That's always the first reaction people have so they don't understand what I'm saying. As long as you use something as a currency object which conveys tradeable value, you will have the same problems. That's how ingrained it is in people to have money, barter: It becomes almost impossible to consider an alternative which provides incentive to contribute without the problems of measurable, tradeable worth.
Consider these "experiments" of a universal basic income. Just in reverse. Instead of giving everyone money, replace money with a system that does not require money or trade.
That's always the first reaction people have so they don't understand what I'm saying. As long as you use *something* as a currency object which conveys tradeable value, you will have the same problems. That's how ingrained it is in people to have money, barter: It becomes almost impossible to consider an alternative which provides incentive to contribute without the problems of measurable, tradeable worth.
Consider these "experiments" of a universal basic income. Just in reverse. Instead of giving everyone money, replace money with a system that does not require money or trade.
I'm listening. I'm probably one of those people with the ingrained thinking you're talking about.
What kind of system are we talking about here?
I'm listening. I'm probably one of those people with the ingrained thinking you're talking about.
What kind of system are we talking about here?
If you can't afford to pay your employees, you shouldn't have them. Advertising and hiring are the last things you should do because there is no guarantee of return for the first and liabilities for the second.
The argument used basically says that anyone could have a business if people worked for free (or practically). Which is funny because this is an indirect way of saying "Let's just get rid of money." And I agree. Get rid of money and you get rid of a lot of corruption, power struggles, war, and poverty.
But I suppose we can't have that.