[Beasty]

So lets say I want to obtain a product, smokes for instance.

Under the system you ant the entire world to adopt, with what would I buy the product I desire?

You wouldn't. It wouldn't be produced in the first place.

But theoretically, even a good you actually need wouldn't be bought. You needs would be factored in with everyone elses and a computer algorithm would ration it for everyone.

Gone would be the days of having 50 different brands of spaghetti sauce. It's a waste and a half.

[Donut]

So basically, you're saying that I'll just have a computer make the item pop up like magic?

[Beasty]

So basically, you're saying that I'll just have a computer make the item pop up like magic?

Are you intentionally fucking with me, or are you legitimately this retarded?

[Donut]

No I just don't understand how you can essentially pay nothing to get a product that "wouldn't actually need to be produced"

[Beasty]

Because you don't pay for labor either.

There's no such thing as money. Only nationalized industry. You work in your field, whatever it is, and that byproduct is inherently public property. That product then is registered into a government database which utilizes a complex algorithm which takes data collected by the government assessment on resource and good usage, need and surplus and with some weights and a tad bit of user input, this algorithm decides which resources and goods go where they are needed. The direction is then sent back to the good/resource production, where it is then tracked by unique ID number and each unit is directed to where it is needed.

Of course, you wouldn't need to create one of everything for everyone. For instance, you don't need your own car, do you? Not when you could simply manufacture a few buses to cover your entire local area. That's the idea, only expending what you need and being smart with societies resources. That's not to say wants don't matter, because they do. A little bit of luxuries is a need.

The reason I said it "wouldn't be produced in the first place" is because there is no real reason or incentive to waste resources on tobacco products, so in the long run they probably wouldn't exist.

[Donald J Trump]

Beasty you sound like the most butthurt pleb right now.

[Donut]

looks like economic freedom just went right out the window in this model.
It'd be like slave labor almost "you work x amount of hours in y field, and we'll give you z supplies"

It look a just a little too good to work in the real world... just like communism.

[RockerJ]

Because you don't pay for labor either.

There's no such thing as money. Only nationalized industry. You work in your field, whatever it is, and that byproduct is inherently public property. That product then is registered into a government database which utilizes a complex algorithm which takes data collected by the government assessment on resource and good usage, need and surplus and with some weights and a tad bit of user input, this algorithm decides which resources and goods go where they are needed. The direction is then sent back to the good/resource production, where it is then tracked by unique ID number and each unit is directed to where it is needed.

Of course, you wouldn't need to create one of everything for everyone. For instance, you don't need your own car, do you? Not when you could simply manufacture a few buses to cover your entire local area. That's the idea, only expending what you need and being smart with societies resources. That's not to say wants don't matter, because they do. A little bit of luxuries is a need.

The reason I said it "wouldn't be produced in the first place" is because there is no real reason or incentive to waste resources on tobacco products, so in the long run they probably wouldn't exist.

Same crap that people tried to escape from under Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Castro, and Mao?

[Beasty]

hahaha, no, not communism. SOCIALISM (which is what you're talking about) still retained a currency, this doesn't as it's a RBE (resource based economy). The resources themselves are the only commodity, there is no middleman commodity like banknotes.

And to Donut, none of this implies the destruction of economic freedom, only a reduction in it. And how is reducing economic freedom a bad thing? The amount of freedom you have now is in direct correlation to the instability and waste in the current economic model. Wouldn't it make sense to curb a little freedoms in order to ensure a more productive system? It's not as if we don't do that already- you don't have the freedom right now to murder people, but that's not a bad thing. I suppose I could better correlate to the above with a different analogy- for instance, you are not allowed to manufacture drugs and sell them. Neither things have a direct causal harm to any individual, but in the interest of public safety and the functioning of a better system, we don't allow it. Or replace drugs with say high grade military weapons, or the laundering of money, and it's all the same argument.

In any case, I have yet to imply any social or political manifestations, all I've supposed is the economic portion of a new order. So to say that you wouldn't have lateral social mobility or that you would be "an enslaved worker" is ludicrous, especially when you come to understand that there would legitimately be a small amount of real jobs. The majority of jobs would be automated, and with good reason- it's faster, cheaper, frees up human time and would have happened sooner if not for the necessity to repress automation in the private sector in order to make our current out dated economic model work.

[Beasty]

Beasty you sound like the most butthurt pleb right now.

mkay, call me when you have something constructive to add.