Is Improving the Educational System the Key to Achieving a Perfect Economy?

  • Thread starter superweirdo
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Economy
In summary: I think that capitalism is the only perfect economy--as per Ayn Rand: "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", 1967, Signet.In summary, capitalism is the only economic system that allows for everyone to be happy.
  • #1
superweirdo
156
0
Can you guys think of an economy where everyone one will be happy? I can't.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
First I think you need define a "perfect ecconmy". How will having a ecconmy make everone happy?
 
  • #3
No, but I can think of an economic system I feel would work well. A gift economy.
 
  • #4
The only form of a "perfect" economy I can think of is one based in communism. All available resources would have to be equally rationed amongst the people. This is far from what I would define as “perfect” due to my capitalistic bias. Even with this system there are going to be those who believe they are entitled to a greater share of the resources for whatever reason.
 
  • #5
Ronnin said:
Even with this system there are going to be those who believe they are entitled to a greater share of the resources for whatever reason.

i think some people are entitled to a greater share than others
 
  • #6
I do not think that there will ever be an economic system where everyone will be happy with it, that is unless there is a consensus that everyone taking part in that economy "agrees" with all of its terms.

In my opinion, I do not think that anybody is entitled to anything. The "world" is not really ours. We are just using it until we do not need it any longer. Perhaps, what I am about to say will contradict my previous statement. Maybe I am just thinking of different definition of the words that I've used. I do think that those that work harder than others should get to "use" or have for a while more things in the world than others. For example, Jose and Juan are hunters. Jose goes out and hunts. Juan feels like being lazy. Well, Jose comes back with 3 deer. We can't expect Juan to have 3 or more deer while he slept. Unless, someone gave it to him, or the deer just dropped dead beside him while sleeping.

I do think that Mixed Market Economy is best in trying to please everybody that takes part in that system.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
I'd say it's possible locally to alleviate the problem of wealth scarcity, at least temporarily. Let's say Beverly Hills decided to institute a wealth-redistribution system so that every resident of the city was entitled to at least one million dollars of net worth and two hundred thousand dollars of annual income. They could probably keep that going a while and it's hard to see why anyone would be seriously unhappy with it, so long as they could just take what tax revenue normally gets paid to the federal and state governments and give that instead to city residents.

Or hell, let's imagine that the US decides to institute an old-fashioned plundering system whereby the wealth of any nation conquered militarily goes to the victor, and is distributed evenly amongst all of the citizens of a select city like Boston, for example. Make Iraq a colony that pays a 50% tax on its GDP to Boston every year. Bostonians would be happy.
 
  • #8
Capitalism is the only perfect economy--as per Ayn Rand: "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", 1967, Signet.
 
  • #9
Rade, do you care to explain why you think that capitalism is a perfect econmy, where every one would be happy?(That is part of the topic)
 
  • #10
Heinlein wrote a novel called Beyond This Horizon about the problem of unhappiness. He had a future world where economic problems were eliminated by an online real-time computerized economy which solved the "differential equations of economics" and calculated everybody's legitimate allowance in a sort of One Big Mutual Fund arrangement. Sickness was eliminated by genetic manipulation. And male violence was taken care of by duelling. So all the common-wisdom causes of social misery were eliminated. But (the point of the story) people were still unhappy, and there was even an abortive revolution with terrorism (attempt to destroy the computer). What date would you suggest for a story with those elements? He actually wrote it in 1940.
 
  • #11
sebas531 said:
Rade, do you care to explain why you think that capitalism is a perfect econmy, where every one would be happy?(That is part of the topic)

I just finished my first Ayn Rand work today Atlas Shrugged so I understand, and really always have, capitalism's superiority to other economic systems.

Basically, happiness is too subjective a term. What my hapiness equals isn't what your happiness equals. Communism and other social economic systems do not allow for everybody to chase their own economic happiness because money from wealthier people is distributed to less wealthy people. In this system there is no chance for the producers of goods and the leaders industry to obtain maximum economic happiness.

Pure capitalism (although socially faulty and therefore not always practical) allows anybody in the system to achieve their maximum economic happiness, if they choose to strive for it and if they are able to make it work. Therefore, the only economic system that can exist that can give everybody a chance to satisfy their own economic happiness is capitalism.

Returning to the subjective nature of happiness, no economic system can make everybody happy, but capitalism is the only one that makes it possible for those who want it to have it. In capitalistic economics, if you don't achieve economic happiness you have nobody to blame except for yourself.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
I do not want to be rude, but I am pretty sure that uhhh...communism its not a type of economic system. What you mean is a Command economy, where the govt controls "everything."

Well we all have different tastes. I do think though that a central authority that represents the citizens of a state should regulate, and not own, business/trade. There will always be more consumers than business owners or C.E.Os of corporations. For that reason, one should think about the vast majority,"consumers." Also, if govt did not regulate businesses then the Earths "health" would deteriorate. The Earth would also run out of its limited resources. There would also not be any antitrust legislation. Companies would perhaps merge and create big monopolies where prices would go up. A few number of business owners would simply get really rich while most suffer. I would say that there wouldn't be any taxes for businesses. I guess we would be saying good bye to a lot of govt programs.

That is the way I see it. Right now, we (U.S.) have a mixed market economy. It seems pretty efficient, but we all have different likes. I mean, there are some that even think that Anarchy is the way to go, but hey we are all different.

This topic reminds me of a good, I thought it was good, book that I once read, A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.
 
  • #13
A monopoly can't exist without a consumer to buy their product. They need to have enough consumers to pay them, or else they aren't going to make any money...that is the limit on the prices they can set for their goods.

If a bread congolomorate/monopoly existed and charged $1,000 per loaf, not only would most people starve, but most people wouldn't be able to pay that congolomorate and they wouldn't be able to keep selling bread at that price...it would have to go down. Don't get me wrong, I believe in some government regulation especially considering necessary goods like bread but for the most part the market will determine the price.

The beauty of a free market is that consumers and producers and dependent on each other for their existence. A producer can't price goods too high or else they won't have a market to sell their goods in. If a producer prices too high, another one can come along with a lower price and take away from the other producer's market.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
superweirdo said:
Can you guys think of an economy where everyone one will be happy? I can't.

If everything was free and you had an unlimited supply of everything then everyone would be happy. But It wouldn't really be an economy.
 
  • #15
Bread is not a necessity. I can live without bread. Businesses would not raise prices in such a dramatic way. It is not in their best interest to do so. In the case of a geographical monopoly, where would the people of a certain region get clean water if they decide to not pay the fees to the idk water treatment company simply b/c they think prices are too high.

It is not only about prices, but also about the products that companies are selling. Are those products safe for everyone to take? Perhaps on the way that companies prepare your food. Are those companies doing the correct procedure in processing food in order for the consumers to be risk-free? Or will those companies simply go through the cheapest and most productive way of processing products without caring about the consumers? A lot of people that start businesses do so to get filthy rich. They do not do it to necessarily make the world a better place.

Do you not think that the economic system that the U.S has seems to be doing good? Ofcourse there is still room for improvement. There always is.
 
  • #16
Gelsamel Epsilon said:
If everything was free and you had an unlimited supply of everything then everyone would be happy. But It wouldn't really be an economy.

There wouldn't be much incentive to do anything. You would have to build your own house. Get your own clean water. We would be living a primitive lifestyle. We do not really need T.V. There wouldn't really be many problems about land b/c there is an unlimited amount of land.
 
  • #17
I'm very happy I live in the USA. I am going to be my own boss and where else can I file a few papers and actually start my own business than here? Compare my income taxes of approximately 30% with Sweden's of nearly 70% and you'll see why it is so attractive to the entrepreneur to set up shop in the USA.

I believe there needs to be government regulatory boards that test consumer products, food and other consumer goods...like the FDA and the UL and many other industry specific groups. A consumer needs to be confident that they are getting a safe product. Most producers don't have laboratories and scientisits to test their products so it makes sense that either private testing groups or government regulated groups take up that task. In the name of standardizing quality control stamps and removing the ambiguity of so many different private quality control stamps, government should take on this duty.

Local monopolies are a reality because we need things like power and water and in the name of sense and efficiency of infrastructure we can't have competeting interests selling power or water in the same locale. Also, the costs are different related to generating power and providing potable water at different locations. If you want to live in a place that is more costly to provide power and/or water you must be prepared to pay more $$ than if you live in other parts of the country. Understanding all of this, local monopolies should be treated like public corporations. Their operations should be open to the public eyes and decisions should be voted on like a public corporation. That's more or less how San Diego Gas & Electric works. If you still don't want to pay utility prices or water prices there are two things you can do: live without electric power (it can be done) and mooch your water from public drinking fountains or private business bathroom faucets, but you'd be a thief.

As far as bread is concernced, actual loafs of baked bread, if the price of bread was high most other goods would have a high price because the constituents of bread are in most food products. So even if you didn't eat actual bread, you'd not be able to afford most other food products. And again, that makes no sense because if most people can't afford it there is not a big market for it. Producers lowering prices would be the only thing that could open up their markets and allow them to make the money they want to make.

Government should protect its citizens from using force against each other, from outsiders using force against its citizens, and should act as arbitrator between citizens to settle disputes on an objective pretence...like the scientific method, weighing evidence and coming to conclusions, devoid of emotions or feelings. Part of acting as arbitrator would be removing all of the claims consumers have against producers by regulating which products are safe enough to go on the market, hence the FDA and the UL.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
The U.S. economic system is extremely hybrid and unique in a lot of ways. There are an ever increasing number of “market system” champions now calling for more regulation due to the increased speculation creeping into the markets. Once the governing market forces of supply and demand fail to regulate efficiently people begin to clamor for regulation. Fuel with other commodity costs seem to be ever rising due more to over speculation by the big money players than by a deficiency in supply. Inventories are fairly stable and climbing. Such a big deal was made of the Prudhoe Bay yet it is such a small percentage of world production. It is a cycle of no regulation, corruption(not always the criminal kind), over reaction regulation leading to market choking (Sarbanes Oxley is a good example), easing of regulation to deregulation, then all over again. The Market isn’t perfect because its players are far from perfection but as long as Americans still feel motivated to earn that next extra dollar our system will continue to be successful.
 
  • #19
The problem w/ the current economy is that great painters aren't being appreciated. A table tennis players tries just as hard as a basketball player but the basketball player earns a lot more. Why?
 
  • #20
Supply and demand.
 
  • #21
superweirdo said:
The problem w/ the current economy is that great painters aren't being appreciated. A table tennis players tries just as hard as a basketball player but the basketball player earns a lot more. Why?

Why are all these "problems" the economy's fault?? Should they both be paid the same?
 
  • #22
superweirdo said:
Can you guys think of an economy where everyone one will be happy? I can't.

What makes you think a perfect economy would make everyone happy?

It leaves out the notion of having a perfect marriage or a perfect family. What about perfect friends? Some golfers might be happy with just perfect weather.

superweirdo said:
The problem w/ the current economy is that great painters aren't being appreciated. A table tennis players tries just as hard as a basketball player but the basketball player earns a lot more. Why?

Poor marketing.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
naah, I don't think it is just marketing, look at how many people can see soccer and how many poeple can watch table tennis. Soccer sells more tickets b/c it is a bigger game.
 
  • #24
superweirdo said:
naah, I don't think it is just marketing, look at how many people can see soccer and how many poeple can watch table tennis. Soccer sells more tickets b/c it is a bigger game.
No, soccer sells more because of peoples demand for it. Marketing is a tool to either generate or enhance demand. It does so by trying to convince you as a potential buyer that you "need" whatever it is they are selling. Would marketing enhance the demand for table tennis, maybe. Would it ever rival the other major sports, no. People on average do not want to sit and watch table tennis. I believe most people think of it more as a recreational game than a sport.
 
  • #25
I think we should start by defining happiness. Is it a relative or absolute concept?, for example.
 
  • #26
I've got an idea for a perfect economy. Everyone grows their own food. Humans realize they are self sufficient, free beings entitled to the land that we live on, just as the animals and the insects are, and we stop feeding this corrupt system that rules our world with war and politics.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
superweirdo said:
naah, I don't think it is just marketing, look at how many people can see soccer and how many poeple can watch table tennis. Soccer sells more tickets b/c it is a bigger game.

This doesn't address anything about marketing. If you ever say the words "just marketing," then you really don't know what marketing is.

The best product in the world will go no where if it can't be put into the hands of the people who can use it. Very good products have died due to poor marketing, and mediocre products have succeeded due to good marketing. If the product you're selling is a purely spectator event? Marketing is pretty much everything.

Not many people are good at marketing, though. They make it seem ephemeral. The few who are really good at it make it seem easy. All of them make it seem trivial.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
May be I started this forum from a long pace but what I mean by everyone will be happy is that everyone's goal will accomplished. Everyone will be successful. Happiness is something that comes from inside. THat comes from love, it is something no amount of perfection can create. I dream of an economy where nobody complains about their jobs, where nobody blaims their problems on someone else. Where everyone is disciplined and integried.

My point is, right now, the economy is a win loose thing. THere is competetion in everything, one looses one wins. I want a win-win economy. COmpetetion can still be there but everybody has to have his day. I believe in future, when there will be no more crimes, all the low jobs will be done by robots, we will stop reproducing b/c we will stop dyieng too, may be we will be able to achieve eternal happiness without death.
 
  • #29
superweirdo said:
May be I started this forum from a long pace but what I mean by everyone will be happy is that everyone's goal will accomplished. Everyone will be successful. Happiness is something that comes from inside. THat comes from love, it is something no amount of perfection can create. I dream of an economy where nobody complains about their jobs, where nobody blaims their problems on someone else. Where everyone is disciplined and integried.

My point is, right now, the economy is a win loose thing. THere is competetion in everything, one looses one wins. I want a win-win economy. COmpetetion can still be there but everybody has to have his day. I believe in future, when there will be no more crimes, all the low jobs will be done by robots, we will stop reproducing b/c we will stop dyieng too, may be we will be able to achieve eternal happiness without death.

Before you decide having all "low-grade" jobs done by robots is a benefit, think what it will be like to be pets of the automata. And that is a best case scenario! Worst case is they wipe us out. Many many dystopias have been constructed around that, but one of the earliest ones is also one of the best. Your library should have it: Jack WIlliamson's The Humanoids.
 
  • #30
superweirdo said:
... but what I mean by everyone will be happy is that everyone's goal will accomplished. Everyone will be successful.

"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts."
-- Winston Churchill

I dream of an economy where nobody complains about their jobs, where nobody blaims their problems on someone else. Where everyone is disciplined and integried.
This doesn't describe the economy, but the participants in it. Not complaining, not blaming other people, being disciplined... these are all part of personal ethics.

My point is, right now, the economy is a win loose thing.
No, not really. Every transaction is a win/win situation, if it's done willingly and honestly. Granted, people are not always honest and government keeps extending its coercion. For example, governments coerce their method of education upon the populous. This is not a willing transaction, and the product is a lot of unhappy, unsatisfied students who don't know very much. Every problem you've talked about is not systemic to the economy.

You dream of an economy where nobody blames their problems on someone else, but all you've done now is blame "the economy." You might as well blame nature, if you're not going to blame dishonest people or the government.

we will stop reproducing b/c we will stop dyieng too, may be we will be able to achieve eternal happiness without death.

You can't prevent people from reproducing, without compromising their natural freedoms. As for death, well, you can't prevent people from doing that either.

If you really want to extend life, heal the sick, feed the hungry and so on, maybe you should be studying biology.
 
  • #31
superweirdo said:
My point is, right now, the economy is a win loose thing. THere is competetion in everything, one looses one wins. I want a win-win economy.
You misunderstand market economics. When you buy a car from a car dealer, who loses in that transaction? The dealer gets money and you get a car.

More generally, people often think things like investing are a zero-sum game: ie, in order for one person to make money in the stock market, someone else has to lose. That simply isn't the case.
 
  • #32
russ_watters said:
You misunderstand market economics. When you buy a car from a car dealer, who loses in that transaction? The dealer gets money and you get a car.

More generally, people often think things like investing are a zero-sum game: ie, in order for one person to make money in the stock market, someone else has to lose. That simply isn't the case.

Perhaps sw was refrerring to competition for jobs. Talent and luck - i.e. things beyond our willpower to alter, play a large part in who gets hired and who doesn't*. And the don'ts, the underemployed, are the shocktroops of crime and revolution.


*I know you don't agree with this Russ, but I believe the idea that a good salary is a reward for moral virtue is just patently wrong.
 
  • #33
I was just asking if there is a way for a perfect economy in which everyone can be happy w/ their jobs and salary.
 
  • #34
selfAdjoint said:
Perhaps sw was refrerring to competition for jobs.
Perhaps. I'm not really sure.
Talent and luck - i.e. things beyond our willpower to alter, play a large part in who gets hired and who doesn't*. And the don'ts, the underemployed, are the shocktroops of crime and revolution.

*I know you don't agree with this Russ, but I believe the idea that a good salary is a reward for moral virtue is just patently wrong.
I'm not sure I understand this part. What does moral virtue have to do with this? I do fully recognize that talent and luck play a role in who gets where in life - were you under the impression that I don't believe that?
 
  • #35
superweirdo said:
I was just asking if there is a way for a perfect economy in which everyone can be happy w/ their jobs and salary.

Everyone already can be happy with their jobs and salaries.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's a perfect economy, though.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
32
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
784
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
204
Views
25K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
35
Views
16K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
7K
Replies
5
Views
663
Back
Top