Workism - a New Socioeconomic System

Discussion in 'Markets & Economies' started by Phransisku, Aug 8, 2017.

  1. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    Hi everyone,

    from my reflection about socioeconomic systems (such as capitalism and communism), I have been developing for the past years my own model, the one that I believe in. Finally I got it finished and I want to share it with the whole world, to see what people think about it.

    I created a blog for it. You can find it here:
    https://workismblog.wordpress.com/

    Briefly, it is about a system that attempts to solve the problem that neither communism nor capitalism do. The central problem, in my opinion. However, I don't see either of those systems as evil, just not the right choice for a society.

    I hope you enjoy it and I'm looking forward to see your comments.

    BR,
    Phransisku.
     
  2. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,606
    Likes Received:
    4,392
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The end goal of all production is consumption, not work.
     
    bordsilver and clear like this.
  3. clear

    clear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,301
    Likes Received:
    242
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    WA
    Interesting Phransisku very thoughtful work, do the mathematics work? and how do you legislate to stop people from trying to winning and what happens to alcohol and drugs?
     
  4. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    Where have you read, in the whole article, that the end goal of all production is work?
     
  5. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    What mathematics are you talking about? Can you be more specific?

    How do I legislate to stop people from trying to winning?? What do you mean?
     
  6. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,606
    Likes Received:
    4,392
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your philosophy is based entirely around work. Work and the provision of jobs are the centre of your new economic model.
     
  7. clear

    clear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,301
    Likes Received:
    242
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    WA
    your example - any legacy is left to employees or the state, what about risk/reward
     
    bordsilver and mmm....shiney! like this.
  8. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    My philosophy is based around work, which is different from saying that the end goal of all production is work.
     
  9. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    No, any company is left to its creators (the founders) or to its propellers (the employees).
    What about risk/reward? What about it? Make an answerable question.

    And you are yet to explain:
    - What mathematics were you talking about?
    - What do you mean by "how do you legislate to stop people from trying to winning"
     
  10. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,606
    Likes Received:
    4,392
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your entire philosophy is based around one factor in the chain of production only ie labour. It is socialism by deception, it is the transfer of wealth from one group to another based upon the faulty premise that in order to keep one's wealth, an individual must continually labour for it. Workism is legislated theft.
     
  11. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    Where have you read such thing?? In workism, you can keep your wealth, you just have to work if you want more. I think the article is pretty clear about that.
     
  12. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,606
    Likes Received:
    4,392
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One example is what you just posted.

    Like I said above, that post is proof that your entire philosophy is based on one factor in the chain of production only, ie labour. The end goal of production is consumption, not labour.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2017
  13. clear

    clear Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,301
    Likes Received:
    242
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    WA

    Read your Corollary 1 - you have the answers, your system creates losers.
    What percentage of total workforce need to work to support the rest.

    the system may work if you supply alcohol and drugs...free
     
  14. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    Please stop going around in circles and tell me, or better yet, quote the sentence(s) of the article that claim "that in order to keep one's wealth, an individual must continually labour for it".

    There are none. You're making that up. I just don't know why. Maybe it's because you can't find anything to criticize but, at the same time, you can't praise anything besides capitalism. Maybe it's because you haven't read the article carefully and are jumping to false conclusions right away. I don't know...
     
  15. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    I will assume this is a question. The answer is none. It's not the workforce that supports the unemployed, it's the companies.

    I'm not good with riddles. I have made you 3 questions:
    1 - What about risk/reward? What about it? Make an answerable question.
    2 - What mathematics were you talking about?
    3 - What do you mean by "how do you legislate to stop people from trying to winning"
    And now I make another one:
    4 - How does workism create losers?

    Please answer them directly so that we can have an actual conversation.

    So far, you have been just bashing something you don't even seem to understand. It's as if I was a communist fanatic and claimed that capitalism causes cancer on people and hurricanes on cities. If you had a little patience and a very open mind, you would ask why. But if that person began with riddles, you would most probably suspect he/she was trolling.

    My patience is not limitless either. So, either you have something to say or ask, or please go away.
     
  16. paranoia

    paranoia Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2017
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Interesting...

    How do you stop people giving gifts of both goods and/or cash?
     
    mmm....shiney! likes this.
  17. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    We don't. People can informally make a gift. Legally, that good or cash continues to belong to the purchaser/owner.
     
  18. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,606
    Likes Received:
    4,392
    Trophy Points:
    113

    You wrote:

    Landlords, for example, are neither working hard nor producing wealth. The real-estate is already there. Removing from the world all the landlords that are currently renting houses and apartments would not lead to the loss of any wealth. If anything, they are doing a disservice by inflating prices that would otherwise be accessible to the large public, who would not need to rent the places they are living in.

    Only workism forces everybody to work and contribute to the world’s wealth creation. Anybody that wants more than he/she has at the moment would not be able to get it from other people’s effort. Today’s landlords would be working instead of living from their tenants’ salaries. Today’s investors would be creating their own businesses instead of living from other companies’ profits. Today’s heirs would be thinking about starting careers instead of counting on their parents’ wealth.



    and....

    Aside from these cases (whatever got accepted as an exception), wealth would only belong to the person that worked for it. No one would be able to donate or transfer anything to anyone, not even at their death.

    and....

    Bequests would also be illegal.

    Phransisku, you've dedicated a great deal of your time to this "workist" theory, I've been reading it for at least a couple of years now, but as I've said before it's simply wrong. Apart from your misunderstandings of what communism and capitalism is, the foundation for your theory is faulty. Your theory is not good economics, there is little substance to it apart from your own musings on the history of industrialisation over the past 2 or 3 centuries, there is no reference to any of the great socio-economic scholars in history and there is no logical progression from any previous philosophies or ideas.

    Work is not the basis of wealth creation - it is one factor in the chain of production only. In order to create wealth it is not enough to just labour, we must continually strive to improve productivity ie using the resources of land, labour and capital more effectively and more efficiently, driving down the cost of production of goods for consumers, thus freeing up capital (both $$ and private property), resources and labour which can be put to meeting even more consumer needs.
     
    AngloSaxon likes this.
  19. Phransisku

    Phransisku Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Portugal
    So, these are the sentences of the article that claim "that in order to keep one's wealth, an individual must continually labour for it"? Really?

    1st: "Today’s landlords would be working instead of living from their tenants’ salaries."
    Where does it say those people would not keep their wealth if they did not work? The only thing claimed is that those people would have to work if they wanted revenue to make for their life expenses.

    2nd: "wealth would only belong to the person that worked for it."
    Again, where does it say that person would not keep his wealth if he did not work? On the contrary, it reinforces that one has the right to own what he has worked for.

    3rd: "Bequests would also be illegal."
    Do you really think this simple phrase makes people to lose their wealth if they do not continuously work for it? They are dead at this stage. They have nothing more to lose.


    I never said work is the only factor. I said it is the basis of wealth creation. There's a difference in being the solely almighty factor and being the basis. If that's what's "wrong", "faulty" and "not good economics" about workism, then it's resolved because that's simply not the case.

    I know that besides work, there is infrastructure, equipment and other resources that play their role in wealth generation. But work is the only one that comes directly from people. On the one hand, you need to put it at the center if you want an efficient socioeconomic system (there's only high efficiency when you make a good match between the society and the economy). On the other hand, work is the greatest variable of all the resources. Land hardly changes. Equipment too. Work is that intangible factor that can be extremely positive or absolutely worthless. That's why, even through a purely economic view, you need to protect it at all costs - put it at the center of the system.

    Workism is not the result of any progression from previous philosophies and ideas because it's something new. Is that bad? I don't think so. I wish there were 10 brand new philosophies every year. We, as a whole, would evolve much faster and quickly discover the best way to manage a society. Instead, we cling to historic scholars and any intellectual development must have 50 references to them. In my opinion, that lack of free thinking is pretty harmful to politics.
     
  20. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Administrator Staff Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,606
    Likes Received:
    4,392
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your system would prevent property owners from earning rent, your system would prevent heirs from earning rent on property passed to them, your system would prevent property owners from bequeathing their property to their heirs, instead it would be stolen by workers if none of the original owners are alive.



    Now you’re playing semantics, work is not the basis of wealth creation, it is one factor.

    Yes, it’s crap.
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2017

Share This Page