[Mercani]

In the long run, it seems that the real problem is not peak oil, but the idea of sustainable infinite growth = capitalism, which is totally non-sense.

I assume most of the people would be enligtened after post-peak about this fact.

Therefore I propose a new economic system to replace Capitalism, for discussion. I haven't thought about this deeply, so never mind if it is crap.

Could we create a different economic system where "free market" is a principle, but a person can own at most some specific amount of wealth. Overpassing this limit is illegal, you have the spend the excess wealth in some limited time, and reduce your wealth. Otherwise government forcefully takes it and uses it for some good purpose(HIV research, aid to starving Africa, etc)

That would limit the incentive for growth.

e.g. once a "Bill Gates" goes over this limit(for example $1 million), he should be forced to spend the excess wealth he has, and reduce it to $1 million. Therefore in the end Microsoft would be owned by millions of people. Does this also kill the incentive of Microsoft to develop new products?

Is there a fundamental problem with this approach?

One problem would be, what happens when nearly everybody becomes rich and owns $1 million? This seems like everybody is equal, too much like Communism.

Another problem:
The economy can grow only at the rate of population. Therefore this may push even population up faster. Now, we have to put a legel limit on the number of births.

Is this utopia?

What do you think?

Is it possible that we are stupid enough to stick to Capitalism after peak-oil is all over?

Is it our destiny to hit peak-whatever after we hit peak-oil?

[kpeavey]

I am completely opposed to everything you propose, from the very core of my being. It will never happen. You completely disregard human nature.

If you took all the money, property, and possessions in the world and divided them equally with all the people in the world, within a few years, the people that have wealth now, will have it again, the people who have nothing, will have nothing again. Stupid people make stupid decisions which keeps them poor. Smart people make smart decisions which makes them wealthy.

When you limit rewards, you limit incentive, not just for growth, but for accomplishment. Why should a person strive to achieve if some millionaire somewhere is forced to hand over his hard earned pay to make things "fair". Where is the incentive for the hard working creative guy to keep producing once he gets his million?

Capitalism is not an ISM, it is simply what people do naturally when they are free to do as they please. If the economy were to collapse tomorrow, I expect a barter economy would develop rapidly. There would be masses of people who would barter themselves homeless. There would be many who would barter themselves sustainably. They would be a few who would barter themselves into a position of wealth and power.
"what happens when nearly everybody becomes rich and owns $1 million? "
It will never happen.

Your plan does not accept the fact that all humans are not the same. People are not equal, never have been, never will be.

Someone has filled you head with ideas of fairness and equality. You should find out who that person was and kick the shit out of him.

[Mercani]

My intention is not to propose a system where everybody is equal. Even if everybody had $1 million, some people would work less and maintain that level, while some others (less intelligent or lazy ones) would need to work more and have less time for leisure. (of course if they don't want to decrease their wealth)

There is still competition. Because if I work an hour a day and you work 2 hours a day to have the same standard of living, that means although I am earning same as you, I could be enjoying my money more. And more importantly Bill Gates could be earning and spending $500K a month, while average joe could be earning and spending $5K a month.

Due to differences in people, while some people are earning more(and working more) and consuming more, some other people may be working less, earning less and consuming less.

Therefore it would be fair to limit excessive wealth accumulation. If you know that you cannot have more than $1 million, but you are still trying to increase your wealth, you aren't fair to yourself !

You say that the incentive for hard-work is to accumulate wealth. I am saying, the incentive should not be to accumulate, but spend what you earn!

[americandream]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kpeavey', 'I') am completely opposed to everything you propose, from the very core of my being. It will never happen. You completely disregard human nature.

If you took all the money, property, and possessions in the world and divided them equally with all the people in the world, within a few years, the people that have wealth now, will have it again, the people who have nothing, will have nothing again. Stupid people make stupid decisions which keeps them poor. Smart people make smart decisions which makes them wealthy.

When you limit rewards, you limit incentive, not just for growth, but for accomplishment. Why should a person strive to achieve if some millionaire somewhere is forced to hand over his hard earned pay to make things "fair". Where is the incentive for the hard working creative guy to keep producing once he gets his million?

Capitalism is not an ISM, it is simply what people do naturally when they are free to do as they please. If the economy were to collapse tomorrow, I expect a barter economy would develop rapidly. There would be masses of people who would barter themselves homeless. There would be many who would barter themselves sustainably. They would be a few who would barter themselves into a position of wealth and power.
"what happens when nearly everybody becomes rich and owns $1 million? "
It will never happen.

Your plan does not accept the fact that all humans are not the same. People are not equal, never have been, never will be.

Someone has filled you head with ideas of fairness and equality. You should find out who that person was and kick the shit out of him.

[Jack]

Mark me down as absolutely and utterly opposed to your scheme.

I would use every tool I had to subvert the system, and to help others do likewise.

If I could possibly escape from the system you describe, I would do so, taking whatever assets I could. If I couldn't escape, I would powerdown my productivity to the point that nothing - absolutely nothing - was generated. You may rest assured that there would be no volunteer work and no charitable contributions, either.

In such a system, there would be only one way to prevent escape - and that's with a gun. So I suppose that, ultimately, I would be executed. Which would be better than living in the chains described in your scheme.

I am reminded of an old quotation from MacBeth:

Act 5. Scene VIII

SCENE VIII. Another part of the field.

Enter MACBETH
MACBETH
Why should I play the Roman fool, and die
On mine own sword? whiles I see lives, the gashes
Do better upon them.

[Mercani]

If somebody is opposed to this system, he should better explain how Capitalism (infinite growth) will be sustainable. Or you could propose your own system.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')If I could possibly escape from the system you describe, I would do so, taking whatever assets I could. If I couldn't escape, I would powerdown my productivity to the point that nothing - absolutely nothing - was generated. You may rest assured that there would be no volunteer work and no charitable contributions, either.

[kpeavey]

Capitalism based on infinite growth is not sustainable. I refer you to the Club of Rome report Limits to Growth.

Let's say I had lots of money, Billions in fact. My ideas and hard work earned me that money. It is my reward for my hard work, efforts, and ideas. Would you take it away from me to give it to someone who did not work hard or come up with ideas? For what purpose? You would be rewarding laziness, lethargy and ignorance while penalizing success, enterprise and creativity.

It is a fact that I earn a handsome paycheck. I have no debt other than my mortgage, which takes me about 2 days to earn. A week of effort will pay all my bills for a month. According to national income statistics, there is a high probability that I earn more than you do. I certainly make more than the guy across the street. Should I simply get your name and address and write you a check for half the difference between our incomes? By your plan, regardless of what you do, have or earn, I should give you what I have because I have more than you. I would like to get more land and add on to my house. With your plan, I work hard so the guy across the street can get more land and add on to his house.

Let's turn the tables around. The guy across the street is a total loser. Because you have a computer, I have no doubt that you have more than him. You need to start writing a check to him every week. He deserves it, and you have so much more than him. you won't miss it. He can do a much better job of spending your money than you can. Probably on pizza and beer from the look of his garbage-can't miss it, it's all over the yard.
This guy will not work regardless of how much you send him each week.
You send him more money each week, he'll put more up his nose.
This guy is a scumbag. He will never be a useful or productive member of society. Nonetheless, you still have to send him part of your income.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy is Bill Gates trying to own one more billion dollars, when he can live very very well by not working any more. Heck, he would have to find clever ways just to spend what he is earning !

Is this rational human behaviour? I don't think so.

[Doly]

People confuse capitalism, free market, and a reward-based salary system. They are 3 different things, and they can be separate.

Capitalism means that a business will try to make a profit (also known as capital). In other words, there's nothing left after the business has paid the suppliers, salaries and other costs of running the business.

Free market means that anybody is allowed to buy and sell freely.

A reward-based salary system means that people are paid better if they do a good job and/or their job is more difficult.

There is no reason why a system where businesses don't make a profit couldn't reward people that are good at their job with higher salaries, or have a free market.

What creates the tendency to unlimited growth isn't personal wealth or free markets, but the natural tendency of a business to grow because it makes a profit and has to use that profit for something.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Mercani', 'I')f somebody is opposed to this system, he should better explain how Capitalism (infinite growth) will be sustainable. Or you could propose your own system.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')If I could possibly escape from the system you describe, I would do so, taking whatever assets I could. If I couldn't escape, I would powerdown my productivity to the point that nothing - absolutely nothing - was generated. You may rest assured that there would be no volunteer work and no charitable contributions, either.

[Mercani]

kpeavey,

Please read my post again. I never said that rich should give their money to poor. Basically if you are earning a lot you should spend it, not give it away. Buy something. Anything. Or don't work too much if you don't want to spend , thus don't give anything to that loser.

Government already gives very poor people food coupons ! But that's not the point. Government can use excess money to build roads, dams, power plants, etc.

Why are you accumulating? How good is a money in the bank if you're not gonna use it? Well $1 million was arbitrary. It might be $10 million. It should basically cover your living expenses in a meaningful manner till you die.

[Mercani]

Doly,

Why does the corporations make profit? Because their share price rise, when they make profit. And shareholders increase their wealth. That is the point. If all shareholders of a corporation are at the wealth limit, they wouldn't care about any more profit.

Free-market and reward-based salary are good. capitalism is bad.

[Mercani]

Jack,

You wrote,
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')First, you presume that capitalism requires infinite growth; or, for that matter, growth of any sort. Capitalism is a method for allocating resources - and during a period of general economic shrinkage, efficient allocation may be more critical than ever.

[Wildwell]

I haven’t thought of a good economic system yet. Capitalism is about the best we have come up with, but as can be seen it’s not perfect and I don’t think any economist would agree it is. Heck, they’ve been arguing about Keynesian, classic and macro and micro economics for years, at least the last 100.

I would think a future system might work on values or different three things:

EV – Energy value – Eg how much energy did it take to make a certain product and get it to market.
NV – Environmental value – The environmental cost.
MV – Monetary value.

I’m absolutely for a system of freedom and choice though, but we need a way of weighing up external costs better and natural limits. People shouldn’t be scared of money or wealth though – it’s just a replacement for barter which has been going on since the beginning of time. It’s just messing up things for the planet and screwing resources they should be frightened of.

[pip]

This is silly. If I have to spend $1,000,000 this year what the heck am I going to spend it on that will be worth nothing at the end of the year? I will still have the same or near same net worth, just not in cash.

This idea reminds me of that Richard Pryor movie. Brewster's Millions or something like that.

[Tyler_JC]

I'm with Jack. If you try to enforce your system on me, I'd try to stop you. Theft is a crime and I would be within my right to stop you. Bill Gates uses his extra money to invest in the economy. If you want to increase his taxes and use the money to pay down the national debt, I wouldn't be as opposed. But your "wealth limit" is foolish, EVIL, and counter-productive.

Also, you have absolutely no idea how the system works. My mother owns a small business. She has several workers. She is a capitalist. They work for her and she pays them a salary. If you put a wealth limit on my mother, she would hire fewer employees. This would put several people out of work. They would have no way of feeding themselves. How does this help her workers?

Peak Oil may change a lot of things, but a natural economy (a market economy) is not one of them.

[lotrfan55345]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kpeavey', ' ') Stupid people make stupid decisions which keeps them poor. Smart people make smart decisions which makes them wealthy.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Mercani', ' ')In capitalism,
If a company doesn't make profit, its share price does not rise. Shareholders want share price to rise(or get dividends)

Therefore main incentive for the company is to make profit, which brings economic growth.

Well, economic growth is good until you hit environmental limits. No more oil. or no more water, or no more uranium. Then you crash. Peak oil is the crash of capitalism.

[Ayoob_Reloaded]

Jack,

Please read Guns, Germs, and Steel.

[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ost rich people were born rich, got the family company/estate and stayed rich!

[smallpoxgirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Mercani', 'T')herefore I propose a new economic system to replace Capitalism, for discussion. I haven't thought about this deeply, so never mind if it is crap.