Economic data by industry

[efficiency]

Please help me find resources that enumerate types of industries that would be obsolete in a libertarian socialist resource based economy. I understand that anarchists are opposed to "work" but look forward to fulfilling play that increases the quality of life. What percentage of activity would become obsolete? Has anyone done an empirical study?

[efficiency]

Sorry to reply to my own post. I have been searching hard through the literature and articles provided through this web site and some of the members here. All I am finding so far is philosophical articles - no hard data. Please don't tell me you've been fighting for a political idea without hard data to support the economic theories you have that suppose you would be improving on the current system. I am not talking about articles that point to disparity. Those stats have been provided by the liberals and the left for a century and are reported daily in the media. I am talking about a simple analysis of work-types that shows what percentage of jobs are dedicated to things like banking and advertising and trading, not excluding cashiering in retail establishments and many managerial jobs that have to do with working with numbers for businesses that would not exist if there was no such thing as money.

I find it impossible to believe that no such study has ever been done by those who believe in a money-less society. I didn't come here to make a mockery of anyone but the absence of this would be an embarrassment to your cause. If the source is in Russian or German or French I would be happy to translate it. Please help.

[efficiency]

Still waiting for help here. Look, I know that many people here think that measures like GDP are useless in a Post-Revolutionary economy, but quality of life is seriously hampered when there is scarcity of goods and services. I need some way to guess at how much loss (or possible gain) there might be in terms of real goods and services. There must be many jobs that are currently dedicated to serving the banking industries and advertising and insurance, all of which would be archaic in a money-less economy. There are also the many cashiers and workers who put on price tags. All I'm looking for here is an estimate. Surely, there must have been thousands of Marxist students who have done the work of quantifying the percentage of pointless jobs in each industry and pointless industries in each economy, if not those with big names. Can anyone give me the name of an economics professor they know who may have done this work who might lead me to what I'm searching for here?:thumbup1:

[efficiency]

I must say that I am very disappointed that two full weeks have passed without a single response to this thread with such a simple inquiry. Obtaining this information was the primary purpose I had to join this community. I would really appreciate some help. I am not going to conclude that nobody has ever done any empirical studies just because there are no replies. I am amazed that the results of such a study are not a part of the library here, which I have looked through very carefully. I has occurred to me that perhaps the results are embarrassing. I don't think that should be the case. I know that it is recommended that every business designate 30% of its budget to advertising, for instance. Also, what retail business doesn't have cashiers and accountants? Never mind that all financial institutions would be obsolete. Every business involved in distribution of goods would be positively effected. The insurance business, financial planning, lending, so much, all obsolete. It's got to be a very high number, all things considered, particularly here in the USA, where building after building has nothing but desk jobs. What are they for? Whose life do they enhance? How? Invariably, it is some service made necessary only by capitalism itself, not by anything that really benefits a person outside of a capitalist paradigm. Again, what percentage of jobs do we know are dedicated to a system that will become obsolete in a resource based money-less, trade-less economy.:confused:

[Yazman]

http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/post.aspx?post=00000065-0000-0000-3230-160000000000&_blg=326

This might be worthwhile, although I'm not EXACTLY sure what you're looking for. I think I have an idea though.

I thought it was pretty clear what the breakdown was in terms of services, agricultural and industrial sectors in most countries. This is pretty easy information to find. The CIA World Factbook - a reputable source for such date (despite the often unethical nature of CIA operations) breaks it down by country:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2012.html

I am pretty surprised at the lack of response to this topic. Perhaps it would be better placed in the Economics (or perhaps Theory) forum though as this is really the wrong place for it as what you're looking for is economic data and not a discussion of a scientific or environmental concern.

If you wish, I can move the thread.

[aristos]

Buckminster Fuller, I believe, did some research from which he concluded that iirc around 70% jobs could be eliminated.

[efficiency]

http :/ /money.msn. com/saving-money-tips/post.aspx?post=00000065-0000-0000-3230-160000000000&_blg=326

This might be worthwhile, although I'm not EXACTLY sure what you're looking for. I think I have an idea though.

I thought it was pretty clear what the breakdown was in terms of services, agricultural and industrial sectors in most countries. This is pretty easy information to find. The CIA World Factbook - a reputable source for such date (despite the often unethical nature of CIA operations) breaks it down by country:

http s:/ /w ww. cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2012.html[/URL]

I am pretty surprised at the lack of response to this topic. Perhaps it would be better placed in the Economics (or perhaps Theory) forum though as this is really the wrong place for it as what you're looking for is economic data and not a discussion of a scientific or environmental concern.

If you wish, I can move the thread.
Thanks for your response!

I like the thinking of the first link. I am not an egalitarian. I think a system of rewards based on profession-type and audit-checked peer recommendation can place each worker on a merit system that determines their privilege level. It's a sophisticated system I've developed which I can share some other time. It does not involve private property that can be traded but something I call status privilege property. There is no monetary system or trade, but merits are not eliminated from the system. As such, it escapes the capitalists criticism that the society would become unproductive. Maybe it would, but the people would at least get what they deserved and the workers have direct control of the means of production so if there were any shortcomings they would have nobody to blame but themselves. There would, I believe, be measurable improvements in numerous ways, but I am interested in deflecting the core capitalist criticisms. On the one hand, that we would be less motivated. On the other hand, quite the contrary, we would be much more efficient. Add to that there would be no planned obsolescence (See the Light Bulb Conspiracy) and we would never see anything like what happened to the patients of Dr. Burzynski.

If you would like to move the thread because you think it would increase the response; that would be great. I very much would like it if there was an active discussion about it. I have seen the CIA links. They give some general stats, but within industries there could also be estimates of what percentage is retained in post-trade economies. I think that type of thing is best talked about in a group where there can be more input.

[efficiency]

Buckminster Fuller, I believe, did some research from which he concluded that iirc around 70% jobs could be eliminated.
Thanks for the lead. I'm now doing look ups. I'm not sure what iirc stands for. Help? I think the 70% sounds about right from personal observation. I found this link, which I have to break up in order to post as I am new here ...

htt p: //ww w.cjfearnley.com/fuller-faq-3.h tml

3. Fuller's Ideas About Human Society: Critical Path

Fuller was interested and made contributions on a wide range of issues in the area academics call the ``social sciences''. Much of this work addressed economics. He published several studies of industrial trends. There was the famous 1940 issue of Fortune magazine which he inspired. In the 1960s the Design Science Decade Documents were published. Fuller advocated the principle of ``ephemeralization'' or doing ``more with less.'' Fuller founded the world game which explores the task of making the world work for 100% of humanity. His major publications in this area are Critical Path and Grunch of Giants wherein he also gives a unique perspective of the history of humans on Earth.

Reading further, it is apparent that Bucky Fuller was not a socialist, exactly. He believed in planning and concern for the welfare of the 100%, but not in redistribution so much as in distribution.

I find some harmony with this last point in the system I've designed. In it the wealthy would not lose their property. It simply becomes disrespectful for them to hoard it, which results in weaker status on audited peer review.

Most of the property of the wealthy is on paper. That becomes valueless as currency becomes obsolete. Ownership of corporations is forfeited in this process, corporations too are simply paper measures whose contracts become void by the coming non-existence of currency. They are bought for nothing by the state, which has a temporary right to tax them and subsequently hand their use over to the workers who operate them. This leaves the very wealthy only with whatever real estate holdings may be theirs if they personally occupy them.

Let them have these for their families. It is a special status privilege property. Only let them do something in the post-trade economy that will serve others so they can maintain this privilege property. If they do nothing of service to the community, then they will lose their privilege. It beats fighting with tanks and machine guns to get them off the property so it can be usurped and merely requires a change of law, which the majority would gladly vote for if made aware.

Internet communication provides a means by which a database of needed services and professions can match up skills. In the system I created each person can search through the database of service and production needs and choose where they would like to work. If they would like a higher status because they desire privilege-level property they can choose a form of work that others are failing to volunteer to do. Gastroenterology, for instance, might not be a desirable profession. Society will always need these, however, so it makes sense to offer Gatstroenterologists status privilege property. There would be endless examples. The voters would discuss it and decide what type of privilege is available and appropriate.

Now I'm getting off topic, but this is all I could find in looking through Bucky Fuller. It struck a cord. I couldnt find the reference to the 70% you mentioned. I might want something more current.

[Yazman]

IIRC stands for "If I Remember Correctly".

I'll have to read up more on the Fuller stuff, I didn't know much about that. I Will definitely take a look though and respond later.

Also - I moved the thread as per your request.

[RED DAVE]

I am not an egalitarian.Then what aare you doing on a website that believes in egalitarianism and radical democracy?


I think a system of rewards based on profession-type and audit-checked peer recommendation can place each worker on a merit system that determines their privilege level.Which sounds like a nasty little stalinist system.


It's a sophisticated system I've developed which I can share some other time. It does not involve private property that can be traded but something I call status privilege property. There is no monetary system or trade, but merits are not eliminated from the system.Capitalism is based on the capitalist class running the economy. Socialism is based on the working class running the economy. Who would run the economy under the system you've "developed"?


As such, it escapes the capitalists criticism that the society would become unproductive. Maybe it would, but the people would at least get what they deserved and the workers have direct control of the means of production so if there were any shortcomings they would have nobody to blame but themselves.Why would the working class institute an nonegalitarian system?


There would, I believe, be measurable improvements in numerous ways, but I am interested in deflecting the core capitalist criticisms.Given how inefficient capitalism is, why are you concerned with their bullshit about efficiency?


On the one hand, that we would be less motivated. On the other hand, quite the contrary, we would be much more efficient. Add to that there would be no planned obsolescence (See the Light Bulb Conspiracy) and we would never see anything like what happened to the patients of Dr. Burzynski.It seems to me that your system is still based on coercion.

RED DAVE

[efficiency]

Then what aare you doing on a website that believes in egalitarianism and radical democracy?
I don't believe in egalitarianism absolutely, as if every person should all have the same things. It makes sense to me to reward people for their service to society. Somebody has to go to the trouble to learn to be a gastroenterologist and some among them perform surgeries and do other very unpleasant types of work. What also of those who risk their lives in various ways for the sake of others, or sacrifice their own health? I simply think these people should be rewarded with special privileges. I'm for relative equality because I believe in goodness and bounty for all. On the other hand, sexual offenders and very slothful people, or violent ones - these might have incentive to avoid these behaviors if there was some reward, so whether behavior is positive or negative, privilege status would be a positive mechanism for society. IF the people did not want it, they could vote to eliminate it but I think it would be a good thing.


Which sounds like a nasty little stalinist system.I had more in mind a computer system that everyone used, rather than a degenerated worker state ruled by a bureaucracy. IF there were limited resources, which there surely will be, your privilege status could determine how many homes you could have, how many cars, boats, or if there was a shared access system and limited resources, an increase in the number of hours of use that is based on what the people said they thought were merited as they voted. These privileges can always be declined by those who are rewarded, as well. Very good people are not unlikely to do such things. They don't really live for rewards even if they earn them. This is not something that I think is found in the average person though.


Capitalism is based on the capitalist class running the economy. Socialism is based on the working class running the economy. Who would run the economy under the system you've "developed"?The people. They would vote on what privileges were appropriate for various types of work through the internet database system which matched needs with human availability. It is the Human Availability and Needs Database System - HANDS


Why would the working class institute an nonegalitarian system?First, it doesn't hurt anyone if someone has more stuff so long as they don't hoard it. There is nothing inherently evil in inequality so long as there is no suffering on account of it on the part of those who have less. As a practical concern, it allows a peaceful transition by not demanding that the wealthy hand over all of their property to anyone else. Basically, most of the wealthy can simply be left to enjoy the life they always have. If they realize that this is how things will be in advance they are much less likely to fight to reserve any old system. in fact, they may just be gratefully relieved that they no longer need to struggle to maintain it. Further, they can also voluntarily forfeit any of their property they don't actually need, and the people would likely not grant them sustaining privileges if they failed to do so anyway. The effect would be a gradual equilibrium in as peaceful a transition as possible. That only pertains to the beginning. Once the new system is working what you get is still roughly egalitarian, just not absolutely. The system rates status from 1-10, where members with a 10 status are highly honored above others because of their outstanding contribution to society. If that is Stalinist, then I want to be a Stalinist. It would make for a better society and increase the value of personal achievement. This I believe would make people happier, knowing that not only could they accomplish something, but be rewarded for doing so, or do the even more noble thing of offering back such rewards voluntarily.


Given how inefficient capitalism is, why are you concerned with their bullshit about efficiency?Because people are lazy and selfish by nature. They sin. That is why capitalist societies have always had greater abundance than communist societies despite their great inefficiency. My solution provides the best of both worlds with none of the suffering. While there are many values that are more important than abundance, scarcity sucks. Famine and pestilence suck. Waiting in long lines to get things because no one is volunteering to make sure there is a working distribution system sucks. Efficiency is a good thing. Capitalism is inefficient. You are certainly right about that, but altruism is also only as efficient as the goodness of its people can make it. Most people are not good. Most of them require incentives - coaxing as opposed to coercion, although a police force would not be absent from such a system for the sake of public safety, so there would also be some coercion necessary.


It seems to me that your system is still based on coercion.Only in the worst case scenario. For instance, if a person decides to kill little children they might be put to death. This is an incentive system. Possibly, the people might choose that a child killer is better placed into a hospital under careful watch, in the hope that they might improve. They would not be judged as evil but as sick. I don't know what the people would decide would be the best choice but the choice clearly would not be the same for that person as it would be for any normal system who did not negatively effect society. Sloth is also a sin, just not as negative as violence or sexual abuse, etc. It takes away from society because society provides for its needs while it produces nothing. This is equivalent to stealing, a thing that as such can't be eliminated even in a trade-less economy characterized by shared access to property. In my opinion, those people should be given enough to sustain themselves, but not so much as the average person who is normally contributing in healthy ways. The decision of policy would be a matter of vote. It would not be mine to make, however. My system allows for considerations such as old age or disability. Most people would not expect each person to contribute to society to the same extent but would realize that when they get old, or if they became disabled, they would not want to be discarded by society just because to do so would be "efficient." Not wanting this type of end for themselves they would probably vote to treat such people with great mercy. I don't know. I would hope so. I know I would.

In any event, in the system I am describing the decision making power is given to the people. It is a true democracy. It only requires an adequate Internet database and system of voting, with the ability to grow with the nuances people decided they wanted. It could change at any time and be refined by the many. At all stages it would be under the control of the people, the workers.

One of the highest values in this world to me personally is to have the freedom to worship in an assembly, not just at home. When many people are of one mind in prayer and worship there is simply nothing in life that provides greater happiness. I think that most people would probably vote to allow for the peaceful assembly of religious people, regardless of their religion. The atheists who believe that religion will eventually die away would want the same for themselves.

Assembly requires accommodation or shared access, if not dedicated facilities. Whatever was made available to various religious peoples for assembly is something that the people would vote on. They might decide that if a group of people wanted to dedicate a certain place for their worship that so long as they do the work to create it they should have the right to use it, possibly even an exclusive right according to membership. Whatever such decisions were made would be subject to vote. No one person could decide that religious assembly was illegal or that a place of worship could be annexed for other purposes.

Let's look at this another way. Let's say there is a gay community and they want to have a bath house that requires a great amount of resource. Let them build it and use it and make it exclusive if they've made the contributions necessary to create it. That's my opinion, but let the people vote on it to decide whether such exclusive access should belong to that facility and its members. There is thus a place for privileged access. I would want that for churches, temples, mosques and gay bath houses.

Perhaps this explains my idea a little better. I have been thinking on this since 1980, when I worked in a bank and realized how inefficient the capitalist system was. My thoughts were entirely independent of Marxism. If there are any similarities they are simply coincidental. I did not start reading up on Marx until many years later. :cool: