[pjlegato]

The problem is the intractable dispute about what things should go into which category. Empirically, there has been a strong historical tendency to move things into the "NEED" category that were traditionally in the "WANT" category.

For example, indoor plumbing was considered a grossly extravagant luxury for almost all of human history. Within the last hundred years, the richer societies have made laws (building codes) that have switched it to a "NEED". The same thing happend with indoor heating systems.

As for food, most medieval European peasants considered themselves lucky if they got a bowl of thin gruel every day. Asian peasants thought they were lucky to get a bowl of rice. Many didn't get anything on many days. Now in the US the government is talking about "food deserts" and shifting many previously "luxury" fresh nutritious foods into the "NEED" category.

[eli_gottlieb]

>For example, indoor plumbing was considered a grossly extravagant luxury for almost all of human history. Within the last hundred years, the richer societies have made laws (building codes) that have switched it to a "NEED". The same thing happend with indoor heating systems.

Yes, we rather do like preventing dysentery, bubonic plague, and flu epidemics. Public health is indeed a necessity rather than a luxury.

[pjlegato]

This is precisely my point. For almost all of human history, public health was indeed a luxury rather than a necessity. In many parts of the world, it still is today.

The details of a specific proposal are not relevant. No matter what specific items you choose for these categories, eventually people will want things you say are "extravagant luxuries" and call them "needs".

[sbov]

Progress will always shift things from "WANT" to "NEED".

If you want to play that game living past your 30's is a "WANT" rather than a "NEED". You probably won't find many people who think this particular "WANT" isn't a "NEED".

[pjlegato]

"Progress" is a nebulous and heavily opinion-based concept. It is not a well defined factual, monotonic process whereby society invariably moves from "bad old ways" to "better new ways".

This is not a game, and I'm not arguing the merits of any specific proposals. It's an empirical analysis of what has actually happened in world history.

Things you think are "needs" today were considered extravagant luxuries for almost all of history, and many of the things you personally view as luxuries will be called "needs" by others. Thus, the parent comment's plan to divide the economy into "wants" and "needs" is not tractable, since these categories are both shifting through time and also heavily disputed from one person to the next at any given point in time.

I am not arguing in favor of this arrangement. I'm pointing out that that's simply the way it actually is, regardless of our personal preferences or judgements of the situation.

[ghthor]

What if items from the WANT category are moved to the NEED category when either 1 of 2 things are met. It's empirically shown to improve the health of the owners. Or it's possible to create the item for everyone on earth, meaning we have the resources/manufacturing without harming the biosphere.

With these 2 rules we should see a steady increase in QoL for everyone.

The main problem with the whole idea is that it is inevitable that an exchange rate will be set and they will be traded. What does a NEED collector do with the collected NEED currency?