Quote:
Originally Posted by Reincarnate
It doesn't matter how you word this stuff. You cannot handwave costs by just making random assumptions and redefining things.
You're basically saying "Work X amount and you'll have a score increase -- and this score determines what you can buy." We hit a score of 100,000 or something and now we can buy a house. It doesn't matter that this variable isn't "exchangeable." If you're going to say "these are all the items you can achieve with this score," then it's the same as if we had a monetary system where we could pay a dollar amount equal to the sum of the prices of the items in question.
Renaming the system to be in terms of "nonexchangeable credits" doesn't get us anywhere. It's still an exchange -- we're exchanging goods and services. The utility increase of my work output results in an ability to purchase the outputs of others. Only now you're basically limiting what people can actually have.
|
On the contrary... People would be able to get a lot more.
If you had a justification to get certain materials, you'd be able to get it for free. You'd be supervisionated and stuff, but, still, you'd get it.
E.g.: if you had enough education and could prove it, you'd be able to get permission to obtain materials for your research on teleportation for you university.
You could gain credits for even
going to school, instead of having to pay for education, since going to school is useful to the world.
People who produced food would gain credits just for producing it, and people who
needed the food would get it for free. The ammount of food you could get would be calculated depending on your weight, number of people living with you and you could get extra food with enough credits if you wanted to make a party or be a bodybuilder or something. (obesity rate would also go down)
No one would be homeless unless they wanted to.
Nobody would lose credits in order for someone else to gain.
Of course, it's still possible that the database which said how many credits each people had could be hacked and stuff, but it isn't any
less safe than our current banks.
What are you complaining about? Of course goods would be limited. They are limited now, too. But they would be more fairly distributed. In what aspect, exactly, is the system I described inferior to our current capitalism?