• Comrade Spood@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Heres the thing though. Areas for distribution of specific goods would still exist. Grocery stores for food, electronic stores, etc. You would still have nodes for distributing goods, you just wouldnt have money to decide who gets to have things and who doesn’t because frankly we don’t need it. You would change production till you meet demand. So people who don’t like you mention wouldn’t have a harder time getting what they need because it would be like how they already get it, just without money in the way.

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      You would change production till you meet demand

      Like I said, no offense, but I don’t think you understand logistics too well.

      “Just give everyone whatever they happen to want.”

      100 pieces of a highly sought out thing. 10 000 people who want it.

      What happens? Perhaps there could be some sort of “help-credits” to indicate how much common good you’ve done, and then you could offer a certain amount of those to indicate just how much you want that rare thing the production of which can not be increased? Oh wait, right, that’s currency again.

      • stratoscaster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Honestly… Full offense. You can’t just “scale production” to meet demand. Some demand is inelastic. Some resources there just literally aren’t enough to go around for everyone.

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          I’ll drink to that. (An energy drink, but still, gonna have a sip. Not pouring one out for you though, as my keyboard wouldn’t like that.)

      • Comrade Spood@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        What is something that meets that criteria? I am not interested in debating hypotheticals unless they have some basis in reality. What is something that has a higher demand than there is supply and also can’t be fixed by simply increasing production or developing an alternative that can be produced?

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Why do I have to sit here explaining primary school economics to you when you have Google?

          You have absolutely no idea of how this naive generalisation of yours would look like as an economy, you throw around vague things like “just make enough to go around” and “no need for money to be in the way”, not realising a currency is literally needed for any sort of advanced society, because we need specialised goods. Things which you can’t make at your own home.

          If you work at making GPU’s, how are you gonna get your things? You spend 8-hours a day doing intensive work on high-grade electronics, and then go to a hypermarket and choose whatever and don’t have to pay anything? Who produced that food? Do they not get compensated based on what they made or how much they made of it? They just get “helped” as well? Everyone gets anything that goes freely, that’s the idea? Well, unfortunately the rare earth metals you need to make those GPU’s are in high demand, and another GPU factory offered more “help” to get them so you don’t get any of them so you’re now not making any GPU’s so how are you gonna meet the “just increase production until it meets demand” instruction from your overlord Comrade Spood? What are you gonna do in the meanwhile? You don’t know how to make anything else than GPU’s. Who are you gonna “help”? Or are you just gonna stop doing anything, because it doesn’t actually matter as you can just go to the store to get those GPU’s for free as “people can just take whatever they want without a middle man or money” and “increase production until it meets demand”? Perhaps you might farm some potatoes. There can never be too much of potatoes, so they won’t ever devalue, so just make potatoes and then go pick up a high-end gaming rig and some VR-sets and a brand new sports car. With a sack of potatoes. No-one else will surely try to do that and it won’t lead to any issues and why wouldn’t the sports car guy trade his car for your sack of potatoes it’s not like there’s an overabundance of potatoes and a lack of specialised goods and he could never grow his own potatoes.

          That’s one product. How about vehicles? How about any electronics? I’ve decided I always want the best, but luckily it’s so realistic that everyone gets the best quality product because it’s not like producing higher quality stuff takes more work so that there’d be any need for someone to consider the value of that product, right?

          I genuinely don’t know how people like you argue these things so confidently when you haven’t the faintest grasp of how economies work and you seriously seem incapable of thinking about how your own suggestions would play out. No offense. I said it seems like. Please prove me wrong.

          • Comrade Spood@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I aint suggesting everyone gets a lamborghini, and $5000 computer, etc. That is just unimaginitive to think thats what I mean. People can problem solve. We don’t have enough supplies to create a car for everyone? Then create a decent public transport system so not everyone needs a car. The simple solution is if you don’t have enough for everyone, create an alternative everyone can share. And another thing is we over produce so much. How many cars sit on car lots because no one can afford them? How many homes are left empty cause no one can afford them? Look at how much food waste is produced every year. Its a simple fact that we over prpduce almost everything already, but money is what prevents people from ever getting it. And money incentivizes things like over production of cars and under funding of public transport, cause a car is more profitable. I ain’t saying we just haphazardly produce everything. I’m saying let people manage things themselves. A community sit down and address transportation problems. How many cars can we produce without exhausting resources? Not enough? Then who really needs a car and who can settle on public transport? I hold the belief that when people’s basic needs (food, water, shelter, healthcare, community) are met, and they are given equal agency with their peers, people will act rationally. The issue is our economic system, our government, and thus our society do not make for conditions that encourage rationality or care for your neighbor because it is hyper competitive, indovidualiatic, and authoritarian.