<p>The capitalism system relies on a monetary system for exchange of goods and services. This appears to cause a large number of problems. For example, we shun those that don't have money.</p>

<p>Is there an economic model that embodies and <em>actually</em> encourages hard work while discouraging laziness <strong>and</strong> at the same time makes sure that everyone has what they need to live, to survive? Is there a model that marries the best of the other economic models into one that promotes motivation and community unity?</p>

<p>A model where your basic needs are cared for. Food, clothing, housing, education, and medicine is available to everyone. Yet everyone strives for more in their lives. There isn't a massive amount of laziness and instead people live for the things that make them happy and benefit society.</p>

<p>What would that entail? How would I embody such things into one model? Is it even possible?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-03T06:58:57.303Z
It's called Scandinavia. You should visit some time :)
Thorst
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-03T17:19:51.393Z
It's probably a good rule of thumb that any post with more than, say, four occurrences of first person pronouns is off topic.
Steven Landsburg
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-03T18:30:04.570Z
Ok, I will spend some time on that later.
Patrick
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-04T00:09:29.857Z
No, we don´t. But we should.
Lumi
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-04T20:04:17.063Z
I have updated it and removed the excess thoughts. Please take a moment to reconsider this.
Patrick
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-04T20:26:02.917Z
I still found it too wordy for my personal liking. I majorly edited the question. If you agree on the rephrasing still carrying your essential question and not rolling back my edit, I will favor a reopening.
FooBar
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-06T06:10:58.743Z
I am happy with the changes. I don't see anywhere I can accept the changes officially. But I do accept them.
Patrick
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-06T21:02:41.483Z
This question has been quite extensively revised so I am reopening it for another go...
Ubiquitous
<markets><social-welfare><communism><basic-income>
Economic Model: Incentive Compatible Market Economy that Satisfies Basic Needs
Patrick
# Economic Model: Incentive Compatible Market Economy that Satisfies Basic Needs

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-03-03)

The capitalism system relies on a monetary system for exchange of goods and services. This appears to cause a large number of problems. For example, we shun those that don't have money.

Is there an economic model that embodies and *actually* encourages hard work while discouraging laziness **and** at the same time makes sure that everyone has what they need to live, to survive? Is there a model that marries the best of the other economic models into one that promotes motivation and community unity?

A model where your basic needs are cared for. Food, clothing, housing, education, and medicine is available to everyone. Yet everyone strives for more in their lives. There isn't a massive amount of laziness and instead people live for the things that make them happy and benefit society.

What would that entail? How would I embody such things into one model? Is it even possible?

**Tags:** markets, social-welfare, communism, basic-income

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: It's called Scandinavia. You should visit some time :)  
> **username_2**: It's probably a good rule of thumb that any post with more than, say, four occurrences of first person pronouns is off topic.  
> **username_0**: Ok, I will spend some time on that later.  
> **username_3**: No, we don´t. But we should.  
> **username_0**: I have updated it and removed the excess thoughts. Please take a moment to reconsider this.  
> **username_4**: I still found it too wordy for my personal liking. I majorly edited the question. If you agree on the rephrasing still carrying your essential question and not rolling back my edit, I will favor a reopening.  
> **username_0**: I am happy with the changes. I don't see anywhere I can accept the changes officially. But I do accept them.  
> **username_5**: This question has been quite extensively revised so I am reopening it for another go...  

---

## 0 answers

