Prologue

Garik: Doc, what is the economy?

Doc: What kind of economy are you interested in: which now exists or what ideally should it be? These are very different areas, for the most part mutually exclusive.
')
Garik: What it should be ideally.

Doc: So it's fair?

Garik: Exactly fair! What to strive for, if not to justice ?!

Doc: Can you get a brain dislocation? The economy is an abstruse thing, for outstanding minds.

Garik: You explain it so that the fool can understand. I'll sort it out somehow.

Warning author: Dock is not joking, the economy - an abstruse thing, and the material under the cut volume. Three times think about whether you should get acquainted with the tenets of a fair economy.

Exchange

Doc: Okay, I'll try, but blame yourself. Let's get started Is it fair for everyone to work?

Garik: I am sure that is fair.

Doc: So getting a job is a necessary condition for a fair economy?

Garik: Yes.

Doc: What is the way labor is realized in economics?

Garik: In the form of a salary.

Doc: That is, in the form of receiving money?

Garik: Yes.

Doc: What are you getting money for?

Garik: For making things necessary for life.

Doc: Come on, for short, call such things merchandise.

Garik: Agreed.

Doc: What are you doing with the money?

Garik: I buy goods on them.

Doc: You get money for making some goods, and you spend money to buy other goods. Can you say that by doing so you exchange goods with other manufacturers?

Garik: You can.

Doc: And this exchange is the essence of the economy?

Garik: Looks like it.

Doc: Should the exchange of goods be proportionate?

Garik: What do you mean by proportional exchange?

Doc: A certain amount of labor is invested in each product. In accordance with this proportion, the goods must be exchanged.

Garik: I understand.

Doc: We have two conditions for the fair exchange of goods. First: each manufacturer must receive according to work. Second: the exchange of goods must be proportionate. Do you agree with me?

Garik: Of course.

Doc: By the way, did you hear anything about profits?

Garik: Still! The chef buzzed all his ears.

Doc: In that case, answer, how is profit possible if the two conditions accepted by us are observed?

Garik: Hmm ... I did not think.

Doc: Think about it.

Garik: If everyone gets labor and the exchange is proportional, it turns out that profit is impossible. What earned, then spent. If someone made a profit, then someone else got a loss. The first is a robber, the second is robbed.

Doc: It's not me, you said it.

Garik: Strange.

Doc: What's strange?

Garik: Why, the whole modern economy is built on the concept of profit.

Doc: This is not economics, but anti-economics. Forget about it, and especially about profit. Profit is an anti-scientific concept that leads us away from a fair economy.

Garik: Good.

Money

Doc: Let's continue our informative conversation. Answer me this question, Garik. If the content of the economy is the exchange of goods, why did it take money circulation? Why it was impossible to just exchange goods?

Garik: So convenient.

Doc: What exactly is convenience?

Garik: You can buy anything for money. No need to look for a manufacturer that is interesting to you and at the same time interested in your product.

Doc: I fully agree with you. Now tell me, where should money come from in a fair economy?

Garik: State prints?

Doc: If the state prints and distributes to its employees, they, without producing anything, will purchase goods with freshly printed money. This will lead to a violation of one of the basic rules: everyone gets according to work.

Garik: But the employees are working!

Doc: Work or not, we still have to install. Imagine that there are no employees, and there is no state either. Where does the money come from?

Garik: I do not know.

Doc: Either it is necessary to use any commodity suitable for circulation as money, for example, gold. But this is an outdated option. Or - a progressive option - the money must be printed by the manufacturers themselves.

Garik: The producers themselves ??? How???

Doc: When you exchange goods with someone, do you need money?

Garik: No, not needed.

Doc: And if you need some product, and the manufacturer does not need your product?

Garik: I have to buy this product.

Doc: Buy, that is, buy for money?

Garik: Yes.

Doc: For that, you should have money on your hands?

Garik: Well, of course.

Doc: And in order to get money in your hands, do you have to sell your product to someone?

Garik: Right.

Doc: Where do you think that person will take money from if he has the same problems as you?

Garik: Indeed. Stalemate is obtained.

Doc: Why stalemate? You can transfer your goods on credit, for which to get a receipt. We agree to consider this receipt as money.

Garik: I correctly understood that in a fair economy, money arises solely upon the transfer of goods on credit?

Doc: Yes, you got it right. Let's call such a credit commodity.

Garik: Good.

Doc: What is the amount of money in the economic system, can you tell me?

Garik: How many have issued a commodity loan, so is the volume.

Doc: The answer is wrong. The issued receipt provides for two parties to the transaction: the recipient and the payer. One plus, the other minus. Thus, the monetary system assumes not only positive, but also negative amounts in circulation. Positive amounts - receipts on hand, negative amounts - issued receipts.

Garik: It seems, I understood.

Doc: So tell me the amount of money in a closed economic system.

Garik: If you take into account the positive and negative amounts, it is always zero. After all, with a commodity credit, one side gets exactly as much as the other side gives.

Doc: Well done!

Garik: It does not look like modern money circulation. It turns out that half of humanity will have negative amounts in the accounts.

Doc: True, but these are not all the differences in the monetary circulation of modern anti-economics from a fair economy.

Garik: What is the other difference?

Doc: If the money is actually a receipt for a commodity loan, the money should be canceled at the time of their return. The creditor, having received from the debtor due, tears the receipt. Receipt simply ceases to exist.

Garik: But, if I understood correctly, you intend to use receipts as money!

Doc: I guess so what?

Garik: Then they can not be destroyed, receipts must be in circulation.

Doc: Not at all. We have long lived in the world with non-cash money circulation. What then to speak about the ideal economic world under discussion ?! Of course, there will be no receipts: there will be personal accounts with positive or negative balances.

Garik: Will positive amounts be counted as negative?

Doc: Exactly.

Garik: And the total amount of money in circulation will constantly change?

Doc: It will depend on the size of the commodity credit in the system, as it should be.

Garik: And the total amount of such money in the system will always be zero?

Doc: Yes.

Garik: It is clear to me what you're talking about.

Work

Doc: I'm happy for you and for myself. However, we will continue our brief insight into a fair economy. I remember, we agreed that everyone should receive according to work.

Garik: Yes.

Doc: But they forgot to establish what labor is.

Garik: What is it? Actions for the production of goods.

Doc: How to understand what actions a person performs - in the production of goods or some other actions?

Garik: Well, the man himself must say this.

Doc: And if he is lying or mistaken?

Garik: Yes, you're right. To establish what actions a person performs, it is possible only by what he got at the exit. The product turned out to be output - the person worked, the product did not turn out - the person did not work.

Doc: How do I know what happened at the exit? When does the availability of goods become apparent to the system?

Garik: At the time of the exchange of goods.

Doc: True, but not so simple. Suppose that the product has moved to the new owner, but it turned out to be defective. Is it fair that a manufacturer gets a defective one in exchange for his high-quality product?

Garik: No, unfair.

Doc: What to do?

Garik: Check that the product is not defective.

Doc: How to check?

Garik: To conduct an examination.

Doc: And if the defect is hidden and can only be detected by using the product?

Garik: Then you need to use the product for its intended purpose and see if it is defective or of high quality.

Doc: It turns out that to check the quality of the product - in fact, is the product a commodity - possible only at the time of its use? If the use is successful, the product is of high quality, otherwise it is defective.

Garik: Yes.

Doc: And to determine if the person worked, perhaps not earlier than using the product made by this person?

Garik: It turns out that way.

Doc: Do you know what logically follows from this?

Garik: What?

Doc: That no exchange of goods is possible.

Garik: But why ???

Doc: Because the exchange of goods takes place earlier than the use of goods. At the time of the exchange, it is not known whether the goods exchanged are actually goods, or they are nothing more than defective products. On this side, any exchange is invalid.

Garik: But the exchange is happening!

Doc: No, it does not. In fact, in the so-called exchange, there is a counter commodity lending.

Garik: When do two manufacturers transfer goods to each other?

Doc: Exactly. They lend goods and expect to use these goods. If the goods are successfully used by both parties, the exchange took place. If any of the goods is not used due to a defect, what equivalent exchange can we talk about ?! Of course, I’m not talking about the legal aspects of a deal with modern anti-economics, but about the actual aspects of a deal with a fair economy.

Garik: I understand. For defective product no refund is due.

Doc: That's the whole point. Therefore, settlements through currency circulation should not be made at the time of the exchange - as we have established, it does not exist - but as the commodity loans are issued and repaid.

Garik: Wow!

Doc: Are you surprised by something?

Garik: The consumer takes the goods from the manufacturer, but it turns out should be for him later - at the time of use of the goods.

Doc: Doesn't the consumer pay for the work done by the manufacturer?

Garik: For work.

Doc: And how we determined whether the manufacturer worked, it turns out at the time of use of the goods. What is surprising in the moment of payment? When it becomes obvious that the manufacturer worked, he is charged - should be charged - compensation for his work.

Market

Garik: Something is wrong here. The consumer can take the goods, but deliberately do not use it, for example, from harm.

Doc: Maybe.

Garik: The product is accepted, but the consumer does not have to the manufacturer, because the product is not used by him.

Doc: Why should a consumer do this?

Garik: Out of harm, I told you. For example, a consumer experiences hostile relations with a manufacturer and wants to annoy him.

Doc: It will go sideways to the unethical consumer.

Garik: How?

Doc: When transferring goods on credit, do manufacturers expect products to be used?

Garik: Yes. Then the actions of manufacturers will be recognized by labor, and manufacturers will receive a refund.

Doc: In this case, the consumer risks no longer getting goods on credit. Manufacturers will be afraid that the consumer does not use their products, so they will pass the goods to someone else. An unethical consumer will have problems, including starvation. As you can see, in a fair economy, not only money, but also reputation is important.

Garik: Now I understand why.

Doc: Consider who the producers prefer to transfer their products to, and much will become clearer. Put yourself in the manufacturer's place.

Garik: I'll try now. So, I am a manufacturer, made the goods.

Doc: To whom will you deliver the goods for consumption?

Garik: So, I don’t sell goods like now, but transfer goods for consumption on credit?

Doc: Yes. It’s not the consumer who chooses the product for which he has enough money to buy, but the producer chooses the consumer from whom, in his opinion, he will receive a refund faster.

Garik: How can I find out which consumer wants my product?

Doc: A consumer who wants to receive a product makes a request. You are allowed to take the goods or refuse.

Garik: And if there are many goods? It's a long time!

Doc: Garik, don't be a child. Obviously, we need an algorithm that distinguishes consumers that satisfy your conditions from those who do not satisfy your conditions. The consumer sees in the system which of the goods he is allowed to receive and which of which is not allowed.

Garik: The concept is clear.

Doc: So to which consumer would you pass the goods?

Garik: Probably, the one who has a positive balance on his account. So I will quickly get a refund.

Doc: And if the request is made by a consumer with a negative balance on the personal account?

Garik: Indeed. This means that it is necessary to establish a minimum amount of a positive account balance or a maximum amount of a negative one, at which the goods can be transferred to consumption.

Doc: Well done! The only question that remains is unresolved. Some consumers use your product immediately after receiving it, while others do not use it right away. Someone wants to take the goods, as they say, in reserve. How to deal with such thrifty consumers?

Garik: We will have to decide whether to release the goods or not, in each particular case. Introduce certain conditions into the release algorithm.

Doc: And to whom, according to your algorithm, the goods will not be released even with a satisfactory amount of money in the personal account?

Garik: To the one who does not use the goods in reasonable time.

Doc: Do you know what your words mean?

Garik: What?

Doc: In a fair economy, it is impossible to get goods above the necessary personal consumption.

Garik: Against this, I do not mind.

Doc: Notice that the market in a fair economy regulates everything - it really does regulate, which cannot be said about modern anti-economics. Anti-economics involves over-trading and the arbitrary use of money, thereby developing his worst qualities in a person ...

Garik: Wait, what do you mean by arbitrary use of money?

Doc: Ability to spend them not on personal consumption.

Garik: You want to say that in a fair economy you cannot spend money on your account at your own discretion?

Doc: Only for personal consumption, otherwise it would be contrary to the principle of "everyone according to work".

Garik: And I can not transfer any amount of familiar girlfriend?

Doc: You can’t, because it would be contrary to the principle “for everyone according to work”.

Garik: Oh shit!

Time

Doc: Well, Garik, we are discussing with you the economic principle “for everyone according to work”, but at the same time we forgot to establish what the measure of labor is. After all, when exchanging it is necessary to know the amount of labor inherent in each product - the value of the goods.

Garik: Really forgot.

Doc: So how is work measured?

Garik: Is it not in the money?

Doc: What the hell are you talking about? Money is a quantitative expression of a commodity credit, which must be measured in some way.

Garik: In working time?

Doc: To the point!

Garik: And in qualifying.

Doc: Garik, you upset me. The labor meter must be an objective value, and the qualification is not.

Garik: You say that labor is measured solely in time?

Doc: Yeah, I say. The only representable objective measure of labor is time.

Garik: But this means that one hour of working time of a qualified and unqualified manufacturer is equal!

Doc: And what's wrong with that?

Garik: If you pay for any job equally, the incentive to improve your qualifications will disappear.

Doc: Don't tell me. There are many unqualified jobs, and few qualified ones. Improving qualifications is in many cases a way to get a job. Without the required qualifications, no product will be produced.

Garik: But is it true that a manufacturer of high qualification will receive as much for his work as a manufacturer of low qualification?

Doc: Answer, qualifications can be determined objectively, with a measuring device in hand?

Garik: No

Doc: Are you saying that any definition of a qualification level is subjective, in other words, arbitrary?

Garik: Yes.

Doc: You have strange notions of justice. Do you think it is fair to determine the dependence of wages on a factor set arbitrarily, by someone voluntarist decision?

Garik: But ... Then ... I cease to understand anything. If you pay only for working time, all employees, regardless of productivity, will receive equal compensation. The workaholic made 10 units of goods for a ten-hour shift, and the lazy one made 1 unit. Do they really have to get equal time?

Doc: Sure ...

Garik: What ???

Doc: ... on the condition that the goods will be transferred to the consumer and used, which is far from a fact.

Garik: What do you mean?

Doc: We sort of agreed: in a fair economy, the manufacturer should receive a refund after the product is used for its intended purpose?

Garik: It's true.

Doc: What will be the cost of goods made by a workaholic and lazy?

Garik: A workaholic for ten hours 10 units of goods, then the cost of one unit - 1 hour. Accordingly, the lazy value of one unit of goods is 10 hours.

Doc: Which of the products made by a workaholic or lazy will consumers prefer?

Garik: Made by a workaholic, they are ten times cheaper.

Doc: As a result, the goods made by idler will not be used?

Garik: It will not.

Doc: And the lazy one won't get a refund for the time worked?

Garik: It turns out that way.

Doc: Why do you claim that a workaholic and a lazy person will receive equal compensation for the time worked? The workaholic will receive a refund at 10 o'clock, and the lazy person will not receive anything, since the goods made by him did not find the consumer due to the high cost of living.

Garik: I caught your thought. Working slowly is unprofitable, because the goods will be expensive and will not find a consumer ?!

Doc: How unprofitable!

Garik: Well, suppose people work with the same average productivity, with the result that consumers disassemble the goods evenly. But in this case, the compensation received by all manufacturers is the same?

Doc: No.

Garik: Why?

Doc: It matters what product to make.

Garik: I stop understanding anything.

Cost of

Doc: If you don't get a dislocated brain, you'll understand. Tell me, Garik, how many manufacturers of modern products?

Garik: A lot.

Doc: What is this about?

Garik: Due to the fact that it is unprofitable to produce all the goods yourself, it is more profitable to produce any one commodity. Products made by different manufacturers are part of the final goods for the consumer.

Doc: And for this very reason, cooperation and specialization, is the exchange of goods necessary?

Garik: Yes.

Doc: As a result, modern products have many manufacturers. Each of the manufacturers expects to receive compensation for their work.

Garik: Yes.

Doc: But is it necessary to know the share of each manufacturer in the total value of the goods in order to pay a refund?

Garik: Right.

Doc: What is needed for this?

Garik: Well ... Calculate the share of producers in the value of the goods.

Doc: Well said. Cost is the work time spent on the manufacture of the goods. Since the compensation is paid to manufacturers, it is necessary to know their share in the total value of the goods.

Garik: It turns out that the cost itself does not matter, the value is the cost as the working time spent on the production of goods by a specific manufacturer.

Doc: Exactly.

Garik: Well, I understand your position ... What is there with the calculation of the cost of goods for specific manufacturers?

Doc: Suppose the manufacturer manually extracted the raw materials. What is its value?

Garik: The time spent by the manufacturer on the extraction.

Doc: The manufacturer mined the second part of the raw materials in the same manner, and connected the two mined parts into one. What is the total cost of raw materials?

Garik: The sum of the two costs, it's obvious.

Doc: But what about the time taken by the manufacturer to connect the parts into a single unit?

Garik: Sorry, I did not think. We need to add it too.

Doc: Raw materials have changed their characteristics - in this case it was piled up in a common pile - as a result of the impact of the manufacturer. This is a common physical property of our world: some things change under the influence of other things. I propose to call the first, changeable things - objects, while the second, affecting - tools.

Garik: Whatever you say.

Doc: Raw material is a thing, and the manufacturer is a tool.

Garik: Yes, I understood.

Doc: What is the cardinal difference between objects and guns?

Garik: I can not figure it out.

Doc: In the fact that objects transfer their material component to manufactured goods, and tools do not transfer.

Garik: I see.

Doc: Let's continue our example. Imagine that the manufacturer manually made some kind of weapon, let's say a shovel. What is the cost of a shovel?

Garik: The time spent on its production, in a general manner.

Doc: Now imagine that the manufacturer combined parts of the raw materials not with bare hands, but with a shovel. What is the total cost of raw materials?

Garik: The cost of two parts plus the time spent by the manufacturer, plus the cost of a shovel.

Doc: The cost of a shovel? Why did it happen?! The shovel will be used in the future, with similar work.

Garik: Indeed. Then ... Then ... It is necessary to divide the cost of a shovel between all similar works.

Doc: You don't know how many such works will be.

Garik: You can estimate approximately.

Doc: Remember, Garik, a fair economy does not tolerate approximation. Or justice exists, then there are objective economic laws. Or justice does not exist, then economics as a science does not exist at all, and we have nothing to discuss with you.

Garik: I like it better when it exists.

Doc: Then tell me how to calculate the value of the goods when using an inanimate tool, which in our example is a shovel?

Garik: I do not know.

Doc: I gave you a hint: an inanimate weapon. And there is an animated instrument ...

Garik: Manufacturer?

Doc: He's the one. How much does a product increase in value through the participation of the manufacturer in the production process?

Garik: At the time spent by the manufacturer.

Doc: If you recognize the existence of economic laws, then you must recognize their uniform effect on the same entities. The manufacturer and the shovel are identical entities, both of them tools. Therefore, the order of their participation in the production process is identical.

Garik: You want to say ...

Doc: That a product should increase its value at the time of participation in the production process of any tools, both animate and inanimate.

Garik: The cost of inanimate guns while it does not matter?

Doc: Does the manufacturer's value matter? He has no value either.

Garik: But then ...

Doc: Listen to you carefully.

Garik: It turns out that the cost of the instrument does not play any role in calculating the value of the goods.

Doc: Exactly.

Garik: I can not figure out what this leads to.

Doc: It leads to what I told you right away: it matters what product to make.

Garik: I do not understand.

Doc: Follow the thought behind me and you will not be mistaken. The manufacturer has manufactured a weapon. The time of manufacture of the gun was its cost.

Garik: Yes.

Doc: The tool used in the manufacture of goods. The cost of goods has increased at the time of use of the gun, respectively, the manufacturer of the gun received a share in the manufactured product.

Garik: Yes.

Doc: This share does not depend on the time of manufacture of the instrument?

Garik: If you believe you, it does not depend.

Doc: A paradox arises: in the manufacture of tools, the time of their manufacture is converted to another value — the time of use. The manufacturer of the tool has worked one length of time, and the compensation will be received for another duration - the one that the tool he has made has “worked out”.

Garik: But this is contrary to the principle “everyone receives according to work”!

Doc: Not at all. The basis of this transformation is still labor.

Garik: Then all manufacturers will begin to manufacture tools and no one - items! This is much more profitable.

Doc: Not always.

Garik: Why not always?

Doc: First, the need for tools is not infinite. Must someone and things to make, otherwise the goods will not be made.

Garik: That is clear. And secondly?

Doc: Secondly, the tool may break before its use time exceeds its manufacturing time. After all, the transformation is possible not only in the direction of increasing working time, but also in the direction of decreasing.

Garik: Yes, it sounds logical. It's all?

Doc: There are still third. The third item is related to consumption.

Consumption

Garik: What does consumption have to do with it? We are talking about tools.

Doc: The classification of things into objects and tools is also valid in the sphere of consumption.

Garik: What is it like?

Doc: We agreed that the manufacturer receives a refund for his labor at the time of consumption of his goods.

Garik: Yes, it does.

Doc: The consumer had breakfast. At this point, recognized the right of the manufacturer to receive a refund for the goods made by him - in this case, for food.

Garik: Without objection.

Doc: The use of food happens all at once. Why?

Garik: And why?

Doc: Because food is used as a subject. There are objects and instruments of production, and there is consumption.

Garik: You want to say ...

Doc: I want to say that people consume not only objects, but also tools. Objects are consumed at once, while tools are consumed over time.

Garik: Food is objects, and buildings, furniture, cars, computers are tools?

Doc: Exactly!

Garik: Then at what point should the tool be considered consumed so that the manufacturer would receive a refund for it?

Doc: That's the thing, that the consumption of an instrument occurs throughout its use! And the consumer must pay compensation on the time of consumption of the instrument.

Garik: For items, does the consumer pay reimbursement for their value, and for the tools - by the time they were made?

Doc: Everything is in production. Economic laws operate uniformly in relation to both production and consumption. That's why I said: it matters what product to produce. For items the manufacturer will receive at their cost, and for the guns - at the time of use.

Garik: Is that right?

Doc: Imagine two lights. The first burned out after 10 months, and the second - after 1 month. Do not you think that the first should cost exactly ten times more than the second?

Garik: It seems.

Doc: Any economic system in which this condition is not met is absurd.

Garik: Yes, I agree with you, I agree ... You were going to tell me a third reason, due to which the production of tools may be unprofitable.

Doc: Sorry. The third reason is the postponement of compensation for the instruments of production.

Garik: What is the delay? I do not understand.

Doc: Does the consumer pay only for what he uses?

Garik: Well, of course.

Doc: That is, for food, buildings, furniture, cars, computers pay?

Garik: Yes.

Doc: And for the tools of production: screwdrivers, files, machine tools, etc.?

Garik: No, if he doesn't need these goods.

Doc: What do you mean "not needed"?

Garik: I meant: if he is not engaged in production.

Doc: And if you do?

Garik: Then he will have to buy them.

Doc: In this case, does a person act as a producer?

Garik: Yes.

Doc: But in a fair economy, a manufacturer doesn't need to purchase anything from other manufacturers. Jointly producing goods, manufacturers work together, on the basis of cooperation, without acquiring anything from each other. They expect reimbursement from the consumer, who uses the product for personal consumption.

Garik: How does a screwdriver or file manufacturer get a refund?

Doc: As provided by the economic logic: from the consumer of the goods manufactured with the help of this screwdriver or file.

Garik: Will the manufacturer who manufactured the production tool have to wait until the goods for consumption are manufactured with this tool?

Doc: Exactly! This is what I called a deferment on receipt of compensation. Therefore, to manufacture tools of production may be disadvantageous. Reimbursement for manufactured items can be received quickly, for manufactured tools of consumption — you will have to receive them gradually, as they are consumed, and for manufactured tools of production, you must wait until several successive productions are completed.

Garik: Why a few?

Doc:With the help of a hammer, a file was made, with a help of a file - a machine tool, with a machine tool - a cup. The manufacturer of the hammer will have to wait until the cup is on the table at the consumer, until the manufacturer receives compensation for his hammer (of course, only from the consumer of the cup, but not from other consumers). Economic justice requires that each manufacturer be interested in creating a product for personal consumption. Personal consumption is the goal, all the rest is intermediate points when reaching the final goal.

Garik: I need to comprehend it.

Social

Doc: Pay attention, the delay in receiving refunds for the instruments of production determines social security.

Garik: Pension or something? How???

Doc: Take the above sequence of production tools: hammer - file - machine. Is there a share of the hammer manufacturer in the cost of the file?

Garik: Of course, there is. After all, the file is made with a hammer: the manufacturer of the hammer, too, although indirectly, worked on the file.

Doc: Is there a share of the file manufacturer in the cost of the machine?

Garik: Yes, for the same reason.

Doc: Is there a share of the hammer manufacturer in the cost of the machine?

Garik:Hmm ... Well ... If the cost of the file has a share of the manufacturer of the hammer, then there is.

Doc: What does this mean?

Garik: What?

Doc: The production process is continuous, in the sense that with some tools others are made. Consequently, in all subsequent instruments of production there will be a share of the manufacturer of the very first instrument — the one with which it all began.

Garik: Stone ax, or what?

Doc: Relatively speaking, yes.

Garik: Suppose. But what does social security have to do with it?

Doc: Given that people lose their ability to work, but even after that, money continues to drip into their accounts for the tools they once produced.

Garik: I see.

Doc: Money continues to drip even after a man’s death, which allows ancestors to contain descendants.

Garik: And I wondered how the principle of "everyone according to work" allows you to contain children. After all, children do not work.

Doc: Exactly. The principle of "everyone according to work" does not allow transferring money from your account, including for the benefit of children, just like that. Fortunately, this is not required, since children from birth have their own amounts in their personal accounts. Now you understand everything?

Garik: No

Information

Doc: What's not clear to you?

Garik: Much. In particular, why in your explanations you did not mention the company. Doesn't the presence of one product of many manufacturers lead to the need to organize companies?

Doc: No way. We assume that a fair economy operates in conditions of complete informatization, therefore relations between producers are monitored. Companies are an atavism of a pre-computer civilization, although the atavism is significant. The Institute of Legal Entities serves as a theoretical justification for the fact that we have agreed not to mention in any way.

Garik: Profit?

Doc: Be quiet, miserable!

Garik:I’m silent, but still ... How can I make management decisions without companies? Modern manufacturing processes are complex. I can not imagine that thousands and tens of thousands of producers of goods agree amicably about what to do with their goods.

Doc: Those who do not feel confident in management science delegate the right to vote to a more competent person. This person is a kind of director and makes decisions. Its only difference from the representatives of the modern directorate is the absence of compensation for the decisions made.

Garik: In both !!! That is, the director - no, the team of randomly recruited directors - should not receive a salary! But then the management decision will not be made, there will be no willing people, and even if they are found, they will not come to an agreement.

Doc:In this case, the goods will not go to the consumer, producers - everything, to a single - will not receive a refund. So you are very wrong: management decisions will be made quickly and by necessity.

Garik: But managers work, they produce a managerial product!

Doc: There is no management product, there is an intellectual activity. It is characteristic of any work, so not only the directors think. Locksmith, in order not to screw up the workpiece, you also need to think very well.

Garik: You want to say that intellectual activity is not paid? But what about the people of art: all the writers, composers, artists and other brethren?

Doc:Garik, you confuse God's gift with scrambled eggs. Artists produce quite material products: books, notes, paintings. Yes, their products are informational, so they can be copied to other media. However, any intellectual products have a material component, at least electronic or magnetic. Producers of things with an informational component are people of art. And managers, as a rule, do not produce any goods.

Garik: Head swells from thoughts.

Epilogue

Doc: Don't be upset. For one conversation, I can not tell you everything that I know. Economics is a tricky science, I warned. In addition, the fair system that we are discussing is still unattainable.

Garik: How unattainable ??? Why???

Doc: First, because of the continuity of economic production. Tools are used to make other tools, which are used to make other tools, and so on.

Garik: So what?

Doc: In order to build an absolutely fair economy, you need to start from scratch, which is almost impossible. To do this, you will have to destroy all available material values, which does not make sense, or to restore the necessary data on these material values, which is impossible.

Garik: There are other reasons?

Doc:Yes. A fair economy implies the fullness of information, and it is missing. It is necessary to calculate the cost of goods, maintain personal accounts, determine the moments of consumption and much more. It is difficult, but theoretically feasible. However, for practical implementation required computational power. Moreover, these facilities should be brought out of the economy, because it is through them that it is realized. The economy itself does not imply the construction of such a technological superstructure. It is not known where to get these capacities produced outside the economic system ... Unless the capacities themselves suddenly arise from scratch.

Garik: Is that all?

Doc: Unfortunately not. The main reason why a fair economy cannot be built is human free will.

Garik:Free will?!

Doc: She's the one. The rules themselves are not able to provide their execution. There are no economic rules that could not be violated.

Garik: For breaking the rules can be punished.

Doc: It is possible, but it does not guarantee their subsequent compliance. In addition, punishment implies integration into the system, and an economic system based on the principle of “each according to work” does not provide for this.

Garik: In what sense does not provide?

Doc:In the sense that, in accordance with our logic, the performer of punishment does not work, that is, does not produce anything that could be consumed. Therefore, he cannot receive a refund for his unearned actions. The culprit, who appropriated something contrary to the rules, and the perpetrator of punishment, who received a reward for his actions, differ from each other economically.

Garik: How to be?

Doc: The correct decision is the imposition of punishments and everything analogous, right up to the state itself, for the sphere of the economy: where there are not economic, but some other incentives. But even this measure will not lead to the complete eradication of economic crimes, as long as the basis of all misconduct — free will — remains intact.

Garik: , ?

: , , .

: .

: . , , , . .

: , , .