Like, the workers that are digging holes outside of our offices to fix water pipes right now, in socialism they will work "happily" because they will have the knowledge that the community, which they are an integral part of, needs those water pipes, and their work will be amongst the most respected.

The real motivation for them I think still would be strongest in capitalism, even in the very current one, since the 4 digging and maintaining workers would be given the same share in a limited company of Cannalizations and Pipes Ltd. along with the boss who would do driver and accountings. They would work hooked and they would earn quite a lot of money since they'd be doing an unpleasant job most of people wishes to not do.

This still keeps problems you have mentioned:

- people who cannot afford their work

- the 5 share holders of Cannalizations and Pipes Ltd become extremly rich and powerful

While capitalism can motivate people, and can fund underpriviliged people through taxing earning subjects, I consider that removing "power of money"-as you appoint, that you believe stands over law and justice, by a restriction to have them many, is I think wrong and it is like correcting a corrupted program by banning computers.

If there is a legitimate bug, it can be fought. You should take the negative experience from post-comunist eastern block countries, where since money were baned and restricted, they became extremly "worshiped", anything is literaly marketed, everything reads only market bonity, and there is absence of charity in too big manner.

So my point was that restriction/limitation in earning money to dismiss their "power" is wrong.

"Too much moral fiber can be bad for your wealth."

Life is easy is you ask Jon Jandai. He only has to work two months a year, supporting 6 people, owns several "houses" and has no debt.

That lifestyle could be classified as living off-the-grid. But there are drawbacks. The same drawbacks that encouraged 'Johnny to leave the farm for the factory' no doubt.

Could everyone live off-the-grid? Probably not yet. In the meantime, what is to be done about the myriad of challenges that faces society today? Is it simply everyone's own "stupid" fault? Sure, that's one way to look at it. Another is to adopt a superstitious attitude; blaming it on "luck". Neither of these easy answers satisfy me. They don't address the situation.

I recently spoke to someone about the economy, who convinced me that sometimes; things have to get much worse before people are willing to adopt a better system. I couldn't argue. Most people who have a "good thing going" (or think they do) are disinterested even in discussing any kind of change, in fact they would go so far as to discourage it.

If I could go back in time and give myself advice, it would be this (and I'm not joking one bit): Be incredibly selfish, be incredibly greedy and don't regret it for a nanosecond. [Although the past-version of myself would tell me, not so politely, where to go.]

Shocking isn't it?

The system is your dictator. It rewards you and punishes you. Adam Smith called it the 'Invisible Hand'. Trust me, you don't want that hand to be invisible. Figuring out how the economy really works isn't that difficult. Neither is figuring out, afterwards, how it can be improved --the only difficulty is convincing others, because they lack the necessary motivations.

If there is a legitimate bug, it can be fought. You should take the negative experience from post-comunist eastern block countries, where since money were baned and restricted, they became extremly "worshiped", anything is literaly marketed, everything reads only market bonity, and there is absence of charity in too big manner.

So my point was that restriction/limitation in earning money to dismiss their "power" is wrong.

I'm not sure how many of you lived through communism, although, comparing all the four -> nazi war-economy (which I remember only from talking with grandmother), communism, post-communism and capitalism...

War economy is not something even worth mentioning - as food was distributed per-person based on their nationality, age, etc. Work was mandatory and of course some just were straight put to prison (then to death), or directly to death.

Communism was, well, to put it correctly: "if it worked it would've been awesome." The point is, it was socialism (not Marx-based communism, which is utopia), whoever was in lead was very powerful and rich ... and everyone else had the same nothing (teacher, programmer, professor, doctor, ... all had same income that was enough for rented 50m^2 flat (for family - which means parents + children), and enough for food ... occasionally for holiday (you could visit mountains for trekking every weekend, once or twice a year go for holiday abroad (but only to East of course), when children grew up and finished school - they got their own flat). Of course if you were higher communist member you had more... literally everyone was lower communist member (out of 15 mil. people in Czechoslovakia, there were over 9 mil. in communist party ... you wanted to study, join commies... army was mandatory, and you had to of course, join commies, etc.). It wasn't like others say "you're not allowed to do anything what you want" - you were, but you had to join nationally-driven club for it. Nevertheless, it has its positives (getting flat right after study, without making yourself a slave for bank F.e.) and negatives (after all you couldn't say whatever was on your mind, it could get you to jail). Everything was overseen by by Moscow, everything what you could and couldn't do was dictated by Moscow.

Post-communism is something that unites all Czechs, Slovaks, Polish, Hungarians and others ... how to start it? The politicians promised us "no unemployed", "we will catch west in 5 years", etc. Of course those were lies. Anywhere on the west they looked at us like on beggars. If we wanted to work there, we were 2nd class (or better 3rd class) people, underpaid... All our pride (in Czech, our cars manufacturies, our beer breweries, our guns manufacturies, train manufacturies, etc.) were "privatized" (read ruined, stolen or just destroyed as business), so the same politicians that promised us those things basically right before our eyes stole everything ... nobody was punished. No pros here, only negative sides.

Then, after the country industries and agriculture was literally destroyed - we started re-building... while being a capitalism, we are also being strictly limited by EU (from the shape of bananas, through what lightbulbs you can use/make, up to the newest thing - what is standard equipment of new house, and what are acceptable topics to talk about (sport, etc.) and unacceptable (muslim immigration) ... okay Bruselles is a bit like Moscow in SSSR). With such regulations it is close to impossible to F.e. buy a house or flat after studies (3M CZK for house, while median income after taxes is what... 12k CZK (with age median income grows to ~16k CZK after 30 years of praxis) ~ so in 30 years if you don't eat or live anywhere, you can buy a house ... everything changes with education (being doctor, programmer, teacher etc. finally has a difference over a standard 'bus driver')) - still this is a lot worse compared to communism. On the other hand you can start a business and earn a lot more, which is better compared to communism. Are we living better? I would say so, although I and most my relatives have finished universities - therefore it is quite a difference.

While people with better life positions have it better, people who are just workers are actually living worse than during the communism era (which is why we still have ~20% support for them in parliament). I'd say neither of either (communism/socialism) vs. capitalism is better - but I'd take capitalism any day over it (because doing work well pays off in capitalism, while it doesn't in the other one).

...

My apologize for long post, I wanted to share my opinion on both - capitalism, communism and my own experience. I'm sure people from west or US have different opinion, but you've never lived through it, so you don't really have means to compare. :wink:

I feel like I'm living the movie "Groundhog Day" every time I explain economics to another person; everything I tell them is forgotten, only it should be renamed "Groundhog Minute"!

In 1913/1971, the 'issuer' of money in the U.S. no longer allowed citizens/nations to return U.S. dollars in exchange for gold (or anything else), meaning it was just a piece of paper/metal whose value was based on faith, alone!

If we agree that money is simply a placeholder (for book-keeping purposes), then how reliable can it be as a unit of measure, if exclusive members of society can issue an infinite number of them based on nothing?

If the public allowed me to print money (virtually from nothing), I would effectively be claiming (ownership in advanced) a share of the entire economy. Does that mean I am contributing hundreds/thousands/millions(billions?) of times more than the average person who is forbidden to print the same money? No, of course not. I would be passively robbing the country/world blind at zero risk to myself and the citizens are voting (ignorantly) in agreement.

Why? Because people don't care when times are good.

"Ignorance is bliss.", Oui? No, bliss is bliss and ignorance is ignorance. Economic reality doesn't care whether you are in one category, neither or both.

Before the age of computers, money served a purpose. Now the time has come for a record keeping system that actually represents real-world resources/services contributed by its members of society. Money, after all, is just a number, but it should be a number that represents (is assigned to) something true, instead of randomized inflation or illegitimate debt/usury. Make the transition easy; start with the simplest basic essential commodity: Water. Instead of exchanging money, redeem with credit (which is earned through equal contribution [to be calculated by the administration]). From there, after water-credit is figured out, you can move onto another commodity with a more complex credit system and so-on until money is eventually phased-out whilst eliminating unemployment.

Does that sound like communism/socialism? Only if you abandon your democratic responsibilities and surrender your right to ownership by devaluing your vote or never communicating with your representatives. Can/will systems be exploited? Only if there is no transparency and/or if no one is ever paying attention.

"You might delay, but time will not."

Either the public participates in the evolution of economics or the Ultra-Class (the powers that be) excludes you in some sort of world-wide Fritz Lang "Metropolis" dystopia.

We shall see which it is to be.

In 1913/1971, the 'issuer' of money in the U.S. no longer allowed citizens/nations to return U.S. dollars in exchange for gold (or anything else), meaning it was just a piece of paper/metal whose value was based on faith, alone! If we agree that money is simply a placeholder (for book-keeping purposes), then how reliable can it be as a unit of measure, if exclusive members of society can issue an infinite number of them based on nothing? If the public allowed me to print money (virtually from nothing), I would effectively be claiming (ownership in advanced) a share of the entire economy. Does that mean I am contributing hundreds/thousands/millions(billions?) of times more than the average person who is forbidden to print the same money? No, of course not. I would be passively robbing the country/world blind at zero risk to myself and the citizens are voting (ignorantly) in agreement.

Your view on economy is too much of the most silly cliche.

I can offer you my unprofessional view.

First thing first, you can still exchange your money for gold, but the amount of gold you get is defined solely by market, not by fixed garantee of the central bank that emitted your holded bills. That's natural when the bank can guarantee you milion times less gold than you would just get on a random market for your bills.

Us central bank can mindlessly emit dollars, since dollar is so abnormaly strong curency, that whatever emitting over-coming the economic power (so called public debt) will touch the dollar value so much as a fly crashing to elephant. Though due to this FED has nearly no power over inflation, and neither international curency marketing value of dollar, it can literally use this to pump up economy by simply emitting dollars to people who has fewer of it, and fund whatever it wants, and if every person has money, economy is rocketing up, and you gain industries for even unvital and trivial needs of people, such as entertainment (people waste money easily, businesses thrive up , etc).

Public debt of dollar can literaly be counted to... and it will not move dollar a laughable bit, wheather on foreign curency exchange market, wheather on prices inside the States.

To be honest, dollar'd be being exchanged on foreign markets for much more, it is just a quiet deal of FED with other particular curencies on exchange rate, so the export companies can actualy even exist in US (Microst, Intel, AMD...).

(your savy view on money is too communistic, what I have appointed is giving money ultimate powers happily.)

In 1913/1971, the 'issuer' of money in the U.S. no longer allowed citizens/nations to return U.S. dollars in exchange for gold (or anything else)

Much worse than that, Nixon simply showed the middle finger to other nations. Bonds? Obligations? Yes of course, but oh didn't you get my memo? They're suspended from trade since this morning. Oh, and tomorrow, I'm afraid, we will have to void them.

Bush has been doing the same, by the way. As in: "Oh, sure we still do have the billions in gold that you placed in our bank, it's perfectly safe. Oh you want to see it? Well you know, we could show you one bar of gold. Come back tomorrow, and we will show you another bar." (that's somewhat exaggerated, but it's very close to the truth... I think they agreed on something like "show a hundred bars", or something).

But yeah, they'd be stupid if they didn't do that... after all they're getting away with it again and again and again.

(long post about communism and post-communism)

While I haven't "lived" in communism, I've worked in communist countries, and I've seen the post-communism process in my own country (luckily, from the right side of the fence).

I can only agree with everything you said there. Though, from what I've seen, that's still a very forgiving judgement. In Vietnam, I've seen that typical "live with parents and children in 50 square meters" as well as "man on street owns no shirt", side by side with "man owns two building blocks". I've seen "50 patients in one room, two nurses, relatives doing the daily care and sleeping on floor under patient's bed" in hospital, and "air-conditioned single bed rooms with dedicated nurse and maid, marble-floor, oil paintings, and television" in the same hospital, three floors higher. For, you know, the comrades who are a bit better than that vermin below.
I've seen "Oh, you got no thousand dollars in cash (note: monthly salary being 40-50 dollars)? Too bad for you, looks like you will lose your leg. Come on, what's a thousand dollars. There's always loan sharks, or you could sell a child to a Thai prostitution band. No joking there. That's the communism I've seen. Same communism would arrest tourists on the airport for taking photographs (clearly, if you take a photo at an airport, you must be spy!). Same communists would only let you leave the country after you paid a $100 ransom. Again, no joke.

I've also seen the German reunion, which I guess was not much different from what you Czechs saw. Except in our case, there were two sides, and both sides were lied to, both sides were cheated, and both sides were unhappy with each other afterwards. A lot of people (on both sides, funnily) wish the wall was rebuilt, and twice as high.
I've seen Dresden a week before the reunion, which from my point of view looked as if you were in the middle of World War II (black buildings, destroyed buildings, meter-deep holes in the street, tank tracks).
What Kohl promised was Lands of Milk and Honey for everybody. Turned out the "trustees" responsible for the privatization were the biggest criminals of all (none being better than the previous, really). Openly accepting bribes and then selling companies for one euro each, just to be cannibalized. Turned out the people in the East were unsuitable for the western work market. Turned out nobody really wanted to invest in the East (rather, just buy cheap and take what you can). Turned out some of the most basic things like "see a doctor" still don't work out 20 years later in some quite big regions in the East, and don't even try to find a job or such there.
On the other hand, there's cities which have been leeching on the "solidary tax" and every other form of support for the last 20 years, and in these places, everything is golden. Some cities in the East (especially at the Ostsee) are much nicer cities than any city in the West, in perfectly flawless condition (whereas here we have a 60 year old telephone network and holes in the streets). Yet they refuse to let go on leeching on the solidary tax (which by the way, was "limited to 2 years", uh huh) in the typical socialist "no, why... this is our good right" manner.

The single biggest problem is that there's no negative consequences whatsoever. There's immunity for most people involved in the decisions to begin with, but even for the few who don't have immunity, the consequences are .... zero.

Anything where the state has a say in, you can basically do what you want. Take the postal service as an example. Used to be owned by the state, everybody working there was a public officer. Result: they were maximally lazy, they worked maximally bad, they went on "regimen" twice per year (which is nothing but a different word for "I'm having four weeks of extra holiday and the state is paying for it"), etc etc etc. Eventually they accumulated so much debt that the state couldn't afford it any longer, so it was privatized.
Privatized, huh... except it's all lies, the state still acts as major stock holder, the only difference is now you have two classes of employees. One class is the lazy bastard class of officials, and the other ones are exploited in a sheer unethical manner. Because, after all, the company must find its way towards being profitable again. You can tell exactly at first sight who is an officer and who isn't. Same story for national railway and telephone.
Telephone is yet another such sheer unbelieveable thing. Telekom is now a "private company" (for the most part owned by the state), yet they not only use the phone lines that were paid from tax payer's money for free, they also charge other competing companies if they want to use these same lines. Excuse me? WTF?

Same thing in France, by the way... where autoroutes are first built from tax payer's money, and then handed over to a privately owned company which subsequently charges that same tax payer who paid for the road to be constructed in the first place, only so they may use it. Socialists, yay.

Like, the workers that are digging holes outside of our offices to fix water pipes right now, in socialism they will work "happily" because they will have the knowledge that the community, which they are an integral part of, needs those water pipes, and their work will be amongst the most respected.

The real motivation for them I think still would be strongest in capitalism, even in the very current one, since the 4 digging and maintaining workers would be given the same share in a limited company of Cannalizations and Pipes Ltd. along with the boss who would do driver and accountings. They would work hooked and they would earn quite a lot of money since they'd be doing an unpleasant job most of people wishes to not do.

This still keeps problems you have mentioned:

- people who cannot afford their work

- the 5 share holders of Cannalizations and Pipes Ltd become extremly rich and powerful

If the concept of "rich and powerful" exists then these 5 share holders would hire someone to train 500 young enthusiastic plumbers, sit back and and watch the money role in. Its exactly what we have now.

Then the competent of those 500 plumbers start their own plumbing business and do very well competing against the rest.

The biggest motivation for those socialist plumbers would be not to work because the socialist pipe manufacturer didn't deliver pipes this week, and what's left from last week's pipe delivery wouldn't be enough even if someone hadn't stolen the pipes (and exchanged them on the black market for cigarettes, condoms, or butter).

After the German reunion, there was this joke about former-East masons stopping work at 10AM every day, and when asked how come, they'd say "Oh, this is the time when we used to run out of bricks". Somewhat crude humor and not precisely politically correct, but the details are not really alltogether far from truth.