Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Perfect economy

  1. Aug 9, 2006 #1
    Can you guys think of an economy where everyone one will be happy? I can't.
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 9, 2006 #2
    First I think you need define a "perfect ecconmy". How will having a ecconmy make everone happy?
  4. Aug 9, 2006 #3
    No, but I can think of an economic system I feel would work well. A gift economy.
  5. Aug 9, 2006 #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.
  6. Aug 9, 2006 #5
    i think some people are entitled to a greater share than others
  7. Aug 9, 2006 #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: Aug 9, 2006
  8. Aug 9, 2006 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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.
  9. Aug 9, 2006 #8
    Capitalism is the only perfect economy--as per Ayn Rand: "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", 1967, Signet.
  10. Aug 9, 2006 #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)
  11. Aug 9, 2006 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
  12. Aug 9, 2006 #11
    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: Aug 9, 2006
  13. Aug 10, 2006 #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.
  14. Aug 10, 2006 #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 eachother 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: Aug 10, 2006
  15. Aug 10, 2006 #14
    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.
  16. Aug 10, 2006 #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.
  17. Aug 10, 2006 #16
    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 wouldnt really be many problems about land b/c there is an unlimited amount of land.
  18. Aug 10, 2006 #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 eachother, 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: Aug 10, 2006
  19. Aug 10, 2006 #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.
  20. Aug 10, 2006 #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?
  21. Aug 10, 2006 #20


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Supply and demand.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook