Ive often seen individuals on the left talking about how billionares shouldnt exist etc., but when probed on how that could be accomplished the answer is usually just taxes or guillotines. I dont think either is great.
What if instead, corporations were made to be unable to be sold or owned. Initially theyre made to default to popular election for their board, and after that they can set up a charter or adopt a standard one, ratified by majority vote of their employees.
Bank collapse would probably follow, how could that be remedied? Maybe match the banks invalidated stocks with bonds?
OK so let’s say a bunch of people decide to work together without stocks or formal government. Each of these people can provide a certain amount of “critical resource” but each person only has so much and some more than others. So these people working together decide that they all put in what they can and whatever they build together will be distributed among the people according to how much “critical resource” they put in. Congratulations u have reinvented stocks.
What are u saying here? The government dictates what the people do to achieve some outcome dictated by the government? That’s literally how the soviet union was run.
I’m not denying the government cannot do things (if they couldn’t why would they exist) just that the free market optimises and improves. For example the cost mass per kg to space.
SpaceX Falcon Heavy: Around $1,500 per kg. SpaceX Falcon 9: Approximately $2,720 per kg. NASA Space Shuttle (retired): $54,500 per kg. NASA Vanguard (early rocket): $1,000,000 per kg.
Who did it better?
But ur idea is also fundamentally flawed from a logical point as well. The ingenuity and creative problem solving capacity of the entire population is far greater than that of some inner circle of party members. Government agencies improve and innovate until some private company comes along optimises and improves till it is a market viable solution.
Ownership implies control of it if u own it you control it and thus can sell it hence a marketplace. Having wealth isn’t about having the wealth its about what u can do with the wealth. If u don’t get rich off doing something innovative what’s the point? For the good of the peoole? If it has no material benefit to you why do it? This is the foundational reason the USSR collapsed Ohh and all the starving dead people cos the government solutions where overpriced uncompetitive and not subject to free market pressures.
I do need to ask are you intentionally saying some of the dumbest shit I ever heard to troll or do u genuinely believe that communism would work? Please read a critical thinking book, a history book, an economics book, and a phycology book. Then u will understand how utterly untenable these ideas are.
NASA did all the work to establish the concept of space flight. NASA is also held to more stringent safety requirements because they are a government agency, which drives up costs. NASA blowing up a rocket on takeoff is seen differently than a private company, which just costs more. Same as medical equipment vs similar non-medical equipment, getting from 99.99% reliable to 99.9999% is a cost multiplier.
Not to mention the cost to send stuff to space via private companies is subsidized by investors. It is a made up number, like all the cab 2.0 company pricing when they first started ignoring laws that applied to cabs.
It isn’t more efficient to do everything privately. It just looks that way if you ignore all the government funded research and investments hiding costs.
Also I’m not talking about communism. I’m just talking about government vs private, and if you can’t wrap your head around that then call it socialist.
NASA did a lot of work no doubt they then made all that work public for the private sector to iterate on and improve and bring to market. Eg the accelerometer in ur phone was a NASA invention but it required someone in a private company to decide to put it in a phone and mass produce it.
NASA isn’t held to more stringent safety requirements NASA literally defines the safety requirements which they apply to spacex, and any other space company as well as themselves.
Tell me u know nothing about an iterative development and testing cycle without telling me u know nothing about an iterative development and testing cycle. Spacex falcon 9 is statistically safer than literally every other transport method on earth including walking. Its safer than all NASA rockets. Perhaps them blowing up so many rockets taught them how to not blow up rockets?
Now here’s the kicker NASA doesn’t actually do that much they design some parts or requirements then let private companies take bids to actually build it.
Independent speculative analysis thinks that the commercial launch fees are enough to cover the rocket price. Not to mention that starlink is a profitable service that is funding most of spacex costs as of now. Plus their are other launch companies that offer similar/cheaper(depending on launch profile) launch costs that due to free market completion will keeps costs far lower than NASA launches.
That’s how the government works they fund things with taxes that are distributed to all citizens equally. The citizens then use those things to generate value which is taxed and continues the cycle. Every dollar spent at NASA has a 27x return in terms of GDP from the private sector. Ie NASA spends 1$ and releases research/technology then the public uses that research/technology to generate 27$ of value. I never said it more efficient to do everything privately its just more efficient to do most things privately.
Healthcare is a great example its more efficient for the government to negotiate prices on behalf of everyone then let the public market compete to fill that service requirement. Its called socialised healthcare yet still takes advantage of private institutions competing in a free market to fulfill the collective service requirement. If the government runs everything u get the NHS which has gone to shit and cant afford to service all the people. If the government runs nothing u get the american system where the poor get fucked. If the government performs collective bargaining between the people and the provider u get the Australian system where everyone gets healthcare almost instantly of world class quality. U need both private and public working hand in hand. The governments purpose is to ensure free unrestricted competition between private entities and to negotiate with those private entities on behalf of the people that the government represents. That’s how a government works it doesn’t build a road it negotiates with a bunch of contractors who are competing with each other and pays the cheapest one to build the road.
U say socialist yet u describe communist. I like the socialist policies my government has free healthcare, good roads, cops, firefighters, national defence etc etc. These things cannot function without leveraging the private capital and competition of the free market.