Would this work? If not why? Please explain.

Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:24 pm » by **Confidential**

7hidden7agenda7 wrote:limit the amount of things people can buy, and prices SKYROCKET.

The IDEAL(ish) solution(ish) is to keep prices the same, by increasing and decreasing the available money supply. The money supply will allways need to increase in order to meet an increase in production, but if the production levels drop, then the money supply also need to drop to keep prices stable. However, it's only a temporary fix, demand for goods can only be met if there are enough resources to meet the demand, as soon as resources become scarce the price of that resource goes up independently of the money supply, and the price of everythign that depends on that resource goes up accordingly.

What if you keep the prices the same AND limit the number of things people can buy i.e. 1 house every ten years unless you have a valid reason, 1 car every year, get rid of food markets the food comes to you ( ppl delivering working so they can buy more stuff than normal people). So you would only get sufficient amount of food as you wouldn't overeat, less overweight people + saves food. Make exercise compulsory i.e. at least 3 times a week you'd have to go to gym (free of cost). Anyone working for the government would be able to buy more things than a normal would.

Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:36 pm » by **Endless16**

What you're proposing sounds like some facist dictatorship where every aspect of life is controlled by the government, I don't think it would go down well.

Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:56 pm » by **7hidden7agenda7**

confidential wrote:What if you keep the prices the same AND limit the number of things people can buy i.e. 1 house every ten years unless you have a valid reason, 1 car every year, get rid of food markets the food comes to you ( ppl delivering working so they can buy more stuff than normal people). So you would only get sufficient amount of food as you wouldn't overeat, less overweight people + saves food. Make exercise compulsory i.e. at least 3 times a week you'd have to go to gym (free of cost). Anyone working for the government would be able to buy more things than a normal would.

I see what you're getting at, but it's impractical and overkill. for one thing, the black market economy would boom as people seek goods they desire above their alotted rations. for the other thing, it would require strict monitoring of EVERYTHING you buy sell etc. much more than we currently have, no more cash, a vast database of EVERY single person containing everything they've ever bought or sold. It's actually the nwo dream to be honest.

HOWEVER.. having said that, it is necessary to limit the amount of things people can buy, but this is best acheived through wages. the trick is to ensure that the amount of money available to everyone is roughly equal to the amount of goods and services that are available to be paid for. technically slighly more as that encourages growth, less and the economy stagnates as their isn't enough spare money in circulation to pay for new goods to be manufactured and for the support services that grow up around them. But growth is only neccessary with under employment, if there aren't enough spare people, then you have to draw people away from other sectors in order to staff any new ventures. Recessions are good in an economy where there are more jobs than people to do them, as it reduces the demand for labour. Obviously recessions are bad at any other time.

Ironically..?... Because of wage inequality, the top earners own a greater share of the available money. because they are currently sitting on it, it doesn't actually circulate, which is keeping our world economy from hyperinflation. As soon as they start spending that money on goods and services, employment will rise initially, then inflation will accellerate, and soon enough a loaf of bread costs your gold teeth and your sister costs a protein shake.... :wink:

Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:08 pm » by **7hidden7agenda7**

Oh... and while I'm at it.. also something about a resource based economy. where everything costs as much as it actually SHOULD cost, but that's a whole other kettle of artifical faux-fish substitute number XF48-7b. A flexible adaptive (and regulated) hybrid economy would include a resource economy archetecture, but would necessarily be flexible enough to smooth out any spikes in resource prices.

Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:43 pm » by **Confidential**

7hidden7agenda7 wrote:Oh... and while I'm at it.. also something about a resource based economy. where everything costs as much as it actually SHOULD cost, but that's a whole other kettle of artifical faux-fish substitute number XF48-7b. A flexible adaptive (and regulated) hybrid economy would include a resource economy archetecture, but would necessarily be flexible enough to smooth out any spikes in resource prices.

I see, is it practically impossible for everyone to be rich? It sure would raise the norm level but still can everyone be wealthy?

Wed Jun 15, 2011 8:48 pm » by **99socks**

confidential wrote:I know that printing money will cause inflation to go up but what if you print more money and you make a law that the prices of things to remain the same. So, everything would stay at the same price and everyone would receive (lets say a billion dollars/pounds etc) lots of money, and so everyone can be rich!
Would this work? Yes, no? If no, then whyy??

That won't work, it would violate the most fundamental aspect of supply and demand.