In a free-market system, a man makes a mouse and in order to make the 5 dollar asking price he has to sell it to a consumer. This makes sense because it's balance. It took him 5 dollars worth of resources to make that mouse, and he needs a person willing to trade him 5 dollars in order for there to not be waste.

In your system, a man makes a mouse and gets 5 dollars before he's even sold it. We're still not completely sure if there is a person willing to buy that. If there isn't, then 5 dollars in inflation was created out of something that was completely unproductive. In theory you might be able to make this work, but in real life it's incredibly difficult to predict a market's future. That's why the stock exchange is so risky, demand can fluctuate drastically and quickly.

A surplus would be devastating because not only would there have been too many mouses made, but people will get a bunch of money for the products when they haven't been sold or "surrendered" to consumers (however u wanna say it). It's like you might as well pay them for picking their ass because we're wasting scarce resources.

Oh man, I love this right here.... What I'm about to say goes back to being completely relevant to the video lol What you're doing doesn't work. Because the first things you would have to price are important resources, for example, water. People would have little incentive to conserve it, because the more that is used the more you can produce any widget, drink, wash with. With a free market system, someone would own a part of a stream (just a completely random example), that property would have a certain value. The more water that he would lose, the less valuable the property would become. There is a strong incentive to conserve water as to not waste it, something that every example of common water supplies sucked at.

heres the video on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwdoyXBAAPw

If they fluctuate, your economy is destroyed because of surpluses and shortages. The best way is to actually let the people decide how much of whatever it is they want. A big problem you don't understand is the issue of preference. And stv doesn't have anything to do with tyrants, if it's an unreasonable price then people just won't buy it. Then a competitor will lower their price to an acceptable amount.

it has been completed

[edit]

Quote (menace)

Owned by the Communist Party, the Soviet Union was actually called TOTALITARIAN for a reason, TOTALITARIAN a word J breakz doesn't know, was called like that because the people of the soviet union had no say in neither governing nor economic development. So J breakz, democracy and TOTALITARIANISM are different things, maybe there in America they teach you something else but democracy comes from the Greek language , demos means "people" and cratos means "power", democracy " peoples power", say it with me DEMOCRACY LOL
. The Soviet Union had no DEMOCRACY had no DEMOS nor CRATOS, it was a totalitarian state where a vanguard party, usually the party of Lenin ruled the DEMOS, this concept comes from Lenin's idea that the people are too dumb to RULE THEMSELVES to achieve true DEMOCRACY, they need to be lead to democracy and socialism by the Marxist intelligentsia, its called vanguardism. Ok ? Its ridiculous man, what me and Erik are promoting trough different perspectives sometimes is the same thing, its called DIRECT DEMOCRACY, i don't know how can you equate economic democracy with the Soviet Union, dude i live in ROMANIA a former "communist" country LOL people had no say in nothing here, in nothing at all, everything was done by a handful of people, usually the bureaucracy of the communist party. What does economic democracy has do with it? economic democracy represents the basis of those cooperatives i presented to you on economic democracy they work, mentioning the Soviet Union is ridiculous, are you Glen Beck ?

cuntface

btw, it isn't individuals using common property that depletes and degrades supplies of products and/or raw materials. it is the people who band together in large groups, such as corporations, to take massive amounts of those materials, much of the time far exceeding actual consumption levels, and doing as they please with them. if i as an individual go to extract water from a local stream (no matter the equipment i have, because regardless i have to operate it all by myself, or maybe with a few others' help), is it likely that i will be able to compete with a company that specializes in extracting mass amounts of water from that same stream? and private property rights do nothing to prevent that; rather they amplify it by making it more difficult for that individual to access the water and easier for the company who now holds a private property claim.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

what happened to the hundred other things we were arguin about?