If all work can be automated and goods can be produced at the click of a button, which I suspect will happen, and I don't have to work anymore then I am all for it. But who would be pushing the button, for me that is the important question. BTW Henry Hazlitt covers all this in his book Economics in One Lesson and says that every time there is panic about a new technology taking jobs the economy adjusts and he cites many examples. But I don't think he could foresee the rate at which technology is now progressing.
What's wrong with reducing everything to money? Money is just an abstraction which reflects a person's value to society. Would you rather everything be reduced to something else? What else is there that provides an objective standard everyone can agree on? I'm glad everything gets reduced to "money" rather than reduced to physical might or hereditary privilege, which are probably the only other objective options available. Everything else has been proven to be pie in the sky. The invention of money ranks up there with the invention of the wheel in terms of enabling the human species to advance from a small group of homo sapiens in Africa to the dominant species worldwide. If you try to replace it, what are you going to replace it with? Complaining about the role of "money" is one of those things that makes no sense to me.
In a "free market", supply and demand works and equal voting abounds. That very quickly degrades in to power blocks and incorrect price signals. Those get worse and worse until society hits a breaking point. Distortion in price signals causes ever more inefficiency and then social unrest. The jubiliee concept of the bible was an interesting one. I think it attempted to prevent long term disruption of price signals.
I agree. Currency is a derivative of something else and therein lies the rub. What is currency a derivative of?
My understanding of hunter-gatherer societies (where we seem to be headed back to - guns and caves LOL) had no state military (they used conscription for a common foe) and government did not control their economy. Will that do? Daniel Quinn's books have one answer for you. Never is a long long time. Control of food through economics causes much of what we see. Your comments are interesting. Thanks.
I wasn't complaining, I was just pointing out a truth that many would rather hide. It is indeed odd that the champion of democracy around the world is not a democracy itself.
The great tragedy is that democracy sounds good in theory but falls far short in practice. Just about every sort of modern democracy is bust ! And why ? Because you can't expect people to vote for the general good of the nation. Oh no they selfishly vote for what suits themselves e.g. more handouts, more medicare, more.......You get the picture.
I think I am right in saying Karl Marx said something like all ownership of property is theft ! Rubbish - too far one way The Western countries have perhaps gone too far the other way where 90% of property is owned by 5% of the population, which causes a lot of resentment - riots.
It was actually a Frenchman by the name Joseph Proudhon http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/property-is-theft
As far as I know, the US champions "democratic republicanism", although, in the final analysis, we don't dictate what any country's constitution will be, that is their decision. So, no, we are not a democracy, nor is democracy a viable long-term political system. US states are often called "laboratories of democracy" and they do have more democracy-related features such as referenda, that do not exist at the national level.