|
On May 06 2012 12:14 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 12:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 06 2012 11:49 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 06 2012 11:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 06 2012 10:56 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 06 2012 10:43 Focuspants wrote:On May 06 2012 03:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 06 2012 03:29 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 06 2012 03:02 DeathCompany wrote:
Mmmmmm so... what ever i am entitled to and can receive... the homeless man down the block who doesnt work or anything. gets aswell? You think u work hard ? Your think you work harder then a 16 hour sweatshop laborer that works for less then a dollar? You are siphoning of the stockmarket exploiting the rest of the world. If that hobo isen't entitled to anything your entitled to half of a dollar a day. We all live on welfare from our countries whether we work or not. The sweatshop laborer doesn't get paid as much because he's not as productive. Now, it's not his fault, he DOES work hard, but he doesn't have the productive infrastructure (machines, transportation, etc.) that western workers have. This problem gets solved over time by the capital markets and international corporations. Since workers in foreign countries are cheaper it is more profitable to make stuff there. That profit motive entices businesses to invest in those countries. Over time those investments make the workers more productive and their wages rise. That's not just theory. That's what has happened and continues to happen to this day and it has uplifted hundred of millions of people out of grinding absolute poverty. You do realize we cant support that sort of planet right? The amount of consumtion, pollution, waste, etc... that most develop nations produce, if rivaled by all other nations, would cause us to deplete our resources and destroy what semblance of an environment we have left. We wouldnt have enough food, enough anything really to sustain 7 billion people on a north american lifestyle. There need to be poor in order for there to be rich. Thats just the way it is. We can work together and stifle our advancement, or we can help a little here and there, and continue to advance. You cant really do both. We are depleting our planet now faster then ever. The captilism experience is drawing to a close and our planet is scared and have suffered alot for it. Rich vs Poor is over we have enough resources to share with everyone to live a very comftorable lfiestyle,technology exist today where we can grow 100 acres of food worth on 1 acre. It is imoral illogical and inhumane to watch people 1 billion people starve to death while we white people talk about conversion rates freedom and how capitalism is the last goverment form in our evolution as humans. You are insane. You can't argue on one hand that capitalism is depleting the Earth too fast and then say that on the other hand your resource economy will produce MORE. Your magic technology to do that DOES NOT EXIST! Don't say solar power. It's more expensive. If you go down that road you will produce less for everyone. You can't have it both ways... No one is letting 1 billion people starve to death. You are a fool to even suggest such a thing! a world without money well u cant use solar power thats to "expensive" see the irony in that comment. There is zero irony in the comment. They are expensive because they require a lot of resources to make. So, in a resource based economy they would be expensive too!!! What you are saying is that since a Mothership is not priced in currency it is free. That's ridiculous. It costs a lot of resources, therefore it is expensive. Solar panels require a lot of resources to produce, therefore they are expensive. What you are trying to claim is that you can create a utopia where you have infinite orbital commands with infinite MULEs at your disposal to mine infinite mineral patches to produce infinite barracks to produce infinite marines. No their not if you knew anything about solar power you would know that, even in "The monetary system" they dont cost that much in comparasion to their output. http://www.getsolar.com/blog/how-much-do-solar-panels-cost/12707/
No! Solar IS more expensive. The numbers you linked to are AFTER subsidies!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Solar PV levelized cost of energy (LCOE) is $210.7/MWH
Conventional Natural gas LCOE is $66.1/MWH
|
If we live by the words of Christ and have charity and love in our hearts, we won't need all the material things and money.
|
On May 06 2012 12:36 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
If we live by the words of Christ and have charity and love in our hearts, we won't need all the material things and money.
I thought this thread got to its lowest point when that other guy went like "here's a bieber, your argument is invalid".
|
On May 06 2012 12:41 RezJ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 12:36 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
If we live by the words of Christ and have charity and love in our hearts, we won't need all the material things and money. I thought this thread got to its lowest point when that other guy went like "here's a bieber, your argument is invalid".
I have to agree, this is one of the worst threads I've seen on this site, and it's only due to 4 terrible posters or so. I'm done beating my head against a wall. 
|
On May 06 2012 13:28 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 12:41 RezJ wrote:On May 06 2012 12:36 Christ the Redeemer wrote:
If we live by the words of Christ and have charity and love in our hearts, we won't need all the material things and money. I thought this thread got to its lowest point when that other guy went like "here's a bieber, your argument is invalid". I have to agree, this is one of the worst threads I've seen on this site, and it's only due to 4 terrible posters or so. I'm done beating my head against a wall.
Hey, at least if you break your head or the wall, it will be free to fix in the new world. The man with the wall fixing passion will do it for you no problem. Even if he lives far away, the guy that has a passion for flying people around, and the guy who has a passion for driving a taxi will get him to and from your place!
|
On May 06 2012 04:15 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 04:07 Goozen wrote:On May 06 2012 03:52 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 06 2012 03:34 Goozen wrote:
As i and many have said, money will be replaced by something else. and what people forget is we will all be averaged out to a global scale, so 1pc for 20 people, 1tv for 15, 3people will live in 1 room etc. basically we will all be quite poor. we have the technology and resources to easily make 7 billion PC 7 billion cell phones 7 billlion apartments/houses. And the stuff wont be built to fail after warrenty it will be built to be exchangable recycling meaning u can update your phone for a better version maybe specialized for whatever your intresst might be. If You took every car every cell phone every TV that had been lost to cyclical consumption it will greatly exceed 7 billion. ownage is useless access i everything. its more efficent to Stream a movie then it is to download burn it down and save it forever. Same goes for cars,boats. When you become aware whats possible and in some places been done you get furious the rest of the world hasent kept up. We dont have enough of those resources, never mind the power output required to power all of these as it will be 20x our current usage. Alot of cellphones get recycled so even though in total we have passed the 7billion we wont have all at once. We lack room, infrastructure and resources unless you want people living in mass higrises with about 2rooms for a 5man family. i Also dont understand how you can compare the streaming of a movie to cars and boats? please explain this. Never mind the fact every time the tech changes it will take years to keep up so basically you get a pc that you cant change for 20 years. The flaws in this idea are massive. every economist and city planner will tell you why its rubbish and unrealistic (all our needs from wind and solar? really?) and this is before talking about the lack of incentive and the fact robots cannot do these things yet. We have enough resources, Obviously infrastructre would need to be built to accompony this for every country we have abundant with energy but its hard for many of you to realise this because you havent received the information needed. Many of you are builing this puzzle with 6/20 pieces missing but if you have all the pieces it becomes commen sense. Lets say you dont own a car you have access to one your first thought is "I dont wanna wait some 10 minutes to get my car" to my house thats some BS I agree and you could own your own car untill the system would be efficent enough to facilitate the pace you require. We could effienctly put 400 billion people on the earth without living crowded and thats not counting water and underwater cities. And lets not forget we need to get out there and fight the Zerg  But when we go we wont have some weak monetary infrastructure but a Resource based economy. Its a transition nobody is gonna stop you from owning a car but when you feel its more satifiying to trade it in for access instead you do that and not one second before.
The main problem with your argument (and the whole idea as well) is that you're assuming people would be satisfied with the minimal needs.
Ok sure, lets assume there is enough of food to feed everyone on this planet; and lets assume there is enough of space on earth to fit 100 billion people; assume there is enough of warm clothe, everyone can have a computer and internet and all sort of entertainment. But this the bare minimum.
In reality, most people want MORE than their bare minimum. I don't want just a shelter, I want a mansion with a pool and a golf course in my backyard. I don't just want just any food, I want to eat the best food or healthiest food in the world, like shark fins and red wine, so I can live longer. I don't just want clothes to keep myself warm, I want to wear nice clothes, hell if everything is free, I want my underwear to be Versace or Gucci brand; and if I have so much free time, I would want to watch high quality movies, like the Avengers (takes 2+ years to make), every day and at least 5 of them.
etc, etc. You see my point? There might be enough of resources to satisfy everyone's basic needs, but there will never be enough to satisfy everyone's wants. Needs and wants are very different things. We can never satisfy everyone's WANTS, so in that sense, our resources are scarce. Scarce resources creates the need for money to facilitate the distribution of these scarce resources.
|
The argument that "people would stay at home doing nothing thus you can't buy what you need" clearly proves that some people didn't really read the OP. The whole point of the abolition of money is to fully automate all industrial processes. Products don't have to be all the same, you can order the one you like most. Most importantly, nobody really needs to work for them, except machines. Most administrative decisions can also be made by machines.. so you're left with very little politics.
It would also not cover just the basic needs, since the cost of manifacturing is no longer calculated in the same way, a product will cost resources and energy, with energy probably going to be renewable anyway so just resources. You can't also order infinite products because you get assigned your share of resources, to do as you please. If you want more, then you need to find additional resources, i guess you could use your share of resources to associate with other people and start some space mining operation. That could be a way to get some people to work and get rewarded for it. Just the first thing i could think of.
It is not traditional communism, since there will still be private property, so all the examples of failed "communist" states don't really apply.
I have more problems with other issues, such as how do you police such a world, education is nice but some people aren't going to behave just based on that. Also there should still be a way to differentiate people by merit, star trek style. You can also look up Picard explaining the Star Trek economy on youtube, which is a likely what inspired this.
This said, i don't think our technology is advanced enough to start experimenting this in a small city (like the "Venus Project" intends to do). But in a few decades, we might get to the point when this experiment can be tried.
|
This is why history is a good thing.
All this is is communism. This article doesn't even take into account HOW they would make such a change. All the charter says is that "we need to protect nature" they say nothing about how they are going to go about shifting to a moneyless economy. One day they'll just say "hey everyone, all that money you've been saving and striving to earn since the day you stepped foot in school... yea its worthless now."
They even talk a lot about food in the video. How its produced and distributed etc. They never mention how if money was out of the picture who in the fuck would grow all the food. If everyone was equal who would want to do manual labor? Who would do all the jobs that no one else wants to do? The only reason Communism was able to pull it off is because one man was able to take control of it and make sure that people were doing their jobs. The only way communism was able to function was by changing it from "everyone is equal" to "everyone is fucked except for the man who gains power".
NOT to mention that the only way that communism was implemented was through bloody revolutions.
Russia: Lenin took power, resulted in executions of Tsar and ending of his family. Stalin takes over in the later years. He kills more people than Hitler.
China: Mao Zedong takes over and makes the country communist but only after a long civil war vs. the Guomindang in with 10s of thousands were killed from torture alone.
not to mention N. Korea and the state its in today.
|
Could never work. Will never work.
Greed is FAR too powerful of a human instict. For every Mother Thersa we have 100,000 wall street CEO's that horde money and steal from the poor
|
On May 06 2012 15:06 Arathore wrote:
This is why history is a good thing.
All this is is communism. This article doesn't even take into account HOW they would make such a change. All the charter says is that "we need to protect nature" they say nothing about how they are going to go about shifting to a moneyless economy. One day they'll just say "hey everyone, all that money you've been saving and striving to earn since the day you stepped foot in school... yea its worthless now."
They even talk a lot about food in the video. How its produced and distributed etc. They never mention how if money was out of the picture who in the fuck would grow all the food. If everyone was equal who would want to do manual labor? Who would do all the jobs that no one else wants to do? The only reason Communism was able to pull it off is because one man was able to take control of it and make sure that people were doing their jobs. The only way communism was able to function was by changing it from "everyone is equal" to "everyone is fucked except for the man who gains power".
NOT to mention that the only way that communism was implemented was through bloody revolutions.
Russia: Lenin took power, resulted in executions of Tsar and ending of his family. Stalin takes over in the later years. He kills more people than Hitler.
China: Mao Zedong takes over and makes the country communist but only after a long civil war vs. the Guomindang in with 10s of thousands were killed from torture alone.
not to mention N. Korea and the state its in today.
Well i hate to repeat myself but i'll do it just one time, nobody will have to work, the point of this ideology is that all work has to be done by machines, if you abolish money and then imagine humans still working, then you didn't understand what is being proposed.
|
United States5162 Posts
On May 06 2012 15:10 Ganondorf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 15:06 Arathore wrote:
This is why history is a good thing.
All this is is communism. This article doesn't even take into account HOW they would make such a change. All the charter says is that "we need to protect nature" they say nothing about how they are going to go about shifting to a moneyless economy. One day they'll just say "hey everyone, all that money you've been saving and striving to earn since the day you stepped foot in school... yea its worthless now."
They even talk a lot about food in the video. How its produced and distributed etc. They never mention how if money was out of the picture who in the fuck would grow all the food. If everyone was equal who would want to do manual labor? Who would do all the jobs that no one else wants to do? The only reason Communism was able to pull it off is because one man was able to take control of it and make sure that people were doing their jobs. The only way communism was able to function was by changing it from "everyone is equal" to "everyone is fucked except for the man who gains power".
NOT to mention that the only way that communism was implemented was through bloody revolutions.
Russia: Lenin took power, resulted in executions of Tsar and ending of his family. Stalin takes over in the later years. He kills more people than Hitler.
China: Mao Zedong takes over and makes the country communist but only after a long civil war vs. the Guomindang in with 10s of thousands were killed from torture alone.
not to mention N. Korea and the state its in today.
Well i hate to repeat myself but i'll do it just one time, nobody will have to work, the point of this ideology is that all work has to be done by machines, if you abolish money and then imagine humans still working, then you didn't understand what is being proposed.
Who creates and maintains the machines?
|
On May 06 2012 15:03 Ganondorf wrote:
The argument that "people would stay at home doing nothing thus you can't buy what you need" clearly proves that some people didn't really read the OP. The whole point of the abolition of money is to fully automate all industrial processes. Products don't have to be all the same, you can order the one you like most. Most importantly, nobody really needs to work for them, except machines. Most administrative decisions can also be made by machines.. so you're left with very little politics.
It would also not cover just the basic needs, since the cost of manifacturing is no longer calculated in the same way, a product will cost resources and energy, with energy probably going to be renewable anyway so just resources. You can't also order infinite products because you get assigned your share of resources, to do as you please. If you want more, then you need to find additional resources, i guess you could use your share of resources to associate with other people and start some space mining operation. That could be a way to get some people to work and get rewarded for it. Just the first thing i could think of.
It is not traditional communism, since there will still be private property, so all the examples of failed "communist" states don't really apply.
I have more problems with other issues, such as how do you police such a world, education is nice but some people aren't going to behave just based on that. Also there should still be a way to differentiate people by merit, star trek style. You can also look up Picard explaining the Star Trek economy on youtube, which is a likely what inspired this.
This said, i don't think our technology is advanced enough to start experimenting this in a small city (like the "Venus Project" intends to do). But in a few decades, we might get to the point when this experiment can be tried.
Actually, it will completely resemble failed communism. If someone wants more then they are offered, and the only way to do so is by taking another's, what do you think will happen? This is exactly why communist societies have always failed. Not because the idea itself is flawed, but because it's relation to humans is. Every dictator/general/etc in communism that turned it into an autocracy did so because they wanted more then what was offered, plain and simple. Concepts like these are simply ignoring human nature.
You will never be able to give everyone on this planet everything they want; it's just not going to happen. Instead, your best bet is offering them a chance to obtain what they want, and letting them work the rest out. Some people will get what they want, and some will fall short, but that is far far far preferable to simply telling me what they can have, because they will never accept it and it will never last.
edit: Not to mention this whole idea is so stupid because we aren't even close to achieving the technological needs required for something like this.
|
On May 06 2012 15:14 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 15:10 Ganondorf wrote:On May 06 2012 15:06 Arathore wrote:
This is why history is a good thing.
All this is is communism. This article doesn't even take into account HOW they would make such a change. All the charter says is that "we need to protect nature" they say nothing about how they are going to go about shifting to a moneyless economy. One day they'll just say "hey everyone, all that money you've been saving and striving to earn since the day you stepped foot in school... yea its worthless now."
They even talk a lot about food in the video. How its produced and distributed etc. They never mention how if money was out of the picture who in the fuck would grow all the food. If everyone was equal who would want to do manual labor? Who would do all the jobs that no one else wants to do? The only reason Communism was able to pull it off is because one man was able to take control of it and make sure that people were doing their jobs. The only way communism was able to function was by changing it from "everyone is equal" to "everyone is fucked except for the man who gains power".
NOT to mention that the only way that communism was implemented was through bloody revolutions.
Russia: Lenin took power, resulted in executions of Tsar and ending of his family. Stalin takes over in the later years. He kills more people than Hitler.
China: Mao Zedong takes over and makes the country communist but only after a long civil war vs. the Guomindang in with 10s of thousands were killed from torture alone.
not to mention N. Korea and the state its in today.
Well i hate to repeat myself but i'll do it just one time, nobody will have to work, the point of this ideology is that all work has to be done by machines, if you abolish money and then imagine humans still working, then you didn't understand what is being proposed. Who creates and maintains the machines?
Machines will build machines, then build more machines to fix those machines. Then they will build another batch of machines to fix the machines that started all the machine making! Those new machines, will then produce their own repair machines and so on.
Then the board of machine directors made up of machines will hold meetings to see how to more efficiently operate and better serve non machine cutomers even though they dont have the power to think. Then the R&D department also made of machines will propose their new ideas even though they dont have brains to this board, and the brainless machine board will direct future scientific and technological discovery.
Don't get me started about the little guys. The machine janitors cleaning the place and the other machines, the machines that will have to take the product and deliver it to you, the machine that would build and repair the roads for the machine delivery vehicles. The machine postal service, the machine warehouse directors, etc...
How retardedly naive do you have to be to think a fully mechanical workforce is even minutely conceivable? You would need a machine to do everything, and make every decision for all mankind, because any single decision made by 1 for even 1 other person, would give them more power than any other individual "should" have. This is so stupid, I cant believe people are even entertaining this.
|
On May 06 2012 15:03 Ganondorf wrote:
It would also not cover just the basic needs, since the cost of manifacturing is no longer calculated in the same way, a product will cost resources and energy, with energy probably going to be renewable anyway so just resources. You can't also order infinite products because you get assigned your share of resources, to do as you please. If you want more, then you need to find additional resources, i guess you could use your share of resources to associate with other people and start some space mining operation. That could be a way to get some people to work and get rewarded for it. Just the first thing i could think of.
Grats, you just basically described what money is: people want more than their minimal share, therefore they work and get rewarded for it to get this additional resources in the form of money, and then use this to exchange for what they want.
|
On May 06 2012 09:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 09:07 DeliCiousVP wrote:
Technology is what brings us welfare not opinions not markets not ideals and not self serving human behaviour. They assumed the guy who discovered the cure for pollio would patent it because thats how capitalistic the society was back then, He just scuffed and said ofc im giving it for free to everyone. What's your point? It's not that zero new technology will be created its that technology would move at a slower pace. The profit motive behind new cures pours billions into research. Professors and researchers that come up with new technology and cures often start their own companies to make progress happen quicker. That's why Cambridge, MA is so full of VC funded biotech firms. Super smart people at MIT and Harvard come up with new technology then start their own companies to get the funding they need and bring the technology to market faster. Here's an example: Donald Sadoway developed a new grid scale battery at MIT to make renewable energy work better. Here's his story: http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energy.htmlAnd here's the company he started to make to happen: http://lmbcorporation.com/
technology would move at a faster pace because there would be no money restrictions...
|
This old argument again . . . answer this if the video interested you at all.
If money is the root of all evil
what is the root of money?
|
On May 06 2012 09:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 09:36 DeliCiousVP wrote:
thats an american fantasy the profit incentive. Its a myth People are the most incentvised when their pursuing their intrest not when their slaving for a wage. Sure, but their interests might not serve humanity. I might be interested in playing SC2 all day, or going on lovely vacations. But how does that put food on anyone's table? "Slaving for a wage" is how people contribute to society beyond themselves. Again, the system is such that to get what you want you have to work for it (give back to society). As people serve their own profit seeking interests they give back to society.
how is being a cashier at a supermarket for example to bring in profit for the corporation, an occupation that is already slowly being automated (self checkout machines), benefiting society for crying out loud? tell the people in Africa grinding rocks for pocket change that they will get what they want if they work hard enough.
|
this will take a new level of thinking..something like "outside the box..."
|
On May 06 2012 15:10 Ganondorf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 15:06 Arathore wrote:
This is why history is a good thing.
All this is is communism. This article doesn't even take into account HOW they would make such a change. All the charter says is that "we need to protect nature" they say nothing about how they are going to go about shifting to a moneyless economy. One day they'll just say "hey everyone, all that money you've been saving and striving to earn since the day you stepped foot in school... yea its worthless now."
They even talk a lot about food in the video. How its produced and distributed etc. They never mention how if money was out of the picture who in the fuck would grow all the food. If everyone was equal who would want to do manual labor? Who would do all the jobs that no one else wants to do? The only reason Communism was able to pull it off is because one man was able to take control of it and make sure that people were doing their jobs. The only way communism was able to function was by changing it from "everyone is equal" to "everyone is fucked except for the man who gains power".
NOT to mention that the only way that communism was implemented was through bloody revolutions.
Russia: Lenin took power, resulted in executions of Tsar and ending of his family. Stalin takes over in the later years. He kills more people than Hitler.
China: Mao Zedong takes over and makes the country communist but only after a long civil war vs. the Guomindang in with 10s of thousands were killed from torture alone.
not to mention N. Korea and the state its in today.
Well i hate to repeat myself but i'll do it just one time, nobody will have to work, the point of this ideology is that all work has to be done by machines, if you abolish money and then imagine humans still working, then you didn't understand what is being proposed.
Look dude, I'm as much of a crazy Marxist utopian as you can find, pretty much, but you gotta have some realistic picture of how you are going to organize all of this shit; I think you underestimate vastly the complexity of what a market economy in late capitalism actually DOES.
edit: and there will always, always be shit to be done. The idea of nobody having to work is absurd and just tech-fetishism. You are in bourgeois land with that to begin with.
|
On May 06 2012 15:59 xeo1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 09:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 06 2012 09:36 DeliCiousVP wrote:
thats an american fantasy the profit incentive. Its a myth People are the most incentvised when their pursuing their intrest not when their slaving for a wage. Sure, but their interests might not serve humanity. I might be interested in playing SC2 all day, or going on lovely vacations. But how does that put food on anyone's table? "Slaving for a wage" is how people contribute to society beyond themselves. Again, the system is such that to get what you want you have to work for it (give back to society). As people serve their own profit seeking interests they give back to society. how is being a cashier at a supermarket for example to bring in profit for the corporation, an occupation that is already slowly being automated (self checkout machines), benefiting society for crying out loud? tell the people in Africa grinding rocks for pocket change that they will get what they want if they work hard enough.
Someone has to keep track of what people buy at the supermarket (even in a "resource economy"). Right now that's cashiers. True, you can automate it, but again it's not free. You can't just manifest automated checkouts by magic. If self checkouts are more efficient then people then they are used, if not then they aren't.
You do realize that there are prosperous African countries, right? It's not all sand and rocks. Those that have embraced democracy and capitalism are doing just fine, those that are run by warlords and kleptocracies are not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
