So you would deny free movement of labor? In regards to #2, it seems you deride work for profit, and instead imply that there would be a central plan for determing what jobs there would be, and who would do them. If you deny an economy to make free market decisions on what to produce and for whom, what would happen to technological advances, which rely on capital and risk and return? Why would one work hard at their job if they are guaranteed income? If profit is so derised in your system, how do you suggest people will find the initiative to work hard and achieve, if they won't be rewarded for that extra work?
Most of all, how would you address the economic calculation problem, with the elimination of profit-based industrial organization?
This reads a lot like communism, whether you want it to or not. What if people don't want to work in the jobs you would "create" or emphasize? What if everyone wants to continue to work at for-profit companies to make more money? Do you at some point start "forcing" them to reconsider?
“So you would deny free movement of labor? “
There will still be a free movement of labor in terms that individuals are able to choose what career/direction they wish to commit themselves to. So no, we do not deny free movement of labour - in fact the movement of labour will be greatly enhanced as there will be less barriers in place that keep people from pursuing what they want to engage themselves in life.
“In regards to #2, it seems you deride work for profit, and instead imply that there would be a central plan for determing what jobs there would be, and who would do them.”
The Government will only intervene when the Market requires assistance in creating employment and ensuring that basic goods and services are produced for everyone. As such there is no 'central planning' -- the Government will only intervene when required.
“If you deny an economy to make free market decisions on what to produce and for whom, what would happen to technological advances, which rely on capital and risk and return?”
The assumption that technological advances rely on capital, risk and profit returns is an incorrect one. We can see this even in the simple things like Open Source Software -- look at for instance Linux and Ubuntu, many Operating Systems today are based on this technology which was not profit driven. When the profit motive is removed and funding is provided, technological advancement is dependent on people's passion and motivation. Within this consider also that funding will not be tied to profit and thus there will be larger space for technological innovation which has previously been ignored 'because there's no money in it'.
You can read more on this point here:
Day 152: Linux proves Profit Motive does not Provide the Best Result
“ Why would one work hard at their job if they are guaranteed income? If profit is so derised in your system, how do you suggest people will find the initiative to work hard and achieve, if they won't be rewarded for that extra work?”
One would engage themselves in their job from a starting point of self-enjoyment and integrity. Many people today to not engage or commit themselves because the job they do is merely done from a starting point of survival and having limited options available. One will have to motivate oneself and assume one's responsibility to the betterment of society as a whole. Within having a real choice for the first time people will choose the jobs that truly interest and stimulate them which in itself will aid in the engagement, commitment and quality of the task done. It’s time to realise that we can move beyond being puppets who only move when our strings (=money) get pulled and realise that we can live and contribute simply from a point of self-respect and dignity – both for ourselves and others.
“Most of all, how would you address the economic calculation problem, with the elimination of profit-based industrial organization?”
There will still be a Market Mechanism in place within Equal Money Capitalism -- we're merely replacing the variables that drive supply and demand to support Life instead of profit. On this topic you can read the following blogs:
Day 173: Supply, Demand, Business and Scarcity in Equal Money Capitalism
Day 175: The Economic Problem and Equal Money Capitalism
Day 196: Market Mechanisms and Equal Money
“This reads a lot like communism, whether you want it to or not. What if people don't want to work in the jobs you would "create" or emphasize? What if everyone wants to continue to work at for-profit companies to make more money? Do you at some point start "forcing" them to reconsider?"
The implementation of an Equal Money Capitalism system already implies a shift in values -- away from profit and consumerism to Life and responsibility. This implementation requires to go through the normal political processes and thus would be implemented through consent -- which means there would be consent on the basic principles and values.
Wanting more money than you would need is merely an indication of greed which is a form of mental disorder and would have to be addressed through a process of psychological facilitation and correction. You will receive everything you need to live a comfortable Life -- anything more would compromise others for the sake of one's own desires and is unacceptable. As such there will be no 'for profit companies' in the sense of pursuing indefinite growth in the name of greed -- it will thus not be an option to be considered. In terms of 'wanting more money' you can read the following blog:
Day 165: Equal Profit Share and Equal Money Capitalism
Linux absolutely does not prove that profit motive does not provide the best return. You are taking an exception to the rule, and trying to draw a new conclusion. Open-sourcing does not require large amounts of capital or risk, so it is a poor comparison. For every "Linux" you show, I can point towards the airline industry, the automotive industry, the computing industry, the biotech industry, the healthcare industry, etc; all industries that would not exist if there was no capital and return/risk economic calculation for investors.
Of course you'll be able to, for every Linux, point at a huge amount of companies/industries that grew within the profit-motive principle - because we live in a capitalistic system. At the moment, people are being motivated through profit, so that is how the point moves at the moment. However - the assumption is always made that it is impossible to do without the profit motive - and to refute such assumptions, it is sufficient to have one example that proves that it can be done otherwise. From there, it is a matter of identifying the conditions of the environment within which growth and innovation would be best supported.
"Wanting more money than you would need is merely an indication of greed which is a form of mental disorder and would have to be addressed through a process of psychological facilitation and correction. "
Ah, this tells me all I need to know about this "equal money capitalism".
You have to understand that the current capitalistic system has been designed to 'manage', 'manipulate' and 'control' the self-interested nature of the human being. So, capitalism recognises that human nature at the moment is faulty. However, instead of actually supporting individuals to move beyond such self-interested attitudes and behaviors, capitalism takes advantage of it by pushing people's buttons so that most slave away and some can live a God's life. So - EMC recognises the same problems within human behavior and attitudes - however, instead of manipulating people and trying to control them, we suggest to actually address those issues, resolving them and thus empowering each one. Now tell me - which of these approaches would you say is mind control?
