Here's the problem: Who decides?
Who decides how much toilet paper that *I* need?
Who decides whether I *need* a Yugo, a Chevette, a Corvette, a pickup truck, or a tank?
Who do you want to have that much power and influence in a free society? If you say "the government" then the government just got a LOT bigger (because it's going to take a lot of people to make all those decisions for everyone else) and the government just got a LOT more powerful (because now the government literally has control of every single aspect of your life from the food you eat to healthcare, to reproduction.
The second problem is that *everything* can't be free. There is ultimately a cost, somewhere, and somebody has to pay it. So GM gives Corvettes away for free, the workers supply their labor for free (more on that in a moment), but it doesn't cost GM anything because all of it's raw materials are free. But where did those raw materials come from? Steel likely came from overseas and they aren't going to give their stuff away for free. The electricity could easily have come from the electric grid that came from Canada, and *they* aren't giving their electricity for free. And even if the iron ore came from the US, that means that it came from land that was owned by a US citizen and now the government (or somebody) just stole the value of their land without exchanging anything for it.
And the worst of it is the labor. What you are describing is, in many ways, how the Soviet planned economy was supposed to work, but the problem that quickly arose was that if all the food and rent and means of living are free, no one wants to work. If the guy that works three hours a day and takes a five hour smoke break gets paid the same as the person who's busting their butt and working 60 hours per week, it won't take long at all before no one is working at all. That's how millions of people starved during the first few years after the Soviets came to power. The government claimed all the land and the farmers were expected to produce food for free. But what happened was that the farmers grew just enough food to feed their families (and maybe a couple friends) and there was no food left for anyone else. Farmers got one of the first, and biggest, concessions in the Soviet system because if they didn't own their own land, and control their own production (and prices) there wasn't any incentive to do any more than absolutely necessary. As someone else said, "you can't change human nature." There has to be some medium of exchange. "Free" doesn't work.
Here's the problem: Who decides?
Who decides how much toilet paper that *I* need?
Who decides whether I *need* a Yugo, a Chevette, a Corvette, a pickup truck, or a tank?
Who do you want to have that much power and influence in a free society? If you say "the government" then the government just got a LOT bigger (because it's going to take a lot of people to make all those decisions for everyone else) and the government just got a LOT more powerful (because now the government literally has control of every single aspect of your life from the food you eat to healthcare, to reproduction.
The second problem is that *everything* can't be free. There is ultimately a cost, somewhere, and somebody has to pay it. So GM gives Corvettes away for free, the workers supply their labor for free (more on that in a moment), but it doesn't cost GM anything because all of it's raw materials are free. But where did those raw materials come from? Steel likely came from overseas and they aren't going to give their stuff away for free. The electricity could easily have come from the electric grid that came from Canada, and *they* aren't giving their electricity for free. And even if the iron ore came from the US, that means that it came from land that was owned by a US citizen and now the government (or somebody) just stole the value of their land without exchanging anything for it.
And the worst of it is the labor. What you are describing is, in many ways, how the Soviet planned economy was supposed to work, but the problem that quickly arose was that if all the food and rent and means of living are free, no one wants to work. If the guy that works three hours a day and takes a five hour smoke break gets paid the same as the person who's busting their butt and working 60 hours per week, it won't take long at all before no one is working at all. That's how millions of people starved during the first few years after the Soviets came to power. The government claimed all the land and the farmers were expected to produce food for free. But what happened was that the farmers grew just enough food to feed their families (and maybe a couple friends) and there was no food left for anyone else. Farmers got one of the first, and biggest, concessions in the Soviet system because if they didn't own their own land, and control their own production (and prices) there wasn't any incentive to do any more than absolutely necessary. As someone else said, "you can't change human nature." There has to be some medium of exchange. "Free" doesn't work.
I agree with you on pretty much all of what you said, it makes total sense. Thats why what I meant by mandating that that currency not be required, I meant that as the only thing government can do, so that the government doesn't take over the production, and it still stays in private hands. Because government can't handle things well as the soviets learned. But the other mandate to it that I should have elaborated on, was that the controls either be done by private business with their products (since there still needs to be a consensual transaction whether or not the price is 0, and business must keep up with production, so in times of panic, rationing still needs to be done like its being done now with certain products), or the government simply has preset options. Example: a family of four can get four packets of a certain good. I know thats a basic example but I hope you see what I mean. Because the issue is that if there isn't any limit, then people can hoard, resell, then price gouge. Stores can limit how much people can buy, so I figured, that instead of one per person buying, where a family may not get what it needs, and instead of unlimited where people can take advantage, it seems like a in between option.
Also as to the government power issues. I fully agree that it would make government too powerful, thats why I said it must be a temporary mandate for crisis only. Much like the wartime mandates already on place which basically do the same thing.
And I fully agree with you that if just the us did it, other countries wouldn't abide. Thats why I said what if, like what ifif it was a global mandate. And all countries agreed to it. I fully know that its unrealistic today, but just wanted to play with the idea of what it would be like of they did.
As to the labor. Thats why its a temporary measure, because you are totally right that it insentivises people not to work, and therefore is unsustainable. So it physically can't be a long term solution. Just meant for very short term crisis situation. And people do seem to step up in times of crisis, because no one would want to starve, so the insentive is that they still get all their needs met, and won't loose anything till the crisis passes, because currently people will still be losing everything.
The overlying idea for the plan is to at least keep everything running and consistent until the crisis passes, not to be a complete economic change permanently. Its also meant for industries to still exist coming out of this without a country going into unbreakable debt to bail out the industries. Its a choice between long term issues and short term issues. The debt coming out of this and industries no longer existing coming out of this strikes me as a longer and more harmful issue, than a short term, unsustainable way that at least can get the industries out it.
Sorry for the long reply.