OK, I am clearly a Star Trek nerd, and in any drunk/drug induced discussion of my political philosophy I always end up admitting to myself (and sadly to anyone around me) that I am a die hard liberal because I am a star trek fan.
I've even cobbled together some basic economic theories on the "we work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity" economic principles. I swear one day I'm going to sit down and write a real paper with assumptions, facts, figures and stuff. But as of now, It's based on anecdotal evidence of my limited work experience and discussions along those lines.
So anyone with an ECON background and was much better at econometrics then I was, I'd love to try and hash out said paper!
So basically, my theory that the "Communist Paradise" (that I always thought was an impossible dream) might actually be economically possible started with a few experiences I've had over the years.
I've felt in every job i've had that more then half the people I work with are useless and more often then not, much of their "effort" slows the rest of us down more then if they contribute nothing. (all people have bad ideas, but we all know people who ONLY have bad ideas) Basically, after having so many meetings where i go home thinking "I just wish those morons would have called in sick" I started discussing it with friends. To my honest astonishment I discovered most people I chose to discuss it with, admitted similar feelings. BTW, these are people who I often disagree with and frankly have a much less jaded view of humanity then I do. I remember one friend in particular realizing (presumably in a moment of clarity) during the discussion "Yea, I'd have a lot more time if "Billy" (cant remember the real name, and wouldn't use it if I did) wasn't constantly asking me how to do his job"
So, In my (admittedly anecdotally driven) opinion, if half the population would just stay home (get out of our way) and the rest of us didn't have to do their work AND CLEAN UP THEIR MESSES the per-capita productivity would skyrocket! Seriously think about it, if EVERYONE you worked with was competent, an asset and their only incentive was to personally excel at their job/career. (as opposed to NEEDING a pay check or social status)
So this is where the economics (which i need to sit down and hammer out) come in. A superficial reading of that last paragraph might lead you to believe it was supporting a Communist ideology, but it is not. I believe in private property and so does the fantasy world of Star Trek. In the different shows people own restaurants, factories, even companies, which many characters pass along to their children. (concepts antithetical to communism) Their vernacular simply dismiss the cookie cutter wisdom of "capitalism" much like we dismiss Mercantilism or Communism itself. Communists believe "owning the means of production" and the desire to gain more and more possessions is the root of all suffering and that is flatly wrong. Wanting more stuff is not inherently the problem. Neither is being stupid and simply wanting to survive. (and all along the spectrum)
Economics is not (and should not be) a moral game, it is the analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Economic policy (in my subjective opinion) at it's best should be an honest discussion of human behavior and how common goods/regulations can be used to incentivize (not force) economic activity to maximize total production to benefit the society at large.
Having "winners and losers" is a necessary product of a dynamic capitalistic society and policy should be geared to minimizing the "splash damage" of large systemic failure (i.e. the FED, avoiding financial collapse, environmental regulations etc. ) and promoting the large Industries we as a society desire to shape the future. (i.e. green energy, ARPANET, western europe, transportation, nuclear power, aviation: working backwards on some successful government backed private sector investments during the 20th century)
OK, now back to Star Trek. Even without the fantasy assumptions of abundant cheep energy combined with energy matter converters. I would bet if we had a massive government welfare state where everyone was handed enough money to have a one bedroom apt, an Xbox etc. Basically, room board and some reasonable amount of disposable income. The people who would "work" would be people who want to do something with their lives or have a desire to "better themselves." In my opinion, half the population would just stay home and waist their lives while still having enough money to participate in the economy, at a minimal cost to the society at large at least compared to other government spending programs. Basically creating a constant stream of forced economic stimulus. This would have the duel effect of stabilizing the business cycle by always keeping a constant stream of demand while denying any recession the power to permanently impoverish anyone. (I know, I know... i'm a clueless hippy not believing abject suffering is NEEDED for others to "THRIVE")
Now many people might point out. "their would be no garbage men, or fast food servers or teachers (hehe)" but in a world where everyone was handed the same "basic income guarantee" any "work" would be directly related to specific personal goals and the theory "GREED IS GOOD" might actually become true. "Work" would become more highly valued and utilizing the principles of supply and demand, pay would naturally increase (decreasing economic equality) while simultaneously increase investment in automation of tasks their was an excess of demand in. People might actually end up being paid appropriately to the difficulty of a job as opposed to moron's being handed positions because they were born into a family that worked in high paying sectors or visa versa.
I have not written about other "great society" benefits like healthcare, education and pure scientific research etc. But their are plenty of papers discussing the long run economic benefits of these kinds of investments. so go read them and understand they are a part of my nerdy vision too.
BTW, Continuing to believe in the broad benefits of "greed" due to "trickling" after being shown the empirical evidence of economic inequality over the past 30 years in an attempt to justify the trends of the existing US political economic dogma is baffling. It is intellectually disingenuous at best and out right self righteous nationalist delusion at worst.
OK, I understand that all these basic assumptions are contingent on the fact that I "believe" per capita productivity would not only increase but that increase would offset the "loss" of productivity due to the option of not working. Or stated another way, the extra taxes those of us who would choose to work would have to pay would need to be smaller then the losses due to the shrunken work force. So its contingent on the idea that a more happy workforce is a more productive workforce. Their are many papers on this subject supporting my position (maybe not many taking it to my extent) and frankly many arguing against it. I'd love to get feedback from the forum!!!
In conclusion and out of curiosity, regardless of the unknowable fact if such a scheme WOULD work. If theoretically it did, ask yourself this... employing the Veil of ignorance would you be willing to pay more of you're earned income in taxes if that meant more stable economic growth, you were guaranteed the means to survive in dignity (no matter your parents or random circumstances) and those in your career were ALL competent and valuable colleagues?
I await the nerd and communist bashing that is bound to head my way... lol