truman Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Another silly argument. You know well that motivation for work is money (for hard practical reasons) with job satisfaction as a bonus. For practical reasons, for most people, it doesn't work the other way round. But some people if they really enjoyed a job would accept lower wages than they could get elsewhere. And many people do make that choice. It's not a silly argument at all .....you seem to be agreeing with me..motivation for work is money..take that away and the jobs won't get done... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 it was the attempts to return to the gold standard in the 1920's which forced the uk into recession and then depression. The great powers came off the gold standard in 1914 so that they could print the money required to fight World War I. As indicated in my previous post, returning to a gold standard without revaluing gold to take account of the intervening money creation caused massive deflation. Throughout World War I, countries had printed enormous amounts of paper currency to finance war debts while the supply of gold expanded very little. Moreover, the gold that did exist did not remain static but flowed increasingly toward the United States, while relatively little remained in Europe. Reconciling the postwar paper-gold ratio with the prewar gold price posed a major dilemma after 1919. One choice was to contract the paper money supply to target the prewar gold price. This would be highly deflationary and would cause a steep decline in overall price levels in order to get back to the prewar price of gold. The other choice was to revalue gold upward so as to support the new price level given the expansion in the paper money supply. Currency Wars, James Rickards rightly or wrongly we are stuck with fiat currencies forever Are you sure about that? World Bank chief calls for new gold standard Return of the Gold Standard as world order unravels [Daily Telegraph, Friday 23 December 2011] Steve Forbes Predicts a Return to the Gold Standard Within Five Years Return to Gold Standard Gaining Traction with Presidential Candidates Stunner: Gold Standard Fully Supported By... Alan Greenspan!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 You're talking about the problems with Soviet communism here. This was an economy that was completely state controlled even down to what toothbrush you were allowed to buy. Keep the state out of the economic equation and you have something very very different in my opinion. People will do things for themselves that they'd never do for an authoritarian figure. That's how people create their own businesses despite government red tape. No I'm not; people create things and businesses so they can afford a better life style, your proposition of a equal society would prevent this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 Who would want to do the dangerous jobs or dirty jobs, who would want to spend years in education to become a surgeon if they only receive the same money and a road sweeper. This is why any system has to reward the truly talented and ambitious. Even in soviet russia the bureacracy eventually enjoyed privileges and benefits that ordinary workers did not. I agree there is no way you can in the long term level out society - it can only really happen for a short time if there is a massive collective shock but that is only transient until renewal and recovery begins. The best have to be rewarded in a way that society as a whole sanctions - that is the simple basic rule IMO and as you say human nature would tend to support reasonable rewards for the best performing. After that it's a question of scale and appropriateness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavegirl Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 You are proposing a system that would prevent some people becoming wealthier than other people, which would cause resentment from people that feel differently to you, we are all different and for your society to work we would all have to be the same. That's just one of the great capitalist myths. Most people get far more pleasure out of helping others than they do from spending cash on commodities. Think back on your own life and decide whether you're one of these people. Five years ago I helped a girl who'd hurt herself quite badly on a ski-slope and I'm pleased and proud that I was there to help her, I have no real recollection of any purchases I made that year and certainly no emotional attachment to any of them yet capitalists try to tell me that it's the purchasing of things that really counts in life. Rubbish!! Some things are special to us as human beings (relationships) and other things are pretty mundane (purchases)- at the moment our economy worships the mundane and put the special things on the side lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 This is why any system has to reward the truly talented and ambitious. Even in soviet russia the bureacracy eventually enjoyed privileges and benefits that ordinary workers did not. I agree there is no way you can in the long term level out society - it can only really happen for a short time if there is a massive collective shock but that is only transient until renewal and recovery begins. The best have to be rewarded in a way that society as a whole sanctions - that is the simple basic rule IMO and as you say human nature would tend to support reasonable rewards for the best performing. After that it's a question of scale and appropriateness Society as sanctioned the wealth that some people enjoy by using and supporting the business they operate, we are now sanctioning Bill Gates wealth by using a system he created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ultimatesens Posted December 23, 2011 Author Share Posted December 23, 2011 You would be better off for a very short time, the wealth creators would have no incentive to run businesses, some of the workers would have no incentive to work, people would have no incentive to become better educated and work hard, everything would come to a standstill and ultimately we would all have an equal share of nothing. Do you have any evidence at all for this commonly heard assertion? There are lots of incentives to do things. The main one being to make things better. We want a bridge to cross the river so we organize and have one built. We want to create new toys or invent new software so we go out and invent it. People are naturally competitive so they would want to get better educated and design the best stuff. We have gone from nothing to where we are today not because of money but because of human need and creativity. We are talking about a fantasy scenario where people are more or less equal. I would say it's more important how we get there because that would determine what happens afterwards. People are in poverty because the production of the world is being stolen by the few. Not because people are lazy or there isn't enough to go around. Once that stolen wealth is returned it should indeed allow many more people to put there feet up without it leading to a loss in standard of living. Innovation won't stop. I for one can envisage many entrepreneurial former factory workers in Africa using their new found wealth to create labor saving machines and technologies to maintain the new standard of living they have found themselves in. I would do much the same. It's clearly absurd to suggest that sharing the wealth of the 1% amongst the other 99% would lead to a drop in the standard of living for most people. It is also just as absurd to suggest that when peoples basic needs are met they simply give up on creativity and innovation. Clearly the reverse is true, when people have everything they need they want to create more. An appropriate range of wealth with an upper limit to aspire to can be plenty of financial incentive (if it were even required) to make people improve innovate and work while avoiding the excesses of power hungry megalomaniacs and starving children. While you may decide to retire when you reach your wealth limit others most certainly won't and there are PLENTY more creative people who want to be productive who will replace you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 That's just one of the great capitalist myths. Most people get far more pleasure out of helping others than they do from spending cash on commodities.. So why don't more people volunteer rather than complain on here about how little they are paid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 It's not a silly argument at all .....you seem to be agreeing with me..motivation for work is money..take that away and the jobs won't get done... I don't agree that the sole motivation is money. Getting enough to lead a lifestyle you can tolerate is the primary goal. Once the primary goal is achieved there are plenty of examples of people who choose a less luxurious lifestyle in order to a job they love. Or maybe to have a much less stressful life. You must have heard all the cliches about work/life balance. The stuff around people downsizing from high-flying roles into lower paid jobs they enjoy more. It's actually pretty normal but probably shocking to you that not everybody is out to maximise their income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted December 23, 2011 Share Posted December 23, 2011 I don't agree that the sole motivation is money. Getting enough to lead a lifestyle you can tolerate is the primary goal. Once the primary goal is achieved there are plenty of examples of people who choose a less luxurious lifestyle in order to a job they love. Or maybe to have a much less stressful life. You must have heard all the cliches about work/life balance. The stuff around people downsizing from high-flying roles into lower paid jobs they enjoy more. It's actually pretty normal but probably shocking to you that not everybody is out to maximise their income. They only do that once they have made their cash.....would they do it if they hadn't?As for maximising income..just look at a lot of the posts on this form..everyone wants to be paid more or thinks they're worth more than they're being paid at the moment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.