme socialist societies, is the assumption that people must work or suffer imprisonment, exile or even death. There’s a word for that - slavery.
    Even if there's no bits of paper called "money" (or electronic equivalents) involved. What if the incentives to do more are simply personal satisfaction, the appreciation of your peers and other intangibles?

    Yeah, right. Have you met humanity?
    It's good enough for Star Trek.

    Star Trek is fiction. You can make any political system result in paradise if your writers can just ignore human nature.

  • It's good enough for Star Trek.

    I believe the usual summary of the required system is "fully automated luxury gay space communism".
  • The problem is the assumption that everyone will want to work, rather than living a life of leisure.

    The alternative problem, seen in many real-life extreme socialist societies, is the assumption that people must work or suffer imprisonment, exile or even death. There’s a word for that - slavery.

    Whereas the alternative to slaving away in a factory or office under capitalism is called "starving to death". So is imprisonment or exile better or worse than starvation? Where's my coin?
  • The alternative problem, seen in many real-life extreme socialist societies, is the assumption that people must work or suffer imprisonment, exile or even death. There’s a word for that - slavery.

    No, that's capitalism again. It's the reason you keep working, right? You've said often enough that you'd rather not have to, and yet here we are, in a capitalist society, where you're forced to work.

    Your argument is so awful, it's not even wrong.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    The problem is the assumption that everyone will want to work, rather than living a life of leisure.

    The alternative problem, seen in many real-life extreme socialist societies, is the assumption that people must work or suffer imprisonment, exile or even death. There’s a word for that - slavery.

    Whereas the alternative to slaving away in a factory or office under capitalism is called "starving to death". So is imprisonment or exile better or worse than starvation? Where's my coin?

    Capitalism also has the alternative of being rich enough to have the stuff you want/need without having to work for it. You only have to work if you’re unable to live independently, and even if you have to work now there’s always the possibility - however remote - of becoming rich enough to escape that situation in the future. That’s an important distinction. It permits hope.

    The extreme forms of socialism to which I refer offer no such possibility of escape, no such hope.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    The alternative problem, seen in many real-life extreme socialist societies, is the assumption that people must work or suffer imprisonment, exile or even death. There’s a word for that - slavery.

    No, that's capitalism again. It's the reason you keep working, right? You've said often enough that you'd rather not have to, and yet here we are, in a capitalist society, where you're forced to work.

    Perhaps, but I’m only forced to work by my own desires and wants, not anyone else’s. If I chose to, I could quit my job and live on benefits for the rest of my life. Or rely on charity.

    Nobody else could stop me. It’s only the fact that I don’t want to live like that that stops me. I’m working because I want to, because I want the pay and the standard of living it provides, not because anyone else is forcing me to do it.

    You may not see that as an important distinction. I do.
  • "It permits hope"

    So does playing the lottery. It's a way to keep the masses down.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    "It permits hope"

    So does playing the lottery.

    Yes. Hope is important, that’s why the lottery is so popular.
    It's a way to keep the masses down.

    The great lie of socialism is that the masses would be any higher under it. Impossible post-scarcity fantasy versions notwithstanding, of course.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    The alternative problem, seen in many real-life extreme socialist societies, is the assumption that people must work or suffer imprisonment, exile or even death. There’s a word for that - slavery.

    No, that's capitalism again. It's the reason you keep working, right? You've said often enough that you'd rather not have to, and yet here we are, in a capitalist society, where you're forced to work.

    Perhaps, but I’m only forced to work by my own desires and wants, not anyone else’s. If I chose to, I could quit my job and live on benefits for the rest of my life. Or rely on charity.

    No, no you couldn't. You either: don't have a clue as to how the benefits system works, or: this is just performative and I'm calling bullshit.
    Nobody else could stop me. It’s only the fact that I don’t want to live like that that stops me. I’m working because I want to, because I want the pay and the standard of living it provides, not because anyone else is forcing me to do it.

    You may not see that as an important distinction. I do.

    No, what I see is someone who hates work but loves shiny things. You make a good capitalist wage-slave because you unquestioningly buy into the whole system, and you're desperate to justify that to people who don't.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Isn't 'a vast amount of unpaid labour' a feature of other economic systems also?

    In some of the more extreme forms of socialism all labour is unpaid.
    That depends on how you define "paid". If it's solely in terms of being given money in return for labour then you're right. And, it's probably also true from the little I know of doughnut theory that the definition of everything just in terms of money is part of the problem that it tries to address.

    If we bypass the money and ask what the money is for then the need for payment to be in the form of money is not obviously necessary. If the system provides everyone with a quality home to live in, the utilities needed to keep it warm and lit, the food needed to put on the table, clothing and all other essentials for a quality life, then is that not a form of payment? Even if no money changes hand.

    Does it have to be a quality home?

    If you look at the most primitive societies, the labour of the people provided a home (of sorts, but a home), food, and what was used as clothing. There was just no money, it was irrelevant.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    No, what I see is someone who hates work but loves shiny things.

    I was going to clarify the “shiny things” part, but you know what? I can’t be arsed. I’m just going to own that description. Well summarised.

    So that being said, is it any wonder that I dislike a political system that says “no shiny things, just lots of work”?
  • The great lie of socialism is that the masses would be any higher under it. Impossible post-scarcity fantasy versions notwithstanding, of course.

    This is a great load of whataboutery hooey.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    No, what I see is someone who hates work but loves shiny things.

    I think a realistic economic system should recognise that that describes most people ...
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Isn't 'a vast amount of unpaid labour' a feature of other economic systems also?

    In some of the more extreme forms of socialism all labour is unpaid.
    That depends on how you define "paid". If it's solely in terms of being given money in return for labour then you're right. And, it's probably also true from the little I know of doughnut theory that the definition of everything just in terms of money is part of the problem that it tries to address.

    If we bypass the money and ask what the money is for then the need for payment to be in the form of money is not obviously necessary. If the system provides everyone with a quality home to live in, the utilities needed to keep it warm and lit, the food needed to put on the table, clothing and all other essentials for a quality life, then is that not a form of payment? Even if no money changes hand.

    Does it have to be a quality home?
    As a general principal, everyone deserves access to the standard of living that society would deem to be "normal" - anyone without access to such things would be poor within that society. And, as poverty is an evil to be eradicated, anything that makes someone poor needs to be eliminated - that includes sub-standard housing. In modern developed societies that you and I live in, that means a home that can be maintained at a comfortable temperature (here that would need good insulation and heating to keep warm in winter, in other places well ventilated to keep cool), enough space for the people living there, structurally sound, secure, free of vermin or mould, etc. That's what I mean by 'quality home', I'm not talking about everyone having a palace.

    In the context of the doughnut, housing is in there within the layer between the social foundation (which is what I'd class as the poverty level of sub-standard housing) and ecological ceiling (palatial quality housing).
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    No, what I see is someone who hates work but loves shiny things.

    I think a realistic economic system should recognise that that describes most people ...

    Yep.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    As a general principal, everyone deserves access to the standard of living that society would deem to be "normal" - anyone without access to such things would be poor within that society. And, as poverty is an evil to be eradicated, anything that makes someone poor needs to be eliminated - that includes sub-standard housing. In modern developed societies that you and I live in, that means a home that can be maintained at a comfortable temperature (here that would need good insulation and heating to keep warm in winter, in other places well ventilated to keep cool), enough space for the people living there, structurally sound, secure, free of vermin or mould, etc. That's what I mean by 'quality home', I'm not talking about everyone having a palace.

    In the context of the doughnut, housing is in there within the layer between the social foundation (which is what I'd class as the poverty level of sub-standard housing) and ecological ceiling (palatial quality housing).

    That clarifies what I thought was not addressed in your first post. I am only speaking of past governments in my own State, whose aim seemed to be little better than 4 walls, a roof and a floor.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    No, what I see is someone who hates work but loves shiny things.

    I was going to clarify the “shiny things” part, but you know what? I can’t be arsed. I’m just going to own that description. Well summarised.

    So that being said, is it any wonder that I dislike a political system that says “no shiny things, just lots of work”?

    You're just describing capitalism again. You can't help yourself!

    Most people in capitalist economies do lots of work and still have no shiny things to show for it. Your system is broken. Fatally.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Most people in capitalist economies do lots of work and still have no shiny things to show for it.

    Well that's just not true.

    And even if it was, a system where some people have shinies and everyone else has a chance (however small) to join them is better than a system where nobody can ever have them.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    No, what I see is someone who hates work but loves shiny things.

    I was going to clarify the “shiny things” part, but you know what? I can’t be arsed. I’m just going to own that description. Well summarised.

    So that being said, is it any wonder that I dislike a political system that says “no shiny things, just lots of work”?

    You're just describing capitalism again. You can't help yourself!

    Most people in capitalist economies do lots of work and still have no shiny things to show for it. Your system is broken. Fatally.

    I think it's worse than that. Large numbers of people currently work hard but have little to show for it. Some people do work hard (or are highly skilled or in dangerous or essential work) and receive a good income, which is fair enough. Some are well paid and tell people that they work hard and are appropriately rewarded (wrongly deducing that others who earn less must be whiny, lazy scroungers).
  • Let me follow up on @Furtive Gander's "highly skilled" comment. Suppose I have a problem that needs solving. I assign it to John, who says "tough problem", pulls together a team of six people, and spends six months having meetings discussing the problem and poking at it with various different strategies. John and his team are faithfully doing their best, for 40 hours a week, and not getting anywhere. Or I assign it to Jane, who says "I think I see what's going on here", spends a week with an assistant making sure her fix doesn't cause additional problems, and is done.

    We all agree that, for my specific problem, Jane was a much more useful person for me to have. Assuming that this difference between Jane and John is repeated across several more likely problems, it's clear that a week of Jane's time is worth more to me than six months of John.

    So, in your ideal economic system of choice, how would Jane and John be rewarded for their efforts?
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Most people in capitalist economies do lots of work and still have no shiny things to show for it.

    Well that's just not true.

    And even if it was, a system where some people have shinies and everyone else has a chance (however small) to join them is better than a system where nobody can ever have them.

    "Well, that's not just true".

    Pfft.

    And there's literally no point in you continually, deliberately and with malice, mischaracterising socialism the way you do. Literally no one believes you. Not even you.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    What if the incentives to do more are simply personal satisfaction, the appreciation of your peers and other intangibles?

    Seems to me that people in general are quite happy to do things in exchange for personal satisfaction and the appreciation of others. If they've time and energy left over after meeting their own wants and needs (and those of the people they care most for). Including wants/needs for rest and recreation.

    But the idea that you could run a whole society off voluntary work seems like a quantification error. Ask someone who works a 40hr week how many hours they'd choose to work (for personal satisfaction & the appreciation of others) if they won the lottery. Bet you the average answer's less than 40 hours per week...

  • Russ wrote: »
    But the idea that you could run a whole society off voluntary work seems like a quantification error. Ask someone who works a 40hr week how many hours they'd choose to work (for personal satisfaction & the appreciation of others) if they won the lottery. Bet you the average answer's less than 40 hours per week...

    I'm bad at this argument, because I would do my job (or at least most of it) without being paid, if I had some other source of funds. But I like my job.

    I've had other jobs that I was only doing for the money, and I'd have no interest at all in doing them if I didn't have to. Like Russ, I suspect that most jobs fall in to this category.

  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Most people in capitalist economies do lots of work and still have no shiny things to show for it.

    Well that's just not true.

    And even if it was, a system where some people have shinies and everyone else has a chance (however small) to join them is better than a system where nobody can ever have them.

    "Well, that's not just true".

    Pfft.

    I’ll give you “some”, but not “most”.
    And there's literally no point in you continually, deliberately and with malice, mischaracterising socialism the way you do. Literally no one believes you. Not even you.

    I’m interested to learn that equality of access to resources is not part of the aim of your brand of socialism. I’d thought it was fairly fundamental?

    Perhaps on one of these threads you should set out exactly how your ideal political system would work? It’s rather tiring having to constantly aim at a moving target.
  • Russ wrote: »
    But the idea that you could run a whole society off voluntary work seems like a quantification error. Ask someone who works a 40hr week how many hours they'd choose to work (for personal satisfaction & the appreciation of others) if they won the lottery. Bet you the average answer's less than 40 hours per week...

    I'm bad at this argument, because I would do my job (or at least most of it) without being paid, if I had some other source of funds. But I like my job.

    There are many others who would do the same. Just not enough of you to run a functional society.
  • I’m interested to learn that equality of access to resources is not part of the aim of your brand of socialism. I’d thought it was fairly fundamental?

    I'm interested in how you got from what you said to what I said to what you said.

    You said that no one under socialism would get any shiny stuff. I challenged that as being not even wrong. You repeated it. Now you're telling me what I think in order to accuse me of inconsistency.

    I would certainly argue that there should be a minimum access to resources for everyone. I would go further and argue there should be a maximum too. No one gets to be a billionaire without doing some incredibly sketchy stuff, and high incremental taxes, a proper social safety net, and a decent minimum wage will redistribute wealth back to those who create it.
Sign In or Register to comment.