ReeferMadness

I have read your posts. You seem to think that people will simply take what they need. In fact, if there is no mechanism to limit consumption (and that's what having a fixed amount of money does), people will consume wastefully. This is basic economic fact and observed behavior, not only in humans but in animals also. Watch grizzly bears feed when the salmon are plentiful. They eat the most nutritious parts and leave the rest for scavengers.

Yup. No thanks to white people who apparently would have been pleased to have a child molester for a senator.

It's not the same. If everything is free, people will take more than they need and waste things. You have a fixed amount of money, it forces you to make choices and be efficient.

Is it? I'm not an expert on US gun law but I didn't read anything in the wake of the shooting that indicated it would be illegal to own the arsenal he had. Certainly, there was (and still is) no ban on bump stocks (which is what he used to make his weapons automatic).

If the problem is apportionment, the answer is to give them the same amount of money and allow the to buy the bread they need. And have an economic system that will put enough emphasis on generating bread (and not put it all towards private jets or luxury yachts).

Well, I guess that proves it's the literal word of God. Silly me.

Whataboutism. Nice deflection. These guys are starting to face consequences. Unlike Trump and Moore. Any way of confirming that you're a real person an not a bot? Cuz I'm still skeptical that the type of delusional tin-hat thinking contained in your post actually occurs in real, sentient beings.

What BS this "debate" is, as usual around here. Al Franken - accused by 1 adult woman, immediately apologizes and calls for an investigation into his own behavior. Roy Moore - accused by a dozen women, teenagers at the time (some under the age of consent), banned from mall. Calls them all liars Donald Trump - accused by 20+ women of various charges, including rape of a 13 year old. Accusers include wife. Calls them all liars and threatens to sue them. Sure. Exactly the same.

The bible wasn't written. It was selected over the course of about 1,000 years from passages that were written by various people. That seems to me to be a rather haphazard way to pass along a vital message from the creator - especially since there were already thousands of generations of people that had to get by without it. There are some practical questions here? What would have happened if the people who wrote the bible passages didn't write them or wrote the wrong things? Aha! you say. God is omniscient and so he knew in advance that they would be born and what they would write. But if that's the case, what does that say about free will? If God knew in advance what was going to be written, that implies everything is predetermined. If everything is predetermined, there is no free will (none that is meaningful anyway) and the universe is nothing more than a giant mobile.

You still need a way of allocating scarce resources to the people. There is a difference between what people want and what they need.

You don't say. Religion is an excuse for people who want to do good things to do them and it's an excuse for people who want to do bad things to do them. You take a book that was written thousands of years ago in a completely different context and - surprise! - people can interpret it just about any way they want. OK. You believe that a book written over the course of ~1,000 years translated from obsolete dialects of a foreign languages; consisting of passages which were selected by various people hundreds of years after the original authors were dead is the literal word of God and should be followed literally today. And you're saying there is no contradiction between that and science? If you consider a religion as a belief system based solely on faith instead of logic with a devoted following that will not be swayed by evidence to the contrary, the most important religion in practice today is fundamentalist capitalism. The markets are the gods. They provide all that's good in the world and when they don't it's obvious that you haven't followed the religion closely enough. The commandments are all in support of endless economic growth and they are followed regardless of any facts or evidence which get in their way. The latest example is the latest round of tax cuts for billionaires (including a tax break for private jets!) which proponents swear will pay for themselves. This line has been trotted our repeatedly going back at least 50 years and tax cuts have NEVER paid for themselves but the true devotees bow their heads and defer to the market gods . And any science that is inconvenient (climate change, the effects of fracking, the impacts of wealth disparity on society, the list goes on and on) is ignored, de-funded, denied or undermined.

I like the way you think but I wouldn't go about it in exactly the way you are. There's no reason to get rid of money - it's just a means of exchange. And there is no reason for people to be exactly equal in wealth. However, the current levels of disparity of wealth and income constitute some of the most destructive factors in society. People don't need to be rewarded with billions or even millions to be motivated or happy. One area that has always been poorly served by capitalist economies is high quality, low cost, basic goods. This would make a natural entry point for government to set up highly automated, manufacturing and distribution of these types of products. I can think of lots of examples. I don't care much about fashion - I just want shoes that fit and last. Major appliances used to last 20-25 years, now they're sent for "recycling" after an average of 7 years.

How many people actually dig ditches by hand anymore? In fact, with advances in AI, it's close to the point where you just ask for a ditch to be dug. Why does it seem that these discussions always assume technology from Adam Smith's time? I think that we need an economic system that reflects the fact that we live in a finite world and our first priority should be to ensure that everyone has the basics before we indulge in our fantasies. And we should be restricting economic activities to that which will fit into a sustainable future, reflecting the best scientific consensus at the time. Under those conditions, I'm not sure there would be any racecar drivers. I think that you need to ask what makes the job stressful and demanding. A lot of stress is caused when people feel trapped in their current jobs (for a number of reasons). Sometimes its' the people you work with or the fact that people are doing repetitive, boring tasks. There are things that could be thought of as demanding and stressful (surgeon, astronaut) but a lot of the people doing those things love what they do.

Some people will work no matter what they get paid because, as Altai says, they get fulfillment. Some people will find a way not to work ( or at least not to be productive), no matter what. And there is a lot of work that is done in the world (much of it highly paid) that really doesn't serve any useful purpose. And most of what remains will be automated in the coming few decades. Between automation, elimination of non-value-added work, and people who are naturally motivated (and modest added incentives as required), it's easy to imagine a "work optional" world. I know the idea makes lots of peoples' heads explode but it's one possible future. If we're smart enough to seize on it.

I don't recall learning any American history in school but it doesn't matter. You can't avoid it in day to day life. There were 2 Americas - the enlightened, educated one and the one that was backwards, stupid, greedy and evil. The second one denied science, twisted religion, dehumanized people who were different and failed to honor basic human rights. Some things never change. When is the next civil war?