Difference between revisions of "Computerized economy"

Revision as of 18:36, 1 October 2013

As there were factories and workers and raw materials and consumers who wanted products and services both before and after 2008, why were all of these things suddenly diminished? The answer is, the money men. They make it run, they just stopped. And whether one describes it as, they stopped because they wanted to, or they stopped because they had to, they are still the weak link. And they can be replaced by computers. Not only are they paid more than everyone else, and not only do they do their job poorly (allowing everything to collapse every couple of decades), but they are entirely expendable. Every transaction that takes place in our economy can be performed by the merest electronic blink of a computer program. All the salesman. All the financiers. All redundant. And what would these people do for a living, you ask? Why, what everyone else does. It is really that simple. Imagine it.

Com+mundi+put Together + World + reckoned (latin, as in computer, reckoned together) World reckoned together. It also has an endearing, inoffensive sound like Lilliput (WP), which is suitable for a utopian proposition which could potentially threaten rulers. Better to be underestimated.

The processes of the world analyzed, with qualitative values assigned quantitative value by humans (if necessary, as an ongoing process), and the resulting program run by computer, instead of middlemen.

Implementation is simple. The same system that allows companies to steal the work of workers, and steal the accumulated loot of other companies, enables the cooperatives to steal these things back. And because they are more efficient because of and in direct proportion to the waste that investment capitalists make, they will always make higher profits faster than the capitalist economy, slowly but steadily increasing to take up more and more of the economy.

It may take hundreds of years, and it can potentially be halted by the economic elites. This should be expected-it is, after all, an existential threat to them. However, in many ways they are powerless against it. They cannot dismantle the system of factories and workers and consumers itself, which is all that Commmundiput requires. They could require investment in companies, or outlaw the cooperative systems themselves, but both of these are on the face of it, immmoral, and difficult for them to rationalize, easy for proponents of the co-ops to criticize, and would make it easier for proponents to rally both political and financial support. Make no mistake-the challenge of commundiput will not be a financial one as much as it will be a legal and political one.

Egalitarianism is a given. Even if self-interest is assumed to be paramount, this can be proven to be true. If one self-interested person is tasked with cutting the cake in half, and the other chooses their half, the person cutting will always take care to make the division as equal as possible. So when everyone spends the same time and effort in work, then the pay should be the same.

Motivation, goes the big lie, is entirely based on pay. Yet it is common knowledge that a good job is also a job that offers the best chance to use one's most advanced skills, and one that is truly productive and makes a difference. Humans will always find something lacking in their lives, working in a job that does not make full use of their capabilities. So the lie is exposed-there will always be workers for the most advanced and difficult jobs. Will there always be people who will settle for less? Probably. But instead of it being a given that they must be bribed to do more, they will instead be a valuable resource to fill in the jobs that are not complex and difficult.

See also: Resource-based economic model