There was nothing "socialist" about Jamestown. Many of the initial settlers were aristocrats who had no experience of work, and no interest in it.
Unsurprisingly this didn't end well.
>If we create a culture that tells people they don't have to work to receive those benefits, it will disicentivize people to actually work.
We already have a culture like this. Those who believe they own an entirely imaginary thing called "money" believe they're entitled to live off the efforts who don't.
It would take an outbreak of unreasonable optimism to claim this is the most efficient and productive of all possible systems - especially considering it's notorious for its many completely predictable failure modes.
Those who believe they own an entirely imaginary thing called "money"
The fact that someone can write this is laughable to anyone that was ever poor in their life.
Money is not at all imaginary. It's quite real. The lack of money can ruin your day, your year, your life.
As for what money is - it is a productivity storage mechanism. Once you've been productive it allows you to store that productivity in a fungible form. It allows you to exchange that stored productivity for the productivity of others, give it away to someone else or basically do anything you want with it.
> Once you've been productive it allows you to store that productivity in a fungible form.
What is a trust fund then? Were the folks on the receiving end of trust funds productive? How about high frequency trading? Is the money made from computers intercepting and manipulating trade prices the result of someone's productivity?
Money has been divorced from productivity for quite some time.
Where did the funds in the trust come from? Was that being productive? Just because the person receiving the funds is not being productive doesn't mean the person who provided the funds in the first place wasn't productive.
As for high frequency trading, you may disagree with the means of production but that doesn't suddenly mean it isn't productive. Becoming efficient doesn't reduce productivity.
which hits the key point in Fuller's argument. In modern times thanks to scientific breakthroughs and the like, some people can be 100,000 times more productive than others with 1 invention.
What's profitable is decided by what people want, and we are no one to impose our priorities onto the world.
Cancer isn't getting cured because it is not spreading virally. The day the threat level is same as Polio, Small Pox or such disease, the solution will be inevitable.
The fact that anyone was ever poor should be an affront to anyone who believes that money is real. People of your ilk are fond of resorting to the old canard "everyone needs a roof over their head and food in their belly". Well, there quite simply is an astounding surplus of such. Those who really believe that the lottery system we currently use of assigning who gets what is truly effective and just will have to answer for that someday.
Money is only powerful because a quorum of people have mutually agreed to believe that it is. One of the things I enjoy pointing out is that the stock market is a wonderful example of the power of belief. When enough people believe it's going to crash, guess what happens?
What I feel many people miss is that goods and money are not synonyms. If there was a huge influx of money into the world, that helps exactly nobody because the amount of food, shelter and other goods has not increased.
I find that people "get" this a lot easier when you start talking about coupons and IOU instead of gold and dollars. Nobody believes that the guy who is moving coupons back and forth between various piles with specific timing has truly earned the load of goods he gains. Instead, they rightly feel like he is cheating the system and taking without giving back.
But in the real world, tons of people do tricks with money and get filthy rich from it, and that's just them "working smart". Meanwhile, somebody had to grow that potato, the actual tangible good, that he ate for dinner. What did he give back in return?
> Nobody believes that the guy who is moving coupons back and forth between various piles with specific timing has truly earned the load of goods he gains. Instead, they rightly feel like he is cheating the system and taking without giving back.
If you're talking about grocery store coupons, then that guy has absolutely earned the gains. Coupons are a form of price discrimination, i.e sell at a higher margin to people with a lot of money and less time but not lose the guy who has less money but more time on his hands. The stores do not sell below cost except for a few loss leaders, so the potato grower is still making a sale that might not have happened without the guy going coupon hunting.
It seems like they're talking about arbitrage, in which case there's essentially no risk involved, as the whole game is exploiting momentary differences in bid/ask price at different exchanges.
Sure, and that reminds me of another great example for money's imaginary quality: The total amount of money in existence is many magnitudes more than it would theoretically take to end global poverty. However, no one dares attempt this, because it would knock the struts out that prop up the whole system (namely, debt).
> The total amount of money in existence is many magnitudes more than it would theoretically take to end global poverty.
No quantity of money can end poverty, and no reasonable theory suggests that any amount of money can.
Systems of distributing goods and services (whether or not money is used as a proxy in those systems) might, but the quantity of money existing is pretty much irrelevant to that.
> However, no one dares attempt this, because it would knock the struts out that prop up the whole system (namely, debt).
Money is debt. Even commodity money -- as long as it is being traded not to be used for its intrinsic properties but for future exchange -- is essentially being used to separate the two sides of a barter transaction so that you don't need to exchange things of direct use such that the money then becomes, in effect, a marker of debt from the whole of the money-using society to the money holder.
So, yes, "debt" is the foundation on which the whole system of money is built because debt is what money is (modern fiat currency represents the abandonment of even the pretense that there is something else to it, as that pretense has always been costly to the function of money.) But if you think you can rearrange money to achieve some goal without maintaining its nature as debt, you don't understand money at all.
> the quantity of money existing is pretty much irrelevant to that.
I mean, that's what I'm saying, but as it is now, if I had a billion dollars, I could build a few wells in Africa, yanno?
> Money is debt...
Clearly, but in addition to that, my point is that the system of money needs people to be in debt. There's no "neutral state" as it were, and indeed, many of the efforts of the IMF and World Bank are calculated to get poor countries further in debt.
The grandparent noted that while we can increase the amount of currency in people's pockets, that doesn't fundamentally change the number of goods and services available to the total population. If you define poverty as lack of money, then yes, we can fiat more than enough money into existence. However, if you define poverty as lack of access to goods and services, increasing the amount of money available won't work. Look at Germany in the wake of World War I. Money was flowing everywhere, but the amount of good and services available was minuscule in comparison causing rampant inflation to the point where it was more cost effective to burn the paper currency for heat rather than spend it.
Let's break things down nice and simple. As you said, everyone needs a roof over their head and food in their belly. Well, there's plenty of that to go round. We don't need to fiat more money or otherwise increase the money supply, because as you astutely observed, that would potentially lead to a post-war Germany-type situation. If, however, the world's poorest were gifted adequate funds from the world's richest, they would be able to afford the biological necessities.
The fact that anyone was ever poor should be an affront to anyone who believes that money is real.
Using "real" in this context is confusing; yes, money is a social construction - a real one. You can also have fictional social constructs (SF works often describe some).
Are you using "real" to mean "natural" (as in "natural rights")?
Money is a medium to exchange effort/productivity and hence wealth. It is important because no one gives away their work for free. That is not because we are good/bad, that is because that is how we are by evolution. Our ancestors never climbed a tree unless there was a fruit to pluck or ran unless there was a deer to hunt. And given the effort involved in this, it made zero sense to share things for free.
We only have an organized form of that currently. Where you could do a lot of it and store it, and spend it later. Or opt to not earn it at all. Whatever the choice you must learn to live with it.
Ludicrous. You can expend effort all your born days and not see a dime. People give things away all the time. And climb trees, even! Do you really live in a world so bereft of imagination?
> There was nothing "socialist" about Jamestown. Many of the initial settlers were aristocrats who had no experience of work, and no interest in it.
The parent's quote specifically proposed the notion of people not working. This doesn't disprove the argument or address the point about the structure of Jamestown's initial income distribution mechanism.
> We already have a culture like this. Those who believe they own an entirely imaginary thing called "money" believe they're entitled to live off the efforts who don't.
How are you defining work? Money is a proxy for value produced at some point in time and you can either save it or immediately spend it. If someone acquired a reserve of value, how are they living off the efforts of other people? They still must buy goods and services like everyone else.
The claim that Jamestown was "saved by capitalism" is the typical libertarian/conservative story touted out in discussions about socialism and capitalism.
The situation was a lot more nuanced than that. The setup of Jamestown as between the Crown and the investors, not the colonists, who were essentially indentured servants for 7 years. Also, the climate was not right for the types of crops the colonists were trying to grow, and as someone else mentioned, the settlers were not accustomed to the environment.
"How are you defining work? Money is a proxy for value produced at some point in time and you can either save it or immediately spend it. If someone acquired a reserve of value, how are they living off the efforts of other people? They still must buy goods and services like everyone else."
That's an incredibly naive response. I would venture the author of that comment is referring to CEO and bankers on Wall Street. For the amount these people are paid, it's hard to see how much value they are producing. There is definitely an entitlement mindset.
That's an incredibly frustrating response because it doesn't actually address anything substantive but simply attempts to cast dispersion on the arguments. I'll reiterate the request I made to a commentator below in the thread. Are there counter examples of a society working without incentive that allows people to work or not work and if so, why aren't they with us today / if they are, why aren't they more influential? I'm open to being proven incorrect in the course of a substantive discussion, however, I'm disinclined to change my views in the face of simple dispersion.
You're missing the point that incentives matter, pretty much every economist from the most socialist to the most libertarian agrees on that point. When you incentivize one activity, you're removing incentives somewhere else. I.E. if I cut the cost of junk food 1000% percent, I'm encouraging you to eat bad food because you can get more of it for less compared to healthy food. Comparably, if I incentivize not working that will reduce or remove the incentives to work.
> That's an incredibly naive response.
And that's a terrible response with no further substantiation of the position. What is the "not naive" view of money? Why is it a superior position to hold? Give me a reason to prefer. Simply telling me I'm being naive without substantiation or alternative is borderline ad hominem.
> For the amount these people are paid, it's hard to see how much value they are producing. There is definitely an entitlement mindset.
How are you defining value? In the case of your example, they're leading in and participating in multi-billion dollar companies and markets that people are giving money to in exchange for services indicating they provide some value to the end user. We can debate the merits of that value or the manner it's provided, but the fact that people are giving the companies money would indicate they're providing a good or service the people value.
First off, I mostly agree with your sentiments. This comment is not in opposition but made to extend the discussion even beyond just money.
In order for a universal basic income system to work, we'll probably need to ditch democracy or put into writing some difficult to change protections. Seeing that the Constitution is being treated as either a) a living breathing document whose meaning changes with time or b) just a piece of inconvenient paper, I don't see a feasible way of making a universal basic income system work (edit: along side a democracy).
What's basic and what are people minimally entitled to? I believe everyone should be provided a place to sleep. But I think that should consist of a cot in a cement dorm like room with shared bathrooms. Other's will want, or with time demand or think that they should be provided a house, with cable TV, a cell phone, etc... With democracy in place it only will take until 51% of people don't want to work until the system completely breaks and falls into havoc (at which point a tyrannic dictator often takes over).
"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%."
which will lead to:
"Democracy with a universal basic income will lead to 51% of the people voting to take away the wealth and productivity of the other 49%."
Why doesn't that happen now, then? The current majority could, right now, decide to massively increase the taxes on, say, the 40% richest and redistribute that money to the rest of the 60%.
In fact, the current majority can, right now, decide to implement UBI, and then do all those things you describe.
Essentially, it's a slippery slope argument, with no great explanation of why UBI would change the conditions to start the "slip" that hasn't occurred until now.
One might argue that a majority can not decide anything since it's not an agent, nor is the relative amount of people who share a specific opinion somehow relevant in most of contemporary politics.
Also taxation is not a one way route as it might backfire through tax avoidance or just collective time re-allocation.
I'd bet there is no single agent on any developed country either powerful enough or knowledgeable enough to implement the UBI as it will most likely require massive legal and political changes.
So I guess it's pretty obvious why no one implemented the UBI yet.
Edit: never mind. I guess I miss understood you. Sorry.^^
Because coming to a consensus of what amount or what should be provided and how to provide is very difficult. Also there are numerous people who still believe in a work ethnic that things are earned not given. The shrinking middle class hasn't thrown in the towel yet.
Fully removing incentives doesn't work, but I would claim you do need to make sure people avoid the poverty trap (and that's only part of it).
To respond to your other question, the classic example would be mortgage backed securities that were part of the housing crisis. They provided -some- value, but overall, they were nothing more than scheme to make money off people's payments and nonpayments of mortgages.
Also, CEO's, on average, make 300% of the average worker's salary. I'm not sure the average CEO is 300% more productive than an field worker or an engineer. They do have a hand in leading the organization, but honestly, most of that work is done by the people below them in the org chart.
> The situation was a lot more nuanced than that. The setup of Jamestown as between the Crown and the investors, not the colonists, who were essentially indentured servants for 7 years. Also, the climate was not right for the types of crops the colonists were trying to grow, and as someone else mentioned, the settlers were not accustomed to the environment.
I don't know anything about Jamestown, but... this kind of feels like you're giving more detail, but it's detail that doesn't really contradict the original narrative?
At any rate, I took the original narrative to be: originally the workers received the same amount of stuff regardless of how much they worked, and that went badly. Then the workers started to receive more for working harder, that went better. And your version seems to be consistent with that, even if there were other factors making things difficult for the colony. Like they're two different stories, set in the same universe but focused on different things. One is a history and one is a snapshot, and the snapshot adds more detail but doesn't mean the history is wrong.
That's the impression I'm getting of the two narratives here. I remain ignorant of the actual facts.
While I personally cannot attest to the validity of these sources, it paints a more realistic picture of what happened. The colony's failure was not due to socialism, but to poor planning and expectations.
What I notice about those sources is that the original story in this thread
> They initially established it in a "socialist" vein wherein everyone received an equal share of the proceeds (food, etc) regardless of their contributions to the colony. ... [Later] they lifted the socialist mandate on redistribution
seems to not be retold in them. (I only skimmed, so perhaps I missed something?)
So, I guess: if that story is true, then those sources still don't contradict it. They add relevant detail, but if the story did happen as told, then it's still evidence that the "socialist" model worked less well than the "capitalist" model. It's somewhat surprising that those sources don't mention the two models tried. (In this case, I expect the "capitalist" model corresponds to 1619 onwards, "individual land ownership was also instituted". The first source doesn't cover this time period at all.)
And if that story is false, then the correct reply seems to be "um, that's not what happened" rather than "here's more detail".
It's well known that, once you acquire enough money, you can live off the proceeds of that money. If you inherited a million dollars and put it in bog-standard funds, you'd get ~$75,000 a year for doing absolutely nothing. How that factors into your theory, I'd love to know.
In (at least) two ways. One, you'd be lending wealth to other people so that they can create more wealth. Without your investment, less wealth would be created. Two, your parents acquired money by producing wealth, and one of the things that they chose to spend that money on was their progeny.
(NB. This does not claim that the allocation of money for value produced is perfectly fair, or just, or economically optimal, or whatever.)
Not the OP but your assumption is that 1. That "investment" mechanism will hold up forever and 2. That you don't put that money in the system at the wrong time assuming it is a random walk.
You're being rather argumentative, don't you think? Did you have something worth elaborating with the bit about the random walk? I would still be curious to know.
Has socialism worked anywhere? I think it would take a rewriting of people's expectations to have any chances. When you have many in society having the belief they are entitled to nearly anything, when they are told so over and over its their right, how can they ever function in a truly socialist system
The reason such a system fails is that you cannot exclude those who won't participate but instead just want to take
Virtually all advanced economies rely on socialist principles of redistribution of wealth through the fiscal system and state programmes within the context of a market economy.
Beyond that we're now seeing a growing dialogue pushing towards basic income, a full minimum living that is guaranteed and unconditional. This too can be considered socialist, and this too is compatible with a market economy where above and beyond the basic income (of e.g. $20k per year per person or whatever it is), people can pursue jobs to make $60k or $200k just like they do today, pursue education, charity or the thing they like to do, just as they do today, without the incentives of crime and fraud that exists for millions of Americans today who can't afford rent or insurance.
Neither systems are without flaws or caveats, but they show that socialist principles have their place in society. Of course that's different from other socialist principles which have failed, and a country without any form of market economy at all on a substantial scale (e.g. 10-20 million people and beyond) succeeding is unknown to me. Doesn't mean some of the principles of socialism aren't valuable. It'd be like saying a diet of just bread and water sucks, and extrapolating from that that any other diet that includes the components of bread and water(e.g. bread, water, veggies, fruit, fish), must therefore suck, too.
Unsurprisingly this didn't end well.
>If we create a culture that tells people they don't have to work to receive those benefits, it will disicentivize people to actually work.
We already have a culture like this. Those who believe they own an entirely imaginary thing called "money" believe they're entitled to live off the efforts who don't.
It would take an outbreak of unreasonable optimism to claim this is the most efficient and productive of all possible systems - especially considering it's notorious for its many completely predictable failure modes.