Timeline for Can a successful economy exist without renting stuff?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 3, 2019 at 21:07 | comment | added | user31389 | I saw the mention of insurance and realized it's basically the inverse of lending. With normal lending you lend people something valuable and get money in return. With insurance you lend people the opposite of something valuable (risk) and get the opposite of money in return (you pay money). | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 9:36 | comment | added | Vilx- | @Luaan - My proposition was to take an existing, working capitalism-like system (see: Europe; USA has taken capitalism a bit too far IMHO) and change this one thing about it. And then see how it falls apart. I don't really want to argue for anything, because I know that I'm wrong. I just want to understand where my mistakes are. | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 9:05 | comment | added | Luaan | @Vilx- The problem is that you've learned that "communism is a failure", but not what communism is, and why it was a failure. The arguments you're using are exactly the same the Marxists used, and they claimed it would lead to great prosperity for everyone. You're also assuming that there's already an all-powerful state that can take of the elderly and the sick; but how is that funded? Who builds the houses for people to live in? The only way without capitalism is to have the state do everything, and thus have complete power over the people. This is the same trap all socialism falls into. | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 6:29 | comment | added | Vilx- | The elderly, children, disabled, etc. should enjoy the same support from the state as they have before. Taxes are still taxes, and part of that money goes into supporting the people who objectively cannot support themselves. Plus, you can always save money for your retirement (just not invest it). | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 2:09 | comment | added | Bald Bear | @Vilx I also added the key point to main answer, about reason to invest, or rather lack of it. | |
| Oct 3, 2019 at 2:08 | history | edited | Bald Bear | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added two points.
|
| Oct 3, 2019 at 2:03 | comment | added | Bald Bear | @Vilx What about elderly people? They cannot work anymore. In typical market economy, people save some money or other assets while they can work, and then rent them to young workers when they retire. In your world, retired people can still sell their assets, but that limits their quality of life. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 22:31 | comment | added | Hypnosifl | @Vilx - If you don't want people to make profit just from owning stuff, why doesn't this imply the socialist conclusion that people should not be able to profit by owning "means of production" (machinery in factories, for example), and paying workers a salary to use those means of production to make goods? One can argue the owners of the means of production are still contributing something by assuming the risk that the goods they choose to pay workers to manufacture won't sell enough to make a profit, but the same would be true for people who buy and fix up real estate in order to rent it out. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 21:58 | comment | added | Vilx- | @puppetsock - Nah, communism pretty much has proven that it's a failure. The end of private property is not what I'm suggesting here. People can still own stuff like before - just not profit simply by the virtue of owning them. In other words, you can be paid for work, and not doing any work means not getting any pay. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 20:03 | comment | added | puppetsock | Wide company, not good company. The OP is in company with such diverse people as Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. etc. | |
| Oct 2, 2019 at 17:53 | history | answered | Bald Bear | CC BY-SA 4.0 |