dye

沒有金融，人類仍要找方法去交易，去合作。
不用錢，是否以物易物? 以物易物是否做成更大浪費? 以物易物之下人如何分工?
沒有股票、債卷，如何集資建橋，建路?
如何決定建何橋、誰建、如何建?
你面前的電腦，在沒有錢的社會如何製造(因為當中是千人以上的合作成品)
當初為何大部份人也喜歡這制度?

衣食住行便好了?教育要不要?科研?娛樂?
單單生存?何謂「時間都是自己」的如果你什麼，真的什麼也沒有，只能呆坐?
我們今天普通的房，往往已是古代豪宅不能比。自來水，電，冬暖夏涼，颳風也不倒?

制度是有問題，但您會因為火災而不用火嗎?想想不用火的生活是否更好?

dye

承擔未來七代子孫的責任，說起來好聽極了。如何承擔?有能力承擔嗎?誰來承擔? 責任又包括哪些?

魔鬼就在細節中。

種田也是破壞環境啊。一平方米田如果用舊式方法種只能令一家人温飽，新式方法種卻能令十家人温飽，
如果有十家人，舊式方法種便要破壞十平方米田，新式方法種只要一平方，是誰短視了?到剩下一家人，舊式方法種便要破壞一平方米田，新式方法種只要十分一平方。黑心點看，人人用舊式方法種，生活成本上漲十家人人裏是誰先受害?不正正是弱勢的嗎?當你看見最樂見新式方法的正是最弱勢的，而最主張「環保」的往往是有點錢的中產，是巧合嗎?  這裏也不說土地之間有差別，集中辦事也更有效律，省下來的時間精力可以例如唱歌。(唱歌也是生產的一種!)

城中建路，千百萬人得方便。鄉村建路，能有多少人得方便?什麼路也不建，讓我們不合作，各自堵在自家中嗎? 城中當醫生，千百人得救治，鄉村當醫生，多少人得救治?但醫生訓練成本差不多，攤分不了成本，誰願當醫生?為何醫生多往城市跑?

維持現狀便是為子孫好嗎?更有效地辦事便不是為子孫好嗎? 子孫不要溫飽嗎? 子孫不要空間發揮嗎?

現代的人比以前的人差嗎?以前的人都在幹什麼?

dye

Did I begin the topic with "用我的理解，是貪婪和無知推動人類揮霍無度的生活方式。商人的貪婪和短視，消費者的奴性與被建制洗腦。"?

Or "人退步了那麼多"?

How do you suppose a businessman would think?  Take for example, if you have a plan that would generate $100 next year, or a plan that would generate $10 a year for the next 100 year (adjusted for inflation).  Which would be more valuable to an investor?  Is it incidental that professional investor are so keen on the development of future events?

Which will be a better practise for a businessman?  To trade unfairly and earn $100 for once and be outcasted till memory fail (which can be infinitely in electronic age), or to trade honestly and $10 for each year until the company is "dead" (which can be infinietely for a limited company).  Is it conincident that a typical businessman treat their reputation like a bird to their feather? (With care unless it plans to die.)

Which would be a better practise for a businessman?  To trade in a way that make your couterpart poorer and eventually unable to give anything to anyone, or to make them richer so that they can buy more our your "stuff" (which can be service such as singing, reseach, etc)  It is a fact that USA's prosperity for the last decade depends heavily on the rise of China.

Why is it that project in these recent century has such a long lifespan compare to the old projects?  For example, dams than last for hundreds of years, irrigation system require minimum maintenance?

-------------------
I am only asking, how exactly do your ideal world solve the "worldly" problem? For example
Who make what and how? (make include services)
Who get what and how?

I agree that the current system is not perfect, but the world is not perfect neither.  "貪婪和無知推動人類揮霍無度的生活方式。商人的貪婪和短視，消費者的奴性與被建制洗腦" or "businessman 'trying' to be mutually beneficial, consumer 'trying' to have a better life and future in an imperfect world"?

dye

Corporation is an interesting way to think of future.  

Human have limited life time.  If a project lasts longer than a person's life time, how does a person conduct the project after he is dead?  If a project is placed in a corporation, the project will continued with funding FOR the planned profit in future.  Project can pass from generation to generation, from strangers to strangers.  I believe, the modern corporation is the materialization of your concept “承擔未來七代子孫的責任”.  In fact, it does not stop at any generation, but foreseeable future at the time.  The concept is originally design to facilitate long and risky sailing trip that reaps profit only upon the ship’s return.

Condition change from time to time, planned event changes, a single human can be easily bias.  By incorporating, people can vote with money.  Do people believe the project have a good return in the future?  Is there more urgent matter for the present?  Is there new and better projects?  Incorporating allow these factors to be automatically considered into the planning.

(A major problem of incorporation is stewardship.  Management’s interest may not align with investors.  This is the case of Enron, this is the case of the bank’s meltdown, etc)

Future contract, hedges is an interesting way to think of trust.  

If I have a plan for the future, yet I am not sure of the exact result in the future, future contract and hedges will provide the trust I needed from my fellow humankind.  They ensure that even if the result turns out to be horrible, I will not suffer the horrible end for trying.  Stranger can trust each other without knowing each other.

(A major problem is the human nature to gamble with the future.  This tool can also be abused to gamble.)

Insurance is an interesting way to show out human solidarity.  

Whether bad fortune may fall onto anyone is an uncertainty.  By having an insurance, everyone insured is banded together to withstand this uncertainty.  The healthy insurer will pay for the sick insurer in a health insurance.  The living insurer will pay for the dead insurer in a life insurance.  The employed will be paying for the unemployed in an employment insurance.  People can be stranger yet show solidarity with insurance.

(The same problem with stewardship.  Another problem is known as moral hazard, that people intentionally taking more risk because of the insurance, just like an over-protected child.)

dye

The question is how?  The easy part is always to just say the system is imperfect, to blame it on greed, to blame it to some general "force of nature"

The more challenging part is point out in great detail where exactly the system is failing
Still more is creativity in providing feasible solution
Next is the wisedom in making the choice
Lastly the determination implementing

----------
So far, we have companies to think for future, insurance for solidarity, money for complex cooperation, soverign bonds for public cooporation, future contracts and hedges for uncertainty in life, the concept of "ownership" for sustainable development, rule of law to maintain a "minimum" level of justice, etc, etc.

We have indeed walk a long way from the past where we just and only talk.