this halloween I'll dress up like a capitalist

>>3359
Problems with a resource based economy:

1. All resources being fully controlled by government bodies would immediately lead to tyranny by teh governments, as evidenced by A. Common sense. B. Every single example of Communism in history.

2. Total equality and fairness would eliminate competitive drives of both corporations and nations, this would lead to stagnation and a lack of innovations. For example chip technology has been driven by competition of companies that want to sell better phones, computers, et cetera. China despite having enormous gdp and a high iq society falls behind the US (a country of fat retards) in technology innovation.

3. The micromanagement of resource allocation would require a high amount of bureaucracy, this would probably lead to a system comparable to a capitalsit system where friends of those in office will get better houses and luxuries allocated to them as evidenced in every communist country in history. For the sake of simplifying a complex system units of exchange (money) would soon be implemented, and there would be a strong natural inclination for the system to become more akin to captialsit, as evidenced by modern china which became more capitalist after the death of Mao

>>3362
1. Doesn't have to be. It wouldn't be more regulated than "all money coming from the government".

2. I don't think so. This is an argument always parrotted, but there are more aspirations to life than "just make money to survive".
You can still be the best, the most respected, the most knowledgable person. It would just take the stress off people who don't have those aspirations in the first place. Things have been invented by humanity since its inception. Maybe you just want to find something that makes something easier or more comfortable or more readily available.
Kinda simple to say that "if people are not slaves to money everyone would just sit on his fat ass and look into the air 24/7".

3. The age of technology and self-govering systems make it possible. Add in the rising of AI and you don't have to have lots people ravaging through tons of paper everyday to get something done within a governing body.

>>3382
too lazy to target the other two points, but the third is really bad and I had to say something

remember
a machine must never make a management decision
because a machine cannot be held accountable
adding technology has not actually solved the issues of management at any point
what you describe is the same pitch of every AI bubble company ever (;´Д`)

>>3385
Why? Your point was management activity.
Like making a decision based on rules if somneone gets money or not.
Not the creation of the rules themselves. That is done beforehand and by humans.
Why can't a machine do a menial task such as a predetermined decision based on facts? You can have a real person be held accountable for the veracity of those machine decisions. In fact the very same thing is happening already with any big internet platform. Sure there will be some returns where people dispute a decision. But let's say you get the money you want, are you gonna file a complaint? Probably not. For all those decisions a human isn't neccessary, after the fact of deciding how that decision is meant to be made.
It's just all about how WELL DESIGNED that decision making process is.