Fair Economy Talk
Garik: Doc, what is economics?
Doc: What kind of economy are you interested in: which now exists or what should it ideally be? These are very different areas, for the most part mutually exclusive.
Garik: What it should be ideally.
Doc: So fair?
Garik: That's fair! What to strive for, if not justice?
Doc: Can’t you get a brain dislocation? Economics is an abstruse thing, for outstanding minds.
Garik: You explain it so that the fool could understand. I’ll figure it out somehow.
Author warning:The dock is not joking, the economy is an abstruse thing, and the material under the cut is voluminous. Think three times if you should become familiar with the principles of a fair economy.
Doc: Okay, I'll try, but blame yourself. Let's get started. Is it fair for every person to receive work?
Garik: I'm sure that's fair.
Doc: So getting a job is a prerequisite for a fair economy?
Doc: In what way is economics receiving employment?
Garik: In the form of a salary.
Doc: That is, in the form of receiving money?
Doc: Why are you getting paid?
Garik: For making things necessary for life.
Doc: Come on, for brevity, call such things goods.
Doc:What are you doing with the money?
Garik: I get goods on them.
Doc: You get money for producing some goods, and you spend money on other goods. Can you say that in this way you exchange goods with other manufacturers?
Garik: You can.
Doc: And in this exchange is the essence of the economy?
Garik: It seems so.
Doc: Should the exchange of goods be proportional?
Garik: What do you mean by proportional exchange?
Doc: A certain amount of labor is invested in each product. In accordance with this proportion, goods must be exchanged.
Garik: I understand.
Doc:We have two conditions for a fair exchange of goods. First: each manufacturer should receive according to work. Second: the exchange of goods should be proportional. Do you agree with me?
Doc: By the way, did you hear anything about profit?
Garik: Of course! The chef buzzed all ears about her.
Doc: In this case, answer, how is profit possible if the two conditions we accept are met?
Garik: Hmm ... I didn’t think about it.
Doc: Think about it.
Garik: If everyone receives according to work and the exchange is proportional, it turns out that profit is impossible. What he earned, he spent. If someone made a profit, then someone else made a loss. The first is a robber, the second is robbed.
Doc: It's not me, you said it.
Doc: What is strange?
Garik: But the whole modern economy is built on the concept of profit.
Doc: This is not an economy, but an anti-economy. Forget about it, and especially about profit. Profit is an anti-scientific concept that takes us away from a fair economy.
Doc: Let's continue our informative conversation. Answer me this question, Garik. If the content of the economy is the exchange of goods, why did you need money circulation? Why couldn't you just exchange goods?
Garik: That's more convenient.
Doc: What exactly is convenience?
Garik: The fact that you can buy anything with money. No need to look for a manufacturer that is interesting to you and at the same time interested in your product.
Doc: I totally agree with you. Now tell me, where should money come from in a fair economy?
Garik: Will the state print?
Doc:If the state prints and distributes it to its employees, they, without producing anything, will purchase goods with freshly printed money. This will lead to a violation of one of the basic rules: everyone receives according to work.
Garik: But employees are working!
Doc: Work or not, we have yet to establish. Imagine that there are no employees, and there is no state either. Where does the money come from?
Garik: I don't know.
Doc: Either you have to use some goods suitable for circulation as money, such as gold. But this is an outdated option. Or - a progressive option - the producers themselves must print the money.
Garik: The manufacturers themselves ??? How???
Doc:When you exchange goods with someone, do you need money?
Garik: No, not needed.
Doc: And if you need some product, but the manufacturer does not need your product?
Garik: I have to buy this product.
Doc: Buy, that is, buy for money?
Doc: To do this, you have to have money on hand?
Garik: Well of course.
Doc: And in order to get money on hand, you have to sell your product to someone?
Doc: And where do you think that person will get the money if he has the same problems as yours?
Garik: Indeed. A stalemate is obtained.
Doc: Why stalemate? You can transfer your goods on credit, for which you receive a receipt. We agree to consider this receipt as money.
Garik: I correctly understood that in a fair economy, money arises exclusively when transferring goods on credit?
Doc: Yes, you got it right. We call such a loan commodity.
Doc: What is the amount of money in the economic system, can you tell me?
Garik: How much a commodity loan was issued, such is the volume.
Doc:Wrong answer. The issued receipt provides for two parties to the transaction: the recipient and the payer. One has a plus, the other has a minus. Thus, the monetary system assumes not only positive, but also negative amounts in circulation. Positive amounts - receipts on hand, negative amounts - issued receipts.
Garik: I think I get it.
Doc: So answer what is the amount of money in a closed economic system.
Garik: If you take into account the positive and negative amounts, then always zero. Indeed, with a commodity loan, one side receives exactly as much as the other side gives.
Doc: Well done!
Garik:This is not like modern money circulation. It turns out that half of humanity will have negative amounts on their accounts.
Doc: True, but these are not all the differences in the money circulation of a modern anti-economy from a fair economy.
Garik: What is the other difference?
Doc: If the money is actually a receipt for a commodity loan, then the money should be canceled at the time of their return. The creditor, having received the debt from the debtor, tears the receipt. The receipt simply ceases to exist.
Garik: But, if I understood correctly, you intend to use receipts as money!
Doc: I guess so what?
Garik: Then they cannot be destroyed, receipts must be in circulation.
Doc: Not at all. We have long been living in a world of cashless money circulation. What then to speak about the ideal economic world under discussion ?! Of course, there will be no receipts: there will be personal accounts with positive or negative balances.
Garik: Will positive amounts be considered negative?
Garik: And the total amount of money in circulation will constantly change?
Doc: It will depend on the size of the commodity loan in the system, as expected.
Garik: And the total amount of such money in the system will always be zero?
Garik: It’s clear to me what you're talking about.
Doc: I'm happy for you and for myself. However, we continue our brief excursion into a fair economy. I remember that we agreed that everyone should receive according to work.
Doc: But they forgot to establish what labor is.
Garik: How is that? Actions for the production of goods.
Doc: How to understand what actions a person performs - producing goods or some other actions?
Garik: Well, the person himself must say this.
Doc: And if he lies or is mistaken?
Garik:Yes you are right. It is possible to establish what actions a person performs only by what he got on the way out. The product turned out at the exit - the person worked, the product did not work out - the person did not work.
Doc: How do you know what happened to someone at the exit? When does the fact of product availability become apparent to the system?
Garik: At the time of the exchange of goods.
Doc: True, but not so simple. Suppose that the goods passed to the new owner, but turned out to be defective. Is it true that a manufacturer receives a defective product in exchange for a quality product?
Garik: No, it's not fair.
Doc: What to do?
Garik: Check that the product is not defective.
Doc:How to check?
Garik: Conduct an examination.
Doc: And if the defect is hidden and can be detected only when using the product?
Garik: Then you need to use the product for its intended purpose and see if it is defective or quality.
Doc: It turns out that checking the quality of the product - in fact, is the product a product - is possible only at the time of its use? If the use was successful, the product is of high quality, otherwise it is defective.
Doc: And to determine whether a person worked, maybe not before using the product made by this person?
Garik: It turns out that way.
Doc: Do you know what logically follows from this?
Doc: That no exchange of goods is possible.
Garik: But why ???
Doc: Because the exchange of goods occurs earlier than the use of goods. At the time of the exchange, it is not known whether the goods exchanged are actually goods, or if they are nothing more than defective products. On this side, any exchange is not valid.
Garik: But the exchange is happening!
Doc: No, it does not. In fact, with the so-called exchange, counter commodity lending occurs.
Garik: When do two producers give each other goods on credit?
Doc:That's it. They lend goods and expect the use of these goods. If the goods were successfully used by both parties, the exchange took place. If any of the goods is not used due to a defect, what kind of equivalent exchange can we talk about ?! Of course, I’m not talking about the legal aspects of a deal in a modern anti-economy, but about the actual aspects of a deal in a fair economy.
Garik: I understand. There is no reimbursement for a defective product.
Doc: That's the point. Therefore, settlements through money circulation should not be made at the time of the exchange — it, as we have established, does not exist — but rather as commodity loans are issued and repaid.
Doc: Does something surprise you?
Garik:The consumer takes the goods from the manufacturer, but it appears to be for him later - at the time of use of the goods.
Doc: Isn't the consumer paying for the work done by the manufacturer?
Garik: For labor.
Doc: And how we established whether the manufacturer worked, it turns out at the time of use of the goods. What is surprising in the moment of payment? When it becomes apparent that the producer has worked, he is charged - should be charged - compensation for his labor.
Garik: Something is wrong here. The consumer can accept the goods, but do not use them on purpose, for example, out of harm.
Garik: The product is accepted, but the consumer does not owe anything to the manufacturer, because the product is not used by him.
Doc: Why would a consumer do this?
Garik: Out of harm, I said so. Suppose a consumer has an unfriendly relationship with a manufacturer and wants to annoy him.
Doc: It will turn out to the unethical consumer sideways.
Doc: By transferring goods on credit, do manufacturers expect the goods to be used?
Garik:Yes. Then the actions of the producers will be recognized as labor, and the producers will receive a refund.
Doc: In this case, the consumer risks no longer receive goods on credit. Manufacturers are afraid that the consumer does not use their goods, so they will transfer the goods to someone else. An unethical consumer will have problems, including starvation. As you can see, in a fair economy, not only the availability of money, but also the reputation is important.
Garik: Now I understand why.
Doc: Consider to whom manufacturers will prefer to transfer their goods, and much will become clearer. Put yourself in the shoes of the manufacturer.
Garik: I'll try now. So, I am a manufacturer, made the goods.
Doc: To whom will you transfer the goods for consumption?
Garik: That is, I do not sell the goods as I do now, but transfer the goods for consumption on credit?
Doc: Yes. It is not the consumer who chooses the product for which he has enough money to buy, but the manufacturer who chooses the consumer, from whom, in his opinion, will receive a faster refund.
Garik: And how do I know which of the consumers wants to receive my product?
Doc: A consumer who wishes to receive the goods makes a request. You allow to take the goods or refuse.
Garik: And if there are a lot of goods? It's a long time!
Doc:Garik, don't be a kid. Obviously, we need an algorithm that distinguishes consumers who satisfy your conditions from those who do not satisfy your conditions. The consumer sees in the system which of the goods he is allowed to receive and which are not allowed.
Garik: The concept is clear.
Doc: So which consumer will you hand over the goods to?
Garik: Probably the one who has a positive balance in his personal account. So I will get a refund faster.
Doc: And if the request is made by a consumer with a negative account balance?
Garik: Indeed. This means that it is necessary to establish the minimum size of the positive balance on the account or the maximum size of the negative at which the goods can be transferred to consumption.
Doc: Well done! The only question remains unresolved. Some consumers use your product immediately upon receipt, while others do not immediately. Someone wants to take the goods, as they say, in reserve. What to do with such thrifty consumers?
Garik: It’s up to you to decide whether or not to release the goods, in each case. Add certain conditions to the goods release algorithm.
Doc: And to whom, according to your algorithm, the goods will not be released even with a satisfactory amount of money in the personal account?
Garik: To someone who does not use the goods within an acceptable time frame.
Doc: Do you know what your words mean?
Doc:With a fair economy, it is impossible to obtain goods in excess of necessary personal consumption.
Garik: I do not mind this.
Doc: Pay attention that the market in a fair economy regulates everything - it really regulates, which can not be said about modern anti-economy. Anti-economy involves over-trading and the arbitrary use of money, thereby developing a person’s worst qualities ...
Garik: Wait, what do you mean by the arbitrary use of money?
Doc: The opportunity to spend them not on personal consumption.
Garik: You want to say that in a fair economy you cannot spend money on your account at your own discretion?
Doc:Only for personal consumption, otherwise it will be contrary to the principle of "everyone according to their work."
Garik: And I can’t transfer any amount to a girl I know?
Doc: You can’t, because it will contradict the principle of “to everyone according to their work”.
Garik: Oh hell!
Doc: Here, Garik, you and I are discussing the economic principle of “to everyone according to their work,” while we forgot to establish what labor is measured in. Indeed, when exchanging it is necessary to know the amount of labor laid down in each product - the value of the goods.
Garik: Really forgotten.
Doc: So how is labor measured?
Garik: Isn't it about money?
Doc: What the hell are you talking about? Money is a quantitative expression of a commodity loan, which must be measured in some way.
Garik: In working hours?
Doc: To the point!
Garik: And in qualification.
Doc: Garik, you're upsetting me. The labor meter should be an objective quantity, and qualification is not.
Garik: You say that labor is measured exclusively in time?
Doc: Yeah, I affirm. The only imaginable objective measure of labor is time.
Garik: But this also means that one hour of working time of a qualified and unskilled manufacturer are equal!
Doc: And what's the big deal?
Garik: If you pay for any work the same way, the incentive to improve your skills will disappear.
Doc: Don’t tell. There are many unskilled jobs, but few qualified ones. Further training is in many cases a way to get a job. Without specialists of the required qualifications, no goods will be produced.
Garik:But is it true that a highly skilled producer will receive as much for his labor as a low-skilled manufacturer?
Doc: Answer, qualifications can be determined objectively, with a measuring device in your hands?
Doc: Do you want to say that any definition of a qualification level is subjective, in other words arbitrary?
Doc: You have strange ideas about justice. In your opinion, is it fair to determine the dependence of wages on a factor established arbitrarily by someone’s voluntary decision?
Garik:But ... Then ... I cease to understand anything. If you pay only for working hours, all employees, regardless of productivity, will receive equal compensation. A workaholic made 10 units of goods per ten-hour shift, and a lazy person - 1 unit. Are they supposed to get equally for the hours worked?
Doc: Of course ...
Garik: What ???
Doc: ... provided that the goods are transferred to the consumer and used, which is far from a fact.
Garik: What do you mean?
Doc: We kind of agreed: in a fair economy should a producer receive a refund after the goods are used for their intended purpose?
Garik: That's true.
Doc:What will be the cost of goods made by a workaholic and lazy person?
Garik: A workaholic in ten hours has 10 units of goods, which means the cost of one unit is 1 hour. Accordingly, the idler has the cost of one unit of goods - 10 hours.
Doc: Which of the products made by a workaholic or lazy person would consumers prefer?
Garik: Made by a workaholic, they are ten times cheaper.
Doc: As a result, the goods made by the bummer will not be used?
Garik: It will not.
Doc: And the lazy person will not receive compensation for the time worked?
Garik: It turns out that way.
Doc:Why do you say that the workaholic and lazy person will receive equal compensation for the time worked? A workaholic will receive a refund at 10 o’clock, and a lazy person will not receive anything, because the goods manufactured by him did not find the consumer because of the high cost.
Garik: I caught your thought. Work slowly is unprofitable, because the goods will be expensive and will not find a consumer ?!
Doc: Still unprofitable!
Garik: Well, suppose people work with the same average productivity, as a result of which consumers sort goods evenly. But in this case, the compensation received by all manufacturers is the same?
Doc: It matters which product to produce.
Garik: I cease to understand anything.
Doc: If you don’t get a dislocation of the brain, then you will understand. Tell me, Garik, how many manufacturers do modern goods have?
Garik: A lot.
Doc: What is the reason for this?
Garik: Due to the fact that producing all the goods yourself is unprofitable, it is more profitable to produce any one product. Goods made by different manufacturers are components of the final goods for the consumer.
Doc: And precisely for this reason, cooperation and specialization, is an exchange of goods necessary?
Doc: As a result, modern products have many manufacturers. Each of the manufacturers expects to receive compensation for their labor.
Doc:But in order to pay compensation, you need to know the share of each manufacturer in the total value of the goods?
Doc: What is needed for this?
Garik: Well ... Calculate the share of producers in the value of the goods.
Doc: Well said. Cost is the working time spent on the manufacture of goods. Since compensation is paid to manufacturers, it is necessary to know their shares in the total value of the goods.
Garik: It turns out that the cost in itself does not matter, the value is the value as the working time spent on the manufacture of goods by a particular manufacturer.
Garik:Okay, I understand your position ... What about the calculation of the cost of goods for specific manufacturers?
Doc: Suppose a manufacturer manually mined raw materials. What is its value?
Garik: The time spent by the producer on the extraction.
Doc: The manufacturer extracted the second part of the raw material, in the same order, and combined the two extracted parts into one. What is the total cost of raw materials?
Garik: The sum of the two costs, this is obvious.
Doc: But what about the time taken by the manufacturer to connect the parts into a single whole?
Garik: Sorry, I didn’t think. It must also be added.
Doc:The raw material changed its characteristics - in this case, it was piled up as a result of the influence of the manufacturer. This is a common physical property of our world: some things change under the influence of other things. I propose to call the first, mutable things - objects, while the second, acting - tools.
Garik: As you say.
Doc: Raw is an item, and a producer is a tool.
Garik: Yes, I get it.
Doc: What is the fundamental difference between objects and guns?
Garik: I can’t figure it out.
Doc: The fact that the objects transfer their material component to manufactured goods, and the tools do not transfer.
Garik: I see.
Doc:Let's continue our example. Imagine that the manufacturer manually made some kind of tool, let's say a shovel. What is the cost of a shovel?
Garik: The time taken to make it, in general order.
Doc: Now imagine that a manufacturer combined parts of raw materials not with his bare hands, but with a shovel. What is the total cost of raw materials?
Garik: The cost of two parts plus the time spent by the manufacturer, plus the cost of a shovel.
Doc: The cost of a shovel? Why's that?! The shovel will be used in the future, with similar work.
Garik: Indeed. Then ... Then ... It is necessary to divide the cost of the shovel between all similar work.
Doc: You don't know how many such jobs will be.
Garik:You can estimate approximately.
Doc: Remember, Garik, a fair economy does not tolerate approximation. Or justice exists, then objective economic laws exist. Or justice does not exist, then economics as a science does not exist at all, and you and I have nothing to discuss.
Garik: I like it more when it exists.
Doc: Then answer, how to calculate the cost of goods when using an inanimate tool, which in our example is a shovel?
Garik: I don't know.
Doc: I gave you a hint: an inanimate tool. And there’s an animated tool ...
Doc:He is. How much does a product increase value through the participation of the manufacturer in the production process?
Garik: For the time spent by the manufacturer.
Doc: If you recognize the existence of economic laws, then you must recognize their uniform effect on the same entities. The manufacturer and the shovel are the same entities, both of them are tools. Therefore, the order of their participation in the production process is identical.
Garik: You want to say ...
Doc: That the product should increase its value for the time participating in the production process of any tools, both animate and inanimate.
Garik: Does the value of inanimate tools not matter?
Doc:Does manufacturer cost matter? He has no value either.
Garik: But then ...
Doc: I'm listening carefully.
Garik: It turns out that the cost of the gun does not play any role in calculating the value of the goods.
Garik: I can’t figure out what this leads to.
Doc: It leads to what I immediately informed you: it matters which product to produce.
Garik: I don’t understand.
Doc: Follow the thought behind me and you won’t be mistaken. The manufacturer made the gun. The manufacturing time of the gun was its cost.
Doc:The tool was used in the manufacture of goods. The cost of goods increased during the use of the tool, respectively, the manufacturer of the tool received a share in the manufactured product.
Doc: Does this share in any way depend on the time the gun was made?
Garik: If you believe it, it doesn’t.
Doc: There is a paradox: in the production of tools, the time of their manufacture is converted to another value - the time of use. The gun manufacturer worked out one duration of time, and compensation will receive for another duration - the one that the gun manufactured by him “worked out”.
Garik: But this contradicts the principle of “everyone gets according to work”!
Doc:Not at all. This transformation is still based on labor.
Garik: Then all manufacturers will begin to make tools and no one will make objects! This is much more profitable.
Doc: Not always.
Garik: Why not always?
Doc: First, the need for tools is not endless. Someone must also make objects, otherwise the goods will not be manufactured.
Garik: This is clear. And secondly?
Doc: Secondly, the tool may break before the time of its use exceeds the time of manufacture. After all, transformation is possible not only in the direction of increasing working time, but also in the direction of decreasing.
Garik: Yes, that sounds logical. It's all?
Doc:There are still third. The third item is related to consumption.
Garik: What does consumption have to do with it? We are talking about guns.
Doc: The classification of things into objects and tools is also valid in the sphere of consumption.
Garik: How is it?
Doc: We agreed that the manufacturer receives compensation for his labor at the time of consumption of his goods.
Garik: Yes, he does.
Doc: Consumer had breakfast. At this point, the right of the producer to receive compensation for the goods manufactured by him is recognized - in this case, for food.
Garik: No objection.
Doc: Using food is happening at once. Why?
Garik: And why?
Doc:Because food is used as an item. There are objects and implements of production, but there are consumption.
Garik: You want to say ...
Doc: I want to say that people consume not only objects, but also tools. Items are consumed simultaneously, while implements are consumed over time.
Garik: Food is objects, but buildings, furniture, cars, computers are tools?
Garik: Then at what point should the tool be considered consumed so that the manufacturer receives compensation for it?
Doc: That's the trick that the consumption of the tool occurs throughout its use! And the consumer must pay reimbursement for the time of consumption of the tool.
Garik:Does the consumer pay compensation for items at their cost, and for tools at the time of their manufacture?
Doc: Everything is in production. Economic laws operate uniformly in respect of both production and consumption. Therefore, I said: it matters which product to produce. The manufacturer will receive for the items at their cost, and for the tools at the time of use.
Garik: Is that right?
Doc: Imagine two light bulbs. The first burned out after 10 months, and the second - after 1 month. Don't you think that the first should cost exactly ten times more expensive than the second?
Garik: It seems.
Doc: Any economic system in which this condition is not met is absurd.
Garik:Yes, I agree with you, I agree ... You were going to tell me the third reason due to which the production of guns may be unprofitable.
Doc: Sorry. The third reason is the delay in reimbursement for production tools.
Garik: What is the delay? I do not understand.
Doc: Does the consumer pay only for what he uses?
Garik: Well of course.
Doc: So it pays for food, buildings, furniture, cars, computers?
Doc: And for the tools of production: screwdrivers, files, machine tools and so on?
Garik: Not if he doesn't need these goods.
Doc: What do you mean "not needed"?
Garik:I meant: if he is not involved in production.
Doc: And if you do?
Garik: Then he will have to purchase them.
Doc: In this case, does the person act as a producer?
Doc: But in a fair economy, the manufacturer does not need to purchase anything from other manufacturers. By jointly manufacturing goods, manufacturers act together, on the basis of cooperation, without acquiring anything from each other. They expect reimbursement from the consumer - the one who uses the product for personal consumption.
Garik: How will the manufacturer of a screwdriver or file get a refund?
Doc:So, as provided by economic logic: from the consumer of goods made with this screwdriver or file.
Garik: Will the manufacturer who made the production tool have to wait until the goods for consumption are manufactured using this tool?
Doc: Exactly! This is what I called the delay in receiving the refund. Therefore, manufacturing tools may be disadvantageous. Compensation for manufactured items can be obtained quickly, for manufactured implements of consumption — you will have to receive it gradually, as they are consumed, and for manufactured implements of production — you must wait until several consecutive productions are completed.
Garik: Why several?
Doc:Using a hammer, a file was made, with a file - a machine, with a machine - a cup. The manufacturer of the hammer will have to wait until the cup is on the table at the consumer, until the producer receives compensation for his hammer (of course, only from the consumer of the cup, but not from other consumers). Economic justice requires every producer to be interested in creating goods for personal consumption. Personal consumption is the goal, everything else is intermediate points when reaching the final goal.
Garik: I need to make sense of this.
Doc: Pay attention, the delay in receiving compensations for the instruments of production determines social security.
Garik: Pensions or what? How???
Doc: Take the above sequence of production tools: hammer - file - machine. Does the hammer manufacturer have a share in the price of the file?
Garik: Of course there is. After all, the file is made with a hammer: the manufacturer of the hammer also, although indirectly, worked on the file.
Doc: Is there a share of the file manufacturer in the cost of the machine?
Garik: There is, for the same reason.
Doc: Does the cost of the machine include a share of the hammer manufacturer?
Garik:Hmm ... Well ... If there is a hammer maker in the price of the file, then there is.
Doc: What does this mean?
Doc: The production process is continuous, in the sense that with the help of some tools others are made. Consequently, in all subsequent instruments of production there will be a share of the producer of the very first instrument - the one from which it all began.
Garik: A stone ax, or what?
Doc: Relatively speaking, yes.
Garik: Let's say. But what does social security have to do with it?
Doc: Despite the fact that people lose their ability to work, but even after that they continue to drip money into their accounts for once produced tools.
Garik: I see.
Doc: Money continues to drip even after the death of a person, which makes it possible for ancestors to contain descendants.
Garik: But I wondered how the principle of "everyone according to their work" allows them to support children. After all, children do not work.
Doc: That's right. The principle of "everyone according to work" does not allow just to transfer money from their account, including in favor of children. Fortunately, this is not required, since children from birth have their own amounts in their personal accounts. Do you understand everything now?
Doc: What do you not understand?
Garik: A lot. In particular, why didn’t you mention the company in your explanations? Does the presence of a single product of many manufacturers not lead to the need to organize companies?
Doc: No way. We assume that a fair economy operates under conditions of complete informatization, therefore, relations between manufacturers are monitored. Companies are atavism of pre-computer civilization, although atavism is significant. The Institute of Legal Entities serves as a theoretical justification for what we agreed not to mention in any way.
Doc: Be quiet, miserable!
Garik:I am silent, but still ... How can I make managerial decisions without companies? Modern manufacturing processes are complex. I can’t imagine that thousands and tens of thousands of manufacturers of goods amicably agree on what to do next with their goods.
Doc: Those who do not feel confident in the science of management, delegate the right to vote to a more competent person. This person is a kind of director - and makes decisions. Its only difference from the representatives of the modern directorate is the absence of compensation for decisions made.
Garik: Like !!! That is, the director - no, the team of arbitrarily recruited directors - should not get paid! But then a management decision will not be made, there are no willing people, and even if they are found, they will not come to an agreement.
Doc:In this case, the goods will not be delivered to the consumer, manufacturers - all, to a single one - will not receive a refund. So you're very wrong: management decisions will be made, quickly and out of necessity.
Garik: But managers work, they produce an administrative product!
Doc: There is no management product, there is intellectual activity. It is characteristic of any work, so not only the directors think. Locksmith, so as not to screw up the workpiece, you also need to think very well.
Garik: You want to say that intellectual activity is not paid? But what about people of art: all writers, composers, artists and other brethren?
Doc:Garik, you confuse God's gift with scrambled eggs. People of art produce quite tangible products: books, sheet music, paintings. Yes, their products are informational in nature, so they can be copied to other media. However, any intelligent products have a material component, at least electronic or magnetic. Manufacturers of things with an information component are people of art. And managers, as a rule, do not produce any goods.
Garik: The head swells with thoughts.
Doc: Don't be upset. In one conversation, I can’t tell you everything that I know. Economics is a tricky science, I warned. In addition, the fair system that we are discussing is still unattainable.
Garik: How unattainable ??? Why???
Doc: Firstly, due to the continuity of economic production. Tools are used for the production of other tools that are used for the production of other tools, and so on.
Garik: So what?
Doc: In order to build an absolutely fair economy, you need to start from scratch, which is almost impossible. For this, it will be necessary to destroy all available material values, which does not make sense, or to restore the necessary data on these material values, which is impossible.
Garik: Are there other reasons?
Doc: Yes. A fair economy assumes completeness of information, but it is absent. It is necessary to calculate the cost of goods, maintain personal accounts, determine the moments of consumption and much more. It is difficult, but theoretically feasible. However, for practical implementation, computing power is needed. Moreover, these capacities should be taken outside the economy, because it is with their help that it is realized. The economy itself does not imply the construction of such a technological superstructure. It is not known where to get these capacities produced outside the economic system ... Unless the capacities themselves suddenly appear out of nowhere.
Garik: Is that all?
Doc:Unfortunately not. The main reason why a fair economy cannot be built is human free will.
Garik: Free will ?!
Doc: She's the most. The rules themselves are not able to enforce. There are no economic rules that could not be violated.
Garik: Violation of the rules can be punished.
Doc: It is possible, but this does not guarantee their subsequent compliance. In addition, punishment implies integration into the system, and an economic system based on the principle of “everyone according to their work” does not provide for this.
Garik: In what sense does not provide?
Doc:In the sense that, in accordance with our logic, the executor of punishment does not work, that is, does not produce anything that could be consumed. Consequently, he cannot receive compensation for his unearned actions. The culprit, who appropriated something contrary to the rules, and the executor of punishment, who received remuneration for his actions, do not differ much from an economic point of view.
Garik: How to be?
Doc: The correct decision is the imposition of punishments and everything similar, right down to the state itself, for the sphere of the economy: to the place where there are not economic, but some other incentives. But even this measure will not lead to the complete elimination of economic crimes, as long as the basis of all misconduct - free will - remains intact.
Garik:So, there is no way to build a just economic society?
Doc: Until all the people want to do this, no, it doesn’t exist.
Garik: But people can be forced to justice.
Doc: Yes. However, as I said, the coercive mechanism must be moved beyond the scope of the economy, otherwise the structure will not be fair. Justice is associated with a partial loss by humanity of free will.
Garik: You were right, Doc, I have a dislocation of the brain.