It feels like when you look at economical ideas or approaches, they are all based on some previous outcomes. For example, communism against rich people. Capitalism against diluted power. But it is strange that economy is like a trial-error game on humankind. We decide some order of economical things and we try bending it for our own benefit and ultimately the economical order is blamed for the chaos that we have created. Therefore, if I want to talk about a working economy, I need to start with most basics that creates the concept of economy. Not that I understand much about economy, but I can at least investigate it. So in this blog post, I will try to imagine and explain and defend my ideal economy. Before reading this post, you might want to check out another older post called Some form of capitalism.. Or something else., where i have mostly focued on capitalism and human mistakes. This post will be more detailed and will propose solutions.
When you have a functioning society, even if it is a primitive one, you are dealing with needs. And needs must be provided by somebody and we call it a service or good. But there are different types of needs and you need different types of services and goods to be produced. Therefore you need some sort of responsibility distribution. People take care of different needs of others and some form of interchange or exchange starts.
At this point, you may guess what I will start with. The economy starts with labor, not sitting on your ass. Labor turns into value and it is valuable for someone and paid by someone. But wait, you can't pay for a good or service without any currency. And that currency must be the intermediary stuff. Because when you get a haircut from your barber, you can't ask him to pay by designing his clothes or defending him in the court ...etc. You can't exactly exchange your goods and services. Sooo, drum roll...., you need money.
This is where it all gets complicated and humans' greed and complacency and stupidity comes into play. Money started being the ruler of humankind. People talk about supply demand charts or market values or free economy stuff and bunch of other weird concepts. This the gap that I can't fill or understand. There must be something happened to people in the history to make them come up with these mechanism or solutions. A solution is created to solve a problem. So what problems did people faced? That I don't know. But I do understand all the optimized economical ideas or also socio-economical. That means, they try to govern both economy and social behaviors. I think, that proves my point. Human behavior creates problems and problems shape economical solutions.
If humankind hadn't produced problems alongside with their complex needs and orders, things can grow peacefully from this point without going to extremes. My utopian understanding of a good economy is where people are able to produce goods and services and others value and buy them. It doesn't require anything more. You don't have to do what everyone else is doing or what makes the most money. You don't have to save for your elderly years. You don't have to follow the news all around the world.
When the exchange logic and roots of money is mixed with people's strange behavior, there was also the problem of "grouping" of people. That grouping is about both nations and classes among people. Some nations consider themselves they deserve all of prosperity and tried to suck other people's wealth. Some people thought they deserve to rule over others and others should work. So humankind has lost all the meaning of labor at some point in the past. Now the economy turned into imperialism or colonialism or capitalism or whateverism. Not that I say the "reverse" of these is the solution. But I am sure, these are not cures, these are useless band-aids to cancer.
If for some reason, people don't get greedy or short sighted or narrowminded, they can value labor and share the overall wealth among each other. Because from the starting point, we all need one another at some point. You can grow the number of people, the contributors, to the economy while preserving a healthy structure. But you will ask "what about bridges or buildings or roads, how can you pay for that?". That is where we have the concept of ministry of treasure. That is basically what all people chip in with their own money or maybe labor. From a naive perspective, that treasure is used to build big things and fuel inventions. Isn't this the common theme across literally all of humanity? Why do you divide and diverge?
I wish I had enough knowledge to present examples of people trying to solve the problems by adjusting the solutions, rather than looking for root causes, especially in economy. Whatever economical theory is in place, there will be people trying to find shortcuts or bend the rules for their benefit. There will be governments to use the power and treasure for their propaganda. I know there are mixed economies in the world and they mixed a bit of free economy and a bit of powerful central authority and some capitalism. But the main reason they work is that people willing to make it work. People willing to share with others and care about others since they realize they need each other.
Even from my naive perspective, an economical model for billions of people is hard and I realize that. You need some high level planning to adjust what people need and what to produce. Do you need engineers or barbers or plumbers ...etc. You have to make sure the treasure money is spent fairly. You have to make sure nobody has the power to bully the small people. You have to make sure the direction of investments or economy is not destructive or degenerative. You can allow people to get rich but mostly, you have to make sure they are not disruptive. These are all complex situations and it feels like my strange economical approach is like a "statist communism" :) Or maybe the best of both worlds.
In my economical system, you don't get to retire, but you don't work more than 5 hours a day either. This way you won't have to rely on your pension, because you are not worn out. You contribute as long as you live, even for 2 hours a day, in anyway you can. This will also allow you to grow in a sustainable manner and eliminate the "elderly people" problem a little. You just have to create and provide opportunities for people to contribute. This covers the people with disabilities too. The key is giving them an opportunity that suites them. Well, if you are completely incapable of producing, that is where national treasure comes in. Assuming the people won't corrupt the system.
I know the world doesn't have unlimited resources, but that is manageable with efficient solutions. You can decrease waste, optimize agriculture and other industries, optimize distribution, decrease climate pollution. I am sure the world can fit 10 billion humans or more. It is just a matter of optimization and will.
There will be some inventions or discoveries that will cause some jobs to vanish. This is normal but we fear it. Why, because we think there is only 1 job that we can do. This is partially laziness by the way. But most of the time, people are afraid of not making money because there are not enough opportunities to work and make money. Yes, some machine can take your job and do it way better than you in some cases, then you must either have the ability to adapt to it or have the opportunity to grow in another or similar field. It shouldn't be so scary. This would probably require the intervention of treasury too.
My economy knowledge is very limited, but I have to mention that printing money is seemingly a bad thing. To me, it feels like creating money out of nowhere and it also devalues the money that I own. I don't exactly know how but printing money must be matched by some production. Back in the days, dollar was pegged by gold and Nixon created whole chaos by dismantling the Bretton Woods agreement overnight. So I concluded that money can be printed by actually as a correspondence creating value or a product or service. You can call this utopian.
Another utopian side of my view is workers being part of the company's wealth. It bothers me a lot. You can pay a CEO all you want but there are people who are actually making what is impossible for you to make by yourself. Bosses are rising on workers' shoulders. I know it is not feasible for everyone to have a company or something. You can eventually work for someone. But the more healthy approach is working with someone. So the more you work, the more company earns and the more your share grows. So it is some sort of being a direct shareholder of the companies wealth. Does this mean I will forbid people to own companies? No. I will force people to make workers a financial part of companies.
In my ideal economy, money is not the determining power or factor, and a central authority regulates it. The focus is on the labor and it's value, to ensure people can prosper by working, ideally no more than 5 hours a day. But that requires a substantial change of understanding. You have to give up on some profound concepts of the economies of today. Let's take a look at some invented concepts that i see harmful or unnecessary.
What is investment? Investment is something you believe in and spend money or effort on, without knowing a certain outcome or benefit. You can invest in a person and educate them and expect them to produce something for you. But if you want to invest on a meta, you either need to create that meta yourself, or buy it and expect it be valued more in the future. You can put together a car piece by piece if you want, but it will take time and some amount of your labor. But if you invest in an already existing car, that value can't just come from out of thin air. That value is coming from some other people's labor. So the investment world is actually labor diminishing world. If you turn a house or a car or health or education into an investment, they will be overvalued since you want to make money out of them. And eventually, you will be unable to acquire them.
There is another aspect of investment called risk investment. Maybe you want to create a vaccine or a machine to dig for gold, or some research on quantum physics, something that is massive or hard to produce. Than who is going to fund it? People won't be too eager to chip in if you can't promise them any concrete value in return. Well, this is kind of the job of governments, to convince people to contribute to national treasure. And also somehow decide which area gets funded. Today's world, rich people decide the direction and prepare to sell products alongside it, which is not ideal.
Then you will ask "what about finance". Finance is an outcome, not the center of the economy. I see absolutely no reason to invent finance. Because if you are talking about accumulating money to boost inventions or discoveries, that can already be done by central treasury. But we all know finance is about market values or weird equations or predictions or interest rates. It is mostly about money breeding money. I don't see any of these work for a better world. I don't think financial institutions will make the world a better place. People also merged finance with investment. That resulted in an abomination. Now you are trying to make a living on other peoples intention to turn the return of their labor into investment. This is a doomed cycle or deadlock.
What is global economy or national economy? In a normal world, global economy is just a bigger version of a small commune. You just exchange stuff, but there are no global controllers or something. That part requires a global understanding. See, global economy requires global common sense. This doesn't sounds illogical does it? But in real world, we have the "natural resources" and some nations accidentally sit on them. Since the resources are vital for humanity, we cause chaos to acquire them. Also, you are not trying to balance it out by producing other valuable stuff, and eventually starting wars. And then you say "you don't understand economy" to me. Well, at this point, I have a load of reasons to laugh at your failures.
One more thing about national economy. It is a very very bad idea to concentrate development into a small area or in a couple of cities. It eventually leads to inequality and draws people into those areas and it causes overpopulation. Wealth and development gets concentrated in small areas and the rest of the country is left to struggle. There are lots of people who just work on a computer and can easily work remotely these days. Also there should be opportunities of different types of labor across country. This all needs a central planning and control and investment of development.
You can also ask, "who decides what profession that people should choose? Big brother?". Well, this is not exactly choosing. It is the government's job to give insights, like how many teachers for students, how many patients for a doctor ...etc. You will also realize there might be abundance of plumbers but a lack of electricians. These things inherently have a natural way to sort themselves out. Today, we are choosing based on the "promised maximum income", rather than satisfaction or qualification.
One very controversial side of my economical view might be "who values your labor and how". Well, this is the point where supply and demand things come into play. Or maybe benefits too. For example, I have been training my brain in software development area for like 18 years and acquired a qualification level and therefore I think my labor has high value and I can prove it. But a construction worker is damaging his body and it will cause him to be exhausted or make him sick in the future. Or some 20 years old kid sings or plays football and makes millions. A teacher literally shape the children's future. A doctor literally saves lives. An architect can draw a house but so can you, does that mean it is worthless? This requires some empathy and evaluation and inevitably some market balance. You can't put a fixed price on products and services. But you can't expect people to balance a market, because it always goes towards devaluing labor and looking for cheap labor. People are also avoiding some professions just because they are not valued. So in a naive way, if people don't prioritize maximum gain and if people are willing to understand the labor and pay for it, there can be a better balance. The first assumption here is people being able to earn enough to live and be satisfied by it.
Your abilities or what you can produce is not valued these days. Even the expertise is dismissed or disregarded because people "think" they can get away with cheap and average labor, for the sake of profit maximization. This is a feedback loop. More and more people assume the path to salvation goes through finance, rather than work and produce.
Decreasing the value of labor and increasing the effort on money breeding money actually means you are following market trends and investing on things. I don't even know which economical approach is right. I don't know how much freedom should be given to people. All I know is that we are trying to convince others of some solutions by turning a blind eye to real human behavior related problems. Nobody can win this game, because there is only the loosing option.
I know you can't just plug-in a new economical mindset and model to the world and expect it to run. So, if I need to be realistic about this, I can advice some changes towards a better direction for economy. Since we have the tendency to concentrate wealth, we need to reverse it piece by piece. Some wealthy people must start boosting or helping, NOT buying, the small initiatives, without taking away the authority of the business owners. So, no loan sharks or sugar coated evil investors are allowed here. In my design, this is the responsibility of the central treasure and management. Then people might start seeing more possibilities to do some actual job and support for themselves and their family. Then, assuming majority of the people are not lazy and willing to work, people from all around the country can start growing without concentrating people on big cities or feeding already obese wealthy people. All of this means more independence and sellable goods. This whole paradigm shift requires a change in human's mindset. It can result in a more lawful and productive system.
So the magic is simple. You are able to choose a work and provide for others. You are compensated and you pay for your needs. All of you gather together to produce what you all collectively need in a transparent treasure. You can get rich with supervision. If you can balance all these, you are good to go. Greed, hoarding, selfishness and laziness is forbidden. I can only point out that the "solutions" of today are not about economy, it is about trying to correct the wrong steps combined through history. It will never work. I admit, I am naive and utopian but NOT impossible. I don't want a system where i can get rich quickly with shortcuts, i want a system where i can work and make a living. See you at the next post :)
Leave a comment