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"?作者: dye 時間: 2012/6/11 20:36
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.)作者: wolfa 時間: 2012/6/12 14:29
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.作者: wolfa 時間: 2012/6/12 16:45