The problem is even if you do give away excess food, next growing cycle, you’ll still adjust to grow less. And there won’t be excess. So donating food is good, but it’s not a long term solution to the distribution problem. Same with houses and clothes and whatnot
Or in a resource based economy, production would be decided by the needs of the community at various scales and not driven by sales or profits.
I think the ideal is a system that provides UBI, Nutritious food distribution, needs based housing, universal healthcare, and job services that provide aptitude testing, training and placement.
If 30% can meet our needs, the other 70% should be sufficient to provide the system and framework and enough left over for consumption, luxury and still have room for meritocracy advancement.
What’s the current wealth distribution? 10% holding 85% leaving the rest of us 15% only half of the 30 we need.
I think that UBI and capitalism can be combined, in a specific way: UBI gives everything a person ever needs for survival and general wellbeing, but is boring. Money isn’t used for survival, but instead to purchase goods that are more suited to an individual’s interests. Instead of the Generic Dress #2 that everyone may order for free, you can spend money on getting a dress with polka dots, made of silk, and so forth.
Capitalism is really good at producing entertaining items, such as music, branded foods with a twist, or Pokemon cards. However, it utterly sucks at ensuring the wellbeing of people. Thus, we should separate the concepts of survival and luxury.
We don’t have a resource problem, we have a distribution problem.
Resources are constantly being wasted to accelerate the wealth transfer up the chain.
The first thing you say is absolutely correct but I have no idea what you mean by the second
Food being wasted instead of given out. Clothing slashed and tossed away. Housing boarded up and left vacant in the name of investing.
All in the name of maximizing sales and profit. Resources hoarded and wasted.
30% of the worlds resources would be sufficient to meet everyone’s needs if properly distributed.
But it’s not because corporations see a homeless man taking a sandwich out of the trash as a lost sale.
The problem is even if you do give away excess food, next growing cycle, you’ll still adjust to grow less. And there won’t be excess. So donating food is good, but it’s not a long term solution to the distribution problem. Same with houses and clothes and whatnot
Or in a resource based economy, production would be decided by the needs of the community at various scales and not driven by sales or profits.
I think the ideal is a system that provides UBI, Nutritious food distribution, needs based housing, universal healthcare, and job services that provide aptitude testing, training and placement.
If 30% can meet our needs, the other 70% should be sufficient to provide the system and framework and enough left over for consumption, luxury and still have room for meritocracy advancement.
What’s the current wealth distribution? 10% holding 85% leaving the rest of us 15% only half of the 30 we need.
I think that UBI and capitalism can be combined, in a specific way: UBI gives everything a person ever needs for survival and general wellbeing, but is boring. Money isn’t used for survival, but instead to purchase goods that are more suited to an individual’s interests. Instead of the Generic Dress #2 that everyone may order for free, you can spend money on getting a dress with polka dots, made of silk, and so forth.
Capitalism is really good at producing entertaining items, such as music, branded foods with a twist, or Pokemon cards. However, it utterly sucks at ensuring the wellbeing of people. Thus, we should separate the concepts of survival and luxury.