Do you know about - The Case for a Utopian economy
Farmers Insurance Open! Again, for I know. Ready to share new things that are useful. You and your friends.The Tragedy of Childhood Starvation and Malnourishment
What I said. It is not outcome that the real about Farmers Insurance Open. You see this article for info on a person wish to know is Farmers Insurance Open.How is The Case for a Utopian economy
Cast an eye about you and it's hard to not notice a great many problems besetting the citizen of this planet, problems that persistently defy all attempts at resolution whether by group institutions designed specifically to deal with them or by even the most altruistic and dedicated individuals. There are so many problems in fact, that to reconsider them as a whole tends to furnish feelings of despair and a fatalistic acceptance of the status quo. It just may be however, that the clarification of one problem will lead to the clarification of others that stem from the same root cause. reconsider for example, the problem of starvation, particularly of the world's children, an especially senseless tragedy in light of this planet's grand natural fertility.
On any given day thousands of unwanted and neglected children roam the streets of many of our largest cities. Hordes of these unfortunate waifs pour over the cities' garbage dumps in hunt of any discarded items that might be resold in order to buy sufficient food to survive someone else day. Many of them won't wake up the next morning, not because there was no food available, but because they didn't have sufficient money to buy a loaf of bread. The root cause of this tragedy is therefore not scarcity, but poverty. The clarification is accordingly not to give each child a loaf of bread, but rather to make sure that every starving child can afford to buy the bread that's already there.
Logically, this can only be ended in one of two ways; whether by providing each child with sufficient money each day to buy a loaf of bread from the local bakery, or by reducing the price of a loaf of bread to the point where every child can afford one - which is to say by production bread free. However, there are a whole of problems with the first of these two options.
Obviously, the money would whether have to be newly created or it would have to come out of the money already in circulation. The problem with printing new money is that the value of a dollar (or a peso, or a euro) isn't fixed, but like any commodity it varies agreeing to the law of provide and demand. Since the inquire is constant, the greater the provide the lower the value of each dollar becomes. If bread, for example, cost a dollar a loaf, the moment sufficient money was printed to give each of the world's hungry children a dollar a day, every day, the price of a loaf of bread would increase to say, two dollars. So, since the money couldn't be raised by plainly printing it, the currency already existing would have to somehow be redistributed, whether straight through taxation or voluntarily donations.
Unlike the problem with printing new currency, which is intrinsic to the nature of money itself and therefore insurmountable, redistributing the wealth is, logically speaking, a potential solution. Indeed, many international aid organizations, both inexpressive and governmental, actively solicit funds from the group every day, and have been doing so for years. Yet children continue to starve. This is hardly surprising considering, not only the whole of other organizations dedicated to solving other problems that are competitive for the people's money, but the sheer whole of children dying whether from outright starvation or from diseases directly attributable to malnourishment and thus the predicted whole of money involved.
So, since the children cannot be given the money needed to buy their bread, neither by printing new currency nor by redistributing the money already in use, the only potential clarification remaining is to sacrifice the price of the children's daily bread to zero. Of course, in order for bread to be free for the children, it must be free for everyone; otherwise the children would sell their loaf of bread to an adult and then return to the bakery for a second, third or even fourth loaf. But if bread is free then, since the farmer and the baker need shoes for their families, shoes would have to be free for bakers and farmers, and to avoid a black store in shoes, free for everybody else as well. The cobblers, of course, need clothes and the tailor needs a sewing machine, so just as each domino in a line knocks over its neighbor once bread is free then all must be free.
Now, reducing the price of all to zero is neither socialism nor communism. Nor is it a return to the barter system. In a socialist law the citizen wouldn't have to pay for their bread directly because the baker would be paid a standardized salary by the government with money raised straight through taxation, which is to say the baker would be paid by the society as a whole - well-fed and under-fed alike. But the baker doesn't work for free. In a communist system, the government would own the bakery, but citizen would still have to pay for their bread. In a barter system, goods and services are assigned a value by the citizen complicated in the transaction and that value whether falls or rises depending on the perceived need for that item at that single time and place. If a cobbler wanted to trade some shoes for a new coat, they would be worth more to a barefoot tailor than to one with a closet full of shoes; just as the tailor's coat would be worth more in the winter than in the summer. But neither the shoes nor the coat would be free.
Why citizen Will Continue to Work
Reducing the price of all to zero would solve many of the world's problems in addition to that of child starvation and malnourishment, but only if it would literally work. Obviously, the main inquire is why whatever would ever go to work if they could get all they wanted for nothing. The answer, beyond the natural compulsion of human beings to be active, beyond the sense of gratification they secure from helping others, and beyond the joy they feel when following their passions, is that they will continue to work; not because they're forced to and not because there won't be any alternative, but because they will comprehend it to be in their own best interest to do so.
First of all, ask a thousand citizen what they would do for the rest of their lives if they were suddenly very wealthy and never had to work again and you'll likely get a thousand dissimilar answers, but not one will seriously pick to sit in a chair day after day gazing straight through their window at the world outside.
Secondly, many citizen literally get great delight from their jobs because they believe they are providing a unique and foremost benefit to their communities. Most teachers, for example, or fire fighters, police officers, recovery workers, doctors and nurses, to name just a few of the more determined careers, would gladly work for nothing - if only they could. The sense of self-worth they feel when they teach someone a new skill, or restore someone to health, or save a person's life is far more rewarding than the money they receive. When citizen are able to do something they're passionate about, they look forward to going to work and lay down their tools reluctantly each evening. As a result, the assistance they provide or the goods they furnish are of a far classic capability than would be the case if production money was their primary concern.
The third think citizen would continue working, particularly the fabulous majority of the world's citizen who have gained itsybitsy benefit under the current arrangement, is that they would be far good off under the new law than they were before. In a capitalist system, whether communist, socialist or strictly store based, the citizen are encouraged to work using a compound of rewards and punishments, the carrot and the stick. The punishment is very real. Those who are capable and yet don't work swiftly find themselves destitute, with neither food nor shelter, kept alive only by the charity of those who pity them. The bonus any way is far less certain. The promise of capitalism is fundamentally embodied in the idea of class mobility; that with thrift and industriousness, citizen can lift themselves and their descendants out of the legions of the poor, straight through the middle classes, to finally join the ranks of the privileged elite. For most citizen though, for those who earn barely sufficient from their labors to pay for their food and protection and other basic necessities of life, recovery sufficient money to materially heighten their capability of life is very difficult, if not literally impossible. In addition, the vast majority of people, lower class and middle class alike, live from paycheck to paycheck, with the proverbial sword of Damocles hanging by a thread above their heads, in constant danger, despite having worked hard all their lives, of losing all they have struggled to achieve. In short, citizen living in a capitalist society work because they are afraid not to work.
In a utopian economy, there would be no punishment for not working and the bonus for doing so would be both real and immediate. Because all goods and services would be free, no one would ever again need fear being without life's necessities. citizen would work plainly because they would want to work.
They would want to work because it's contrary to their nature to be idle. citizen would want to work because, since training and instruction would be free, they would be able to do what they truly wanted to do, something they would find rewarding and reconsider a worthwhile use of their time and talents. They would participate willingly, even enthusiastically, because the only alternative would be whether anarchy and chaos, or a return to capitalism.
There are, of course, jobs that currently no one would find whether enjoyable or rewarding; jobs that are dirty, dangerous, or mind-numbingly repetitive. Coal mining, for example, is an very hazardous job; not only because of the constant danger of a cave in, but because of the near certainty of developing "black lung" disease. But the think the miners produce this deadly condition is because the mines they work in are poorly ventilated, whether because the mine owners can't afford the tool important to provide the miners with fresh air, or because they pick not to in order to maximize the company's behalf margin. But in a utopian cheaper coal would be free so there would be no behalf margin to maximize; and since the fans, ducts, and pumps would be free there would be no think to not setup them. By the same reasoning, since timbers would be free there would be no impediment to installing as many as important to ensure that there would be no more cave-ins.
So a job which, under capitalism, is dirty and hazardous and therefore undesirable, would be just the opposite in a utopian economy. It would be both cleaner and safer, a trade which miners, many of whom take great pride in their craft, would willingly continue to perform.
To many, working on the land is a noble and honorable profession, performed proudly by their families for generations. Yet in normal it is carefully undesirable because farm workers are paid very itsybitsy and both their living and working conditions are deplorable. They toil from dawn to dusk under the blazing sun with no canopy to give them shade or misters to keep them cool. In the evening, after a uncomplicated meal, they sleep in sub-standard housing, with as many as ten to twelve in a single room.
In a capitalist economy, independent farmers make itsybitsy or no behalf from their labor, in general because the price of food has to be kept low sufficient that the normal citizen can afford to eat. So they plainly can't afford to pay their workers a living wage, provide them with decent living quarters, or buy the tool that would be important to shield them from the elements as they work. But in an economic law where the construction materials and the tool would be free, those citizen who love the land and are proud to work it would willingly continue to do so.
It is true that all citizen are created equal in the sense that no one is born to rule while someone else is born to serve. But it is just as true that all citizen are not equally capable of doing all tasks. Not everybody who enters medical school finishes, and not all doctors have the skill to perform open-heart surgery. But everybody is capable of doing something, and there are those who, due to corporal and intellectual limitations, can only do jobs that other, more capable, citizen reconsider tedious and unchallenging; and they would do them gladly because they would be providing a important and therefore important assistance to their society - to the best of their ability. In a capitalist cheaper where everybody is not accorded an equal opening to produce their natural talents, these jobs are performed by citizen who are capable of much more. As a result, those who are mentally or physically challenged are denied the opening to contribute to society. But in a society where training and instruction are free to all, no one would need to perform tasks that are below their capabilities.
Hoarding, Monopolization & the inquire of Scale
Naturally, once citizen can have whatever they want for free, some of them may at first decide to hoard determined items. For example, while citizen obviously need dissimilar styles of footwear for dissimilar occasions, for most citizen this means a half dozen or so pairs at most, and while fashion aware citizen would literally want more styles than others, virtually nobody would pick to have a hundred pairs of shoes taking up all their closet space when they could get a new pair whenever they wanted.
Still, someone might decide to control the yield of shoes. It is potential that the owners of all or most of the shoe factories could stop production shoes unless determined demands were met. Of course, if the shoe factories lay within the boundaries of the utopian society; the citizen could plainly remove the facility owners from their offices, by force of arms if necessary. Otherwise, the citizen would be forced to whether give in to the shoe manufacturers' demands, accept the fact that they had to live without shoes, or build their own factories - if they could. The only real choice, of course, would be to make their own shoes; which illustrates a vitally foremost point. In order to succeed, a utopian society must include within its own borders all of the natural resources needed to provide the basic necessities of modern life.
Utopian societies that have been attempted in the past and have failed weren't able to furnish all they needed to live comfortably, and as a consequent were forced to sell that which they could furnish in order to buy that which they couldn't, becoming in consequent capitalist enterprises in the process. In short, they failed because they were too small, too itsybitsy in resources. It's plainly a matter of scale. To be successful, a utopian society would have to be at least continental in extent.
It's true that there are determined very rare elements that are important for the produce of products that, while not necessary, might nonetheless be desired by the people. In such a case, the utopian society would have to trade some of its precious metals, gold and silver for example, that are very valued by capitalist societies.
Gold and silver are carefully important specifically because they are relatively scarce, but in an cheaper where all is free, gold would have no purchasing power at all. It would be useful, because of its intrinsic qualities of malleability and conductivity, but a barrel full of gold would buy no more than a lump of coal.
Diamonds are someone else example of something valued because of its scarcity. However, while they are literally quite useful in the produce of drill bits due to their hardness, their value is due principally to their aesthetic appeal, an appeal entirely artificial in nature, created and maintained straight through the use of mass advertising by a brilliant cartel. Absent constant reinforcement, diamonds would have no greater appeal than any whole of gemstones, whether natural or manmade, such as rubies, emeralds, or even cubic zirconia.
Another inquire is, if citizen could have whatever they wanted for free, why any person would pick to live in a cottage instead of a mansion or to drive a sedan instead of a sports car. The answer is that cottages and mansions, sedans and sports cars, serve dissimilar purposes and are therefore more or less preferable depending upon a person's circumstances. A sports car would be useless to a family with small children, just as a single someone or a merge would find a cottage much easier to speak that a mansion.
The Effects on everyday Life
In many ways, the convert in economic systems would be barely noticeable. citizen would continue to shop at the same stores, for the same products, in the same way. They would still pick which items they wanted and the clerks would still record the selections for inventory supervision purposes. The shop owners would continue to re-order products and re-stock their shelves. Manufacturers would still order the important raw materials or components which would be fabricated, mined and harvested just as they have been in the past. The only contrast would be that the factories would pay nothing for the raw materials, the shop owners would pay nothing for the ended products, and the customers would pay nothing at the check-out stand. Nothing else need necessarily be changed. However, citizen may very well pick to avail themselves of opportunities that will inevitably emerge.
One determined example would be in the transportation of buyer goods. In a capitalist cheaper where corporations are in constant competition for an ever growing store share each firm operates its own manufacturing plants and distribution centers. Each facility ships its company's goods to its company's warehouses from where the items are again trucked to hundreds of cut off retail outlets, each one of which could receive any whole of cut off deliveries from as many dissimilar manufacturers. But in a utopian cheaper the whole opinion of store share would be obsolete and the discrete clubs would have no need to compete. Indeed, there would be nothing to compete for. As a result, many cut off distribution systems could be consolidated allowing for a much more efficient use of fuel and the yield of far less pollution and wear and tear on the transportation infrastructure.
One area in which the convert of economic systems would be noticeable would be housing which, with its restricted supply, would have to be handled differently than other commodities. Clearly, it is approximately determined that several citizen would be interested in any single ready residence. In that event, the time to come occupants would have to be randomly superior from a pool of applicants previously sorted by family size. Obviously, a six bedroom house would be more proper for a family of eight or more than for a family of three or four, so larger families would have to be given preference. By the same token, smaller families would be given preference for any two bedroom houses or apartments. This doesn't mean that a small family living in a large home at the time the economic law is changed would be removed. Only newly constructed buildings, or those that became vacant for some reason, would be affected.
The rules and regulations which citizen have instituted to administrate their societies would also not need to be changed. citizen would still need to be licensed and distinguished to work in their chosen field or profession. Doctors would still need to go to medical school and their performance would still be evaluated by the same quote boards. But since medical school would be free, many more citizen would have the opening to come to be doctors. City councils would continue to set land use policies and oversee all of the myriad of details complicated in the proper performance of civic life. Murder, rape, assault, theft, arson and all other criminal performance would still be just as illegal and prosecuted by the same judicial system. And, of course, the armed military would continue to safe the society from invasion and insurrection. In fact, the most distinguished aspect of the convert from capitalism to utopianism is how itsybitsy the existing group and cultural institutions would be altered.
But while the group infrastructure would remain largely unchanged, society itself would be thoroughly and utterly transformed. Beyond putting an end to child starvation; beyond the unlimited passage to material goods, condition care, and education; beyond the improvements in living and working conditions; beyond the unrestricted opening for personal development; even beyond the fact that citizen would no longer be living in a state of constant anxiety and even fear; the eradication of poverty would give rise to a multitude of profound and far-reaching effects, and while it would be quite impossible to reconsider them all, a few examples might be in order.
- Free and unrestricted passage to medical care would consequent not only in both a drop in child mortality rates and an increased life expectancy, but combined with the fact that citizen would no longer be living in a state of continual anxiety, far fewer strokes, heart attacks, and other stress associated illnesses.
- Once the behalf motive was removed, there would be no drug dealers, no prostitution, no violent street gangs, no gambling, no human trafficking and far fewer thefts.
- When citizen are no longer forced to accept any job they can find no matter how distant there'll be much less commuting, traffic congestion, and pollution from cars.
- The discharge of cost as an impediment to study will consequent in far greater improve in the amelioration of solar, wind, geothermal and other sources of renewable power and as a consequent far fewer greenhouse gasses will be produced which in turn will slow down the pace of global warming.
- buyer goods will be of a higher capability when behalf is no longer a factor, corners no longer need to be cut, inferior materials no longer need to be used and the citizen producing them take pride in their work.
- There will be no think to defraud anyone, no funds to embezzle, no stocks to manipulate, no need for banks, prestige cards or insurance companies, and no need to advertise.
Establishing that utopianism is a classic economic law isn't difficult, the determined benefits have been recognized since the opinion was first introduced by St. Thomas More in 1516. Today, as then, the problem lies in determining how to bring the convert about - how to get "there" from "here."
Revolution can be imposed whether from above or from below. In whether case, before a large whole of human beings will convert their way of doing things, they need to identify a clear and pressing necessity for doing so. The base citizen of France didn't reject their old tradition of monarchy because a handful of philosophers believed the true source of sovereignty lay in the hearts of the people. They risked their lives on the barricades because their kings and queens had been unable to provide them with bread. Given the alternatives of whether someone else monarch (that is, more of the same), or anarchy and chaos, they agreed to try the radical new law of republicanism and beloved sovereignty in spite of the fact that, not only had it never before been attempted on such a grand scale, but virtually no one else in the world believed that it could perhaps succeed.
Before citizen will inquire a convert of economic system, they will have to clearly identify that capitalism is inherently bi-polar in nature and thus predicated upon inequality, that it is a law of "haves" and "have nots," that the gap between the two can only grow wider over time and that it will never provide them with the capability of life they would have under utopianism.
Unlike changing a political system, such as replacing monarchy with republicanism, given the complicated and brittle nature of the current global economy, the move from capitalism to utopianism need not be violent. Indeed, it cannot be. Any endeavor to bring about the convert straight through force of arms would be doomed to ultimate failure plainly because once the flame of passion died down, citizen would swiftly come to view the relative comfort of capitalism as preferable to the determined pain and suffering the conflict would cause. However, since no economic law can consequent without the cooperation of the people, the revolution from below could be peacefully and literally achieved straight through a normal strike. Recalling that a utopian society would need to be continental in scale, if a sufficient whole of citizen perhaps as few as twenty percent of the population, stayed home from work for as itsybitsy as a month, the capitalist cheaper of that continent, if not the whole planet, would fail, and a utopian cheaper could then be instituted in its place. The transition period any way would be difficult and chaotic since itsybitsy if any preparation would have been made in advance.
The preferable formula by far would be revolution from above. Much unnecessary obscuring would be avoided when the political and intellectual leaders of each of the continent's nation states planned for the eventual switch and laid the important groundwork beforehand. The citizen would then be ready for the changeover, which would be ended literally at the most opportune time by decree. The mystery with this approach, as with all revolutions from above, arises out of the important existence of an enlightened political leadership, not of one nation alone, but of several.
However, whether the revolution comes from above or below, those who are currently reaping the greatest benefits of capitalism will bitterly oppose it, just as the monarchs and the nobility of the eighteenth century opposed the custom of representative democracy in revolutionary France. Without a doubt, they will avail themselves of every opening to prevent any convert in the status quo. The armed military of the newly created utopian society and the citizen themselves will need to be vigilant in the defense of their right to originate a more utilitarian and egalitarian economic system.
Conclusion
Economic systems, like all else in the world, aren't static. They continually convert and evolve. In the early days when humans lived in extended family units of hunter-gatherers, every member of the group participated in the yield of food and everybody partook of the fruits of that labor, albeit not necessarily in what we today would reconsider an equitable basis. After many thousands of years, citizen learned how to cultivate crops and domesticate animals. They settled into villages, then towns, and finally cities; producing not only surpluses of food, but specialty items such as pottery, textiles, and jewelry. As a result, the cheaper of these citizen soon evolved into one of trade and barter - the most primitive form of capitalism. Eventually, metal smiths began forming the more malleable metals such as gold, silver and copper into coins as a means of facilitating the exchange of goods in the marketplace. Money, of course, needed to be regulated, a standardized law of weights and measures had to be established, and in these and other ways the use of money had an foremost organizing consequent on society. In time, capitalism would evolve straight through more and more complicated stages into today's global economy. But evolution is a continual process and without inquire our gift economic law will continue to adapt and change. It was advanced by citizen to suit their needs and will most literally convert as people's needs change.
Capitalism, while a useful and even important development, is incapable of adequately addressing the problems facing the world today. Because money is itself a commodity, and as such branch to the law of provide and demand, its value is intrinsically dependent upon a relative scarcity of supply. That is to say, in order for there to be "haves" there must literally be "have nots." Poverty can never be eradicated or even substantially reduced as long as money; whether in the form of coin, cash, check or credit, is used as a medium of exchange. It's because of this determined fact that every problem whose root cause is poverty, together with child starvation and malnourishment, will continue to plague humanity for as long as we cling to a capitalist economic system.
Utopianism on the other hand, would eliminate, not all, but a great many of the world's problems. The partition of society into rich and poor would be at once dissolved production everyone, not equally poor, but equally rich. The shift from forced labor to voluntary labor will consequent in far classic goods and services, while unrestricted passage to instruction will unleash the potential of every human being and usher in a golden age of arts and sciences.
Of course, before the transition from capitalism to utopianism can occur, the case for doing so must first be clearly and succinctly presented so that citizen can conceptualize both the existence of the alternative and the possibility of effecting the change. I sincerely hope that this brief essay has, in some small way at least, contributed to the realization of that end.
© 2007 Armand E. Legare all ownership reserved
I hope you have new knowledge about Farmers Insurance Open. Where you possibly can offer utilization in your everyday life. And most significantly, your reaction is Farmers Insurance Open.Read more.. The Case for a Utopian economy. View Related articles associated with Farmers Insurance Open. I Roll below. I even have suggested my friends to assist share the Facebook Twitter Like Tweet. Can you share The Case for a Utopian economy.
No comments:
Post a Comment