This presumes you read part 1.
This is the second story mentioned
in “The rich get richer” post. This one removes the forces of
money, interest and capitalism. It instead focuses on the labor part
of the equation. Where the version of the story concentrated on an
auction outside the bakery, this time we concentrate on the inside
workings of the bakery. It shows how, when that is removed, a more
natural driving force of creativity and invention results. It is a
much shorter story where charts won't be required. (But I could if
you really want one.
Back at the bakery
So, we return to our bakery. The
same set up as in the previous post. A baker makes bread for a
community of 10 families. All 10 have a single provider, and require
one loaf of bread a day. The 10 people are exactly the same in every
way. In this case though, the baker needs 5 people to work for one
feverish hour every day. The work is hard and draining, but everybody
is capable of doing it. He pays a loaf of bread to every laborer who
works. The baker has a short term memory problem and can never
remember from day to day who worked for him. (This is to remove an
prejudicial treatment or cronyism from the equation.) So every
morning, he opens up the back door and has all 10 pick numbers from a
hat. The first 5 come and work for their bread. The baker represents
all the possible employment in the system. The bread represents the
basic needs to have a socially acceptable “humble” lifestyle in
the community. Those who are strong and motivated will get picked the
next day or the next day, just so long as they are there.
Innovation in a capitalist system you
say?
US style capitalism is great for
solving a problem once. (Take a gas engine or A/C current for
example.) After that, even if you come up with a better idea, the buy
in is so overwhelming. People who are profiting from the old system
are motivated to make that truth even more so. The options for
powering our vehicles are numerous, the ability to power our house
with wind and solar are available, but they are too costly from most
people. Plus, we have been conditioned to believe using them makes
us different, weird. “That guy is driving a hybrid.. what a pussy!”
“I don't want to see my neighbors windmills from my house!” or “
you want to live in a smaller house or on a boat and work a few hours
a week to provide your needs?” Capitalism will not suffer this
mentality, It needs to germinate consumers and overly reward the
competitors.
The “innovation” in a natural
system comes from the people who didn't get picked. With an extra
hour and an extra incentive, they distract themselves from their
hungry belly. Or it comes from those who did, but with free time and
a passion, they used the other 23 hours to invent an airplane, light
source, telephone in their garage. They have their bread, they have
their strength, they just need some meaning in their life. The
community prospers, evolves, and moves forward as one.
Disability
Any inequality is provided by nature.
It sucks, that is the reality, but if you are born with no arms, you
are not going to be able to pick a number. You will probably remain a
burden on your family or taken care of by the community for the
duration of your life. That is a true disability. (In our culture the
inability to contribute even with some normally crippling
disadvantages has been reduced.) A just and fair culture will have
to decide what to do with their physically and mentally
disadvantaged. That is what makes us human and not like the other
animals. Though I look around and wonder if that is true these days.
Welfare system for the unlucky, not the
lazy.
Currently the capitalist welfare
system rewards people for making bad decisions. Make no mistake
that it is because places like Wal-Mart and McDonald's benefit from
that situation. Likewise China is raking in the US wealth because of
it. There wealthy have always found benefit in keeping slaves and
indentured servants. It doesn't not (more do the people that opposed
it) discern between the lazy and the unlucky. US capitalism does not
recognize that a kid being born to a crack head mother in the
projects has not the same advantages as the one born to a hotel chain
mogul. It is one thing to allow nature to make sure that doesn't
happen in the first place and provide disadvantages when it does, a
completely different thing when the government encourages it with
payment.
As in the disability system so is the
welfare system geared towards what is natural. It is good to help
you neighbor who has had a run of 3 or 4 days without bread. That is
just unlucky in the context of this thought experiential. Bad luck is
minimized by equality and humanized by compassion. So, it is good to
help, but when you neighbor stop showing up and expecting you to just
give him part of yours, that is immoral. The community will have to
allow that family to suffer the consequences. Somebody recently said
to me, “Starvation is a powerful motivator.” I tend to agree for
the most part. If the human mind perceives no hope of getting out of
a situation, it will resolve to starvation as a form of suicide.
Who controls the wealth disparity?
So who controls the wealth in this
version? The baker? No, not really. If he gave less than a loaf,
his community would starve and become too weak to help. Then he too
would starve. They would either eventually turn on him or leave to
find another baker. The individual laborers, do they set the gap? No,
they just show up, and with a statistical advantage, they pick from
the hat. But they have to show up. The natural system set the price.
There is no need or use for bread beyond your basic needs. There is
no way to get a second loaf. No way to extort the money for it from
your neighbor. This version works more like a family. What was that
thing they call a large family of people who support each other. I
think the original inhabitants had such a community.
The perfect system is one that isn't
perfect
In a perfect system, there would be a
need for 10 laborers and 10 loafs of bread would be produced. But
that is in contrast to human (or any living thing) nature. That
would be stagnant. Another family would move in. Then slight unrest
would begin this system as described. The reality is that it is
healthy for a community to have just under its perfect amount of
resources, as it will drive innovation. Just under is important.
There needs to be hope, a way to envision making the system better, a
way for a family who is unlucky to see a way out. Too much disparity
(as shown in Part 1) causes “despair” and people just give up.
There must be hope. Expecting the bread maker to make more or set
up another bakery is silly. You are relying on his desire to take
his excess time and solve something that isn't a problem to him. He
might, sure. He has the knowledge, that is true. But that is only
part of the equation.
“What isn't natural is artificial. What is artificial consumes finite resources. What isn't natural isn't sustainable. What isn't sustainable, eventually collapses. It has to.” - (Paraphrasing something said over a few different conversations with my buddy Pete Cammarata.)
Comments