Peter Nicolaysen wrote:

How well can a model like this be adapted to a low-tech environment, or does it require something as technologically advanced as the World Wide Web to support it. It has been historically shown that Laissez-Faire capitalism functions in any conceivable situation or environment, (this is not to say that it is a fair system), only that it functions. Can you model be adapted to all reasonably conceivable situations that human-kind may find itself in over the next 500 years?

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Firstly, the model I have developed may be partially or fully realized. Secondly, it may be realized by a few people inside any metropolis and also by all of mankind. And finally it could have been realized hundreds of years ago in a small community partially but the full and wide implementation would not be possible without the information technology we have today. Actually, the system may be adopted let's say within a year if some community accepts it somewhere but it would be better making a serious study of the system based on a lot of different scenarios than learning on mistakes.

Peter Nicolaysen wrote:

I was curious, I have always looked at socialist economies as large scale monopolies on a national basis, that still function in a free enterprise arena. Planetary economics of supply and demand will push a socialist economy the same way it pushes any of the bigger monopolies that have grown up over the last 200 years.

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

So far, the capitalist company has been more productive than the socialist one because it had a much better allocation of resources. Imagine now, a traditional capitalist company and the same size socialist one where each work place would go to the best available worker highly responsible for his production as the model I have developed offers. The latest would, by definition, have a better allocation of resources, which the capitalist one would not be able to follow. The "socialist" one would be more productive and profitable on the market. That would force this time the capitalist company to join the "socialist" one, otherwise it would face bankruptcy. The "Socialist" company will win as simple as that.

Even if all of the companies in a region, country or whatever merge in one "mega" company and therefore lose competitors from other companies, that would not create a monopoly in traditional sense any more because an open competition for each work place would still exist. The customers would not be able to choose a product among many similar ones any more but high acceptability of the production would be enforced by evaluation of producers by customers. That would make the best economy, the most rational economy, etc., etc.

Peter Nicolaysen wrote:

In a capitalist economy, failure to perform has drastic consequences, no matter how big or powerful a company. Pennsylvania Railroad, and Enron are glaring examples of failure of blue chip corporations. What incentive does you system provide to ensure that the "best possible people" are always selected? Remember that the opinion of the many is not always correct, nor is the opinion of the experts. The general population used to think the world was flat, and if you want to get rich ask the experts what is impossible, then find a way to do it. What about small businesses, like shoe repair, TV repair, restaurants, movie theatre, and the like, should these all be centralized? How on earth could there be a reality of who was the best at collecting ticket stubs at a movie theatre? What about the people who don't want to work and would rather steal or otherwise prey on the system, what is your eutopia going to do for them.

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

In the model I have proposed, every worker will be some kind of shareholder of the "mega" company. That means each worker will pay responsibility by his shares for not fulfilling his envisaged productivity and the productivity of the collective. That is something capitalism does not have at all. In Enron's case for example, the workers lost their jobs and the shareholders money. Shareholders cared a lot but did not have enough influences in the decision-making processes and workers (especially leaders) were not concerned enough about the work. In the new model, a worker and shareholder will be the same person so that he will be much more concerned and responsible for the work.

I believe that the opinion of the many would most likely make the incorrect statement about everything due to the huge alienation of the system of values we have today. Also we have to accept the people’s needs without matter to what extent they are alienated because the people believe those needs are real. The system I have proposed will allow people to find their real needs.

It will depend on owners of small businesses as much as any other company whether they would like to join the “mega” company. If so, they will be welcome.

The most productive ticket stubs collector would probably be the cheapest one, the one asking the lowest price for the present work.

In the new system, each and every inhabitant will receive an income from the day of birth to the day of death without matter whether he or she works or not. The income will depend on the values of previous work, present work, on the realization of envisaged productivity, etc. That should at least diminish needs for stealing. People who make any kind of harm to society will face responsibilities for doing it by losing points of the past work (kind of humanist shares) proportionally to the damage they produced.

 Back to Top