How would an economic model be based on a fairly daily life and free goods and services?

Free does not exist.There is always someone who has to invest time and effort to make something. Even if this work were unpaid.

In theory, a society could exist where everyone works towards wealth and takes on demand without any reservices or money being opposed.In practice, communes that were based on that principle were almost all covered by the fact than one does not like to work and the rather takes.

As a first: very democratic, much more democratic than the Netherlands.The trick is, I think, to give the state a lot of power, power over all the money so that they can ensure that everything is used for it. Then they can invest the money that is now invested in large homes or expensive cars in other things. Such as good services, free OV, etc.

This is possible only in very primitive societies.In principle, everyone is self-sufficient.

People also have another institution, sharing is starting point.

Now these primitive societies are very lazy.This is also natural, because we all work far too hard.

Often, simple societies have a compelling culture, but there is already a kind of division of labor, ranks and positions.

In A student house you can see how free services work.No one keeps the kitchen clean. Put something in the common fridge, then use another it.

Payments other than money are satisfaction and status.You find satisfaction in yourself, then you study something because it interests you. Status is your position in society, then you do something to be admired. In many pursuits, the status and satisfaction are most important, but you will also be happy to get money. In most pursuits, the money is the only reason to do it. You are not behind the cashier in the supermarket because you have such nice conversations with the customers.

Not.That is not going to succeed and will never happen.

In theory Koinkt it very just and well.But it does not work.

Let me explain that.

Free life means that you must live together with your standards, values and rules with people who have other (both broader and stricter) norms, values and rules.

There comes a time, that something you do them, or something she does to you, is against the chest.That is a guaranteed hassle. In a free life you can not then call the police or let a judge decide. You will have to get out of it yourself. But that’s not going to succeed. There are neighbors quarrels, people choose a party and get involved, sometimes even without knowing what it is about and just to get better.

Free goods and services are nicely fabricated, but that means that a few get a lot and many (too) little.The one with the most coarse and rude performance is rewarded and the rest has nothing. Without a government to distribute things more fairer, ‘ free ‘ is simply not possible. You see that at the store closing sales: There is a mad mass inside and many attract the same article to get it. Man will not wait neatly until he/she gets something. Man puts himself in the first place.

I can write the question “how could an economic model based on a fairly daily life and free goods and services look like?” in another way, with which the issue is likely to be immediately clear:

How do people individually and as a group make choices when money plays no role?

People see money as a magical thing, if you have it you are rich and if you don’t have it you have a problem.While the essence is that if you have a lot of money you have more freedom of choice as if you have no or little money.
If you consume, you choose now, if you save or invest, you can set your choice to tomorrow, and if you borrow you will reduce your freedom of choice in the future and increase your freedom of choice now.

To indicate how tricky the idea of “free goods and services” is in this perspective: suppose we are only going to put identical flats as homes.Because we do not want people to make choices on the property. Even then you have a question, because the house on the ground floor has other advantages and disadvantages like those higher in the flat. And the one flat is just slightly closer to the grocery store as the other. Even if you overcome this, you will get flats that are closer to the sea or just deep inland. All distinguishing factors that can be of interest to people.
Do we have to force people to live in a certain flat?And is that near or right away from their family? And do they want to?

And what does a fairly daily life mean?Today are you nuclear physicist and tomorrow psychiatrist? You will ignore the fact that both require a long period of training and experience, where the choice for one excludes the other by probability.
However, it may well be that we need both the nuclear physicist and the psychiatrist in the future, the nuclear physicist to meet the need for relatively inexpensive and environmentally friendly energy, the psychiatrist to people with mental illness-congenital or By life provoked-to treat.If these people are not there, then we deprive others of the choice they have today: the choice between energy sources, or the choice whether or not to treat a mental illness.

But even this may happen, if we assume that people choose what they like and actively participate in society and do not “relax” all day.
We put them all in flats, you can choose from 1 type of jam (strawberries), 1 kind of cheese (stink cheese) and a kind of sausage.For dinner we have a choice of what the people who would have thought of “playing peasant” have devised. So today spinach (the cultivation was half failed, planted too early and harvested too late) and thereby a slice of bacon. Or pork fillet, because a pig is of course not just bacon. And it is handed out, if you want to choose you have to swap with your neighbour/neighbor. Oh Yeah, the meat is already a bit corrupted, there were slaughterers in the last few days, but no one would like to get out of it, cut the flesh and pack it up. When that was finally done, the truck driver had just gotten a sense to help people with relocating, so today we eat the bacon which should actually have been on the menu a few days ago, with a significant delay at various points Suffered. But that musty air of the flesh and the flaccid vegetable we have been used to.

If I read this back, I get an idea of what the “economic model” is about: it resembles the economic model of a (utopian) communist society, in which I tightened up the edges of the freedom of participants.

This is not to say that such societies do not exist.In The Amazon is a tribe discovered that reasonably satisfies the description “free daily life and free goods/Services”[1.What is striking here is the lack of what we can call an economic system. One lives today-now-and with it, choices are also connected with the direct experiences. One has some elementary skills that are transferred, but even making a canoe or preserving food is not learned/remembered. There is trade with others, this is bartering, which is common in small societies that need things that they cannot produce themselves. You are trading with other tribes what you don’t need for something you can use.

For a complex society, such a model is similar to Utopia.It works for that tribe because they are self-sufficient, or perhaps better: their environment allows them to live in a way where they do not need an economic system. This was also the same with former hunter-collector tribes, who live in a similar way. You live from the abundance of the land, and if there are any shortages (or an accident happened) you go dead.
The question is whether people who live in a complex society want it.Because abundance is actually surplus, we have too much. And that is not efficient, because we could have also been able to make something different.
Then you come back to the phenomenon of making choices: a member of the Pirah茫 Stam has a very limited freedom of choice, only what is available can he choose.No point in the berries he sees: Maybe the next tree is another berry. But if an animal or a pedigree has eaten it, he is unlucky. What does he choose? Extra activity to find other berries, or yet eat what is available?
And that is another economic principle in a nutshell: Taking a risk by setting a choice, or choosing it now and thus activating another risk-as it does not see that there is danger, or just a large amount of berries-because the quest N is not continued.

You see: By not basing a study of economics on freedom and “free”, but rather on choices, it becomes clear that as societies become more complex the choices become more complex as well.And freedom in a complex society makes people for other choices as in a simple society.
We have a complex web of social relations and linked to it what is and is not appropriate, where Pirah茫 have a much simpler web of social relations, and thereby also a lot of social protocols are not present.
If there is also an abundance, it is possible that an economic system is not needed, but then again the question is whether you want people to make abundance, because this can be seen again as waste.The time and energy to make 10,000 loads and bins that are not sold can also be used for something else, which increases the freedom of choice.

I do not see an economic model which allows a communist way of life in a complex society, but we know that it can work in smaller societies which make use of the abundance that is present in nature.


[1 Pirah茫 people-Wikipedia

Free goods and services?Who would then produce those goods and who offer the services. And it should be borne in mind that there are many empty runners who want to sit on the first grade for a dime.

Short Answer: Hmm a bit like Cuba but then with worse weather?

More serious answer: A fairly daily life and free goods and services.In my definition, this means no costs for living, caring, education and transport and the opportunity to develop In a way that will make you happy, without coercion and that there is also the right degree of recognition. For the rest, food should not be too expensive

In my mind there are two ways to approach this.Complete from the ground up or when we as the Netherlands/Europe would move on to such a system. I keep it for this answer at the first aspect. If there is a lot of Animo I will add Scenario B later.

Mind you everything below has many assumptions and is short through the bend.It’s a Quora answer no thesis

Scenario A: A new paradigm

If everything would be built from the ground up, then houses, public transport, care institutions, schools (childcare to university) and all government utilities.

The government determines and pays everything and ensures that everything is also maintained and the correct progress is made.

Because freedom and free life is central.There are no income from living, and use of other facilities.Maintenance is also borne by the Government.

Roads, electricity everything is borne by the Government.

Everything that is managed by the Government means that people are hired for it.They will have to receive compensation for this. Even more cost.

So there are people who work and they need to be compensated for it.The people who work will therefore have more to spend and, for example, want to have nicer houses. It is therefore necessary to create provisions.

This is possible in a way.If there is sufficient income.

  1. Taxes
  2. Export abroad
  3. Port for Hinterland

Are the main possible revenues.If you don’t have oil/my resources you will have to invent other ways of earning money. Generating renewable energy maybe or something else.

Now that I think about it, by having a big focus on (small) art, science and sport, commercial value can be created internationally and serve as an incentive for society.

While free living is important, something can be expected from the citizens.A “compulsory social participation” could be introduced. Tasks that are carried out unpaid for 40 hours per quarter or so so that everything remains affordable. A system can be set up to deliver more freedoms.

Quality of life knowledge level and other aspects should be as good or better than overseas to prevent emigration.Immigrants are welcome but to meet this system there should be a comprehensive set of rules like Australia for example.

Never succeed.Goods and services cost money to make. Who pays? The government? And how does it come to his money? Tax. And if money and goods do not yield anything, no one wants to make them anymore, and you have no work. If no one makes any more, and so you don’t have a job, you can’t pay taxes.

Free does not exist.Only the sun comes free.

That is a utopia and therefore cannot (remain) by definition.Not be described in any fact.

Leave a Reply