|
On May 07 2012 04:14 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:59 Myles wrote:On May 07 2012 03:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:54 Myles wrote:
I'm still left wondering who develops, produces, and maintains the robots and how everything is centrally planned. If that right there can't be answered this whole thing never gets out of the ideal phase. Universal civil service. And the answer is not central planning, it's distributive networked local planning. Universal civil service? And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning? Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc. Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible. In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc. the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican) Thank you. You are the only person who I've ever met to give quantifiable answers to questions that most act who believe in communism/ect like can be shrugged off as no big deal to overcome. Would the civil service be volunteers? Would they receive any extra benefits compared to those who reap their rewards?
Thanks for you kind words. This kind of thing is actually a professional interest of mine, so I try to go beyond slogans and actually engage with the problems  . I am glad that this sort of discussion is becoming part of the popular discourse but people really underestimate the power of what capitalism actually does so they don't really engage with the problem of how to replace it.
I think the civil service is a requirement for enfranchisement - you don't get to vote until you've done it. In practice, I think it will be something that pretty much everybody does and they will enjoy it. I.e. they will look back on the experience in the same way that people look back on college, hanging out with other young people, learning about yourself and life, etc. It will be an educational program as well as a supply of labor for necessary social tasks, and you will get to meet people (and knowing people is only going to get MORE important in an information economy). You would also get a stipend while you are doing it, of course.
The distributive network you speak of is also the most plausible form of central planning I could imagine. How feasible do you think it is to create such a network where surpluses and shortages are predicted/accounted for as well as the different value different people attribute to different things?
I think it is a very hard problem but feasible. I can't really speak to the details atm, that is a part I am still working on. I am currently studying some things about monetary policy, finance, etc. to attempt to get a better picture.
I definitely think it can be done, though. Humans are pretty smart and we have some very clever little machines to organize things for us.
|
United States5162 Posts
On May 07 2012 04:24 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 04:14 Myles wrote:On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:59 Myles wrote:On May 07 2012 03:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:54 Myles wrote:
I'm still left wondering who develops, produces, and maintains the robots and how everything is centrally planned. If that right there can't be answered this whole thing never gets out of the ideal phase. Universal civil service. And the answer is not central planning, it's distributive networked local planning. Universal civil service? And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning? Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc. Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible. In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc. the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican) Thank you. You are the only person who I've ever met to give quantifiable answers to questions that most act who believe in communism/ect like can be shrugged off as no big deal to overcome. Would the civil service be volunteers? Would they receive any extra benefits compared to those who reap their rewards? Thanks for you kind words. This kind of thing is actually a professional interest of mine, so I try to go beyond slogans and actually engage with the problems . I am glad that this sort of discussion is becoming part of the popular discourse but people really underestimate the power of what capitalism actually does so they don't really engage with the problem of how to replace it. I think the civil service is a requirement for enfranchisement - you don't get to vote until you've done it. In practice, I think it will be something that pretty much everybody does and they will enjoy it. I.e. they will look back on the experience in the same way that people look back on college, hanging out with other young people, learning about yourself and life, etc. It will be an educational program as well as a supply of labor for necessary social tasks, and you will get to meet people (and knowing people is only going to get MORE important in an information economy). You would also get a stipend while you are doing it, of course. Show nested quote +
The distributive network you speak of is also the most plausible form of central planning I could imagine. How feasible do you think it is to create such a network where surpluses and shortages are predicted/accounted for as well as the different value different people attribute to different things?
I think it is a very hard problem but feasible. I can't really speak to the details atm, that is a part I am still working on. I am currently studying some things about monetary policy, finance, etc. to attempt to get a better picture. I definitely think it can be done, though. Humans are pretty smart and we have some very clever little machines to organize things for us.
Again thank you. I'm sure we could get into a large discussion about the specifics of such a society, but I'm glad to know there's at least one anarcho-communist(I hope that is somewhat of a proper label) here that understand all the little things that go into making such a change to the world instead of the nausea inducing idealists who spout without actually thinking anything through past 'everyone works together and everyone does what they like and everything still gets done!'
and for now I'm going to play some Crusader Kings 2; so good day to you sir
|
On May 07 2012 03:53 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:41 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 03:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:14 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 02:57 Fubi wrote:On May 07 2012 02:35 DeliCiousVP wrote:Faith is what exist for money it dont have any real value accept for what people belive it does. So you already have faith and faith is the opposite of what is required. The sytem runs of a proccess called the scientific method. 1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodIt is a belief and the belief is we should all believe in what we as human being can prove to be real. So far there exist no more advanced method and no method that has withstood the test of time like the scientific method. Some assumption (Taken for granted but still) Humans need to survive. One human life has value. Our enviroment has practical aswel as sentimental value to us and thus needs to be preserved. Humans need to live comftorable yet stimulating lifes Humans need to feel incontrol of their life. Humans need to be aware of the two discovered ultimate truths emergence,symbiosis. There is a difference between the blind faith that are presented in religions and "faith" that are based on logical axioms. Money is based on supply and demand, not blind faith. Yes you can argue that supply and demand is based on economics which is based on math, which at the very root of math has basic assumptions called axioms, but these are actually based on logics and rationales. All I'm saying is, you're using the religious approach of simply telling people to believe in an idea and then go watch a video that provides even more ideas, backed up by no evidence; and most of your argument are in the line of "this WILL happen, this would happen, it really will". How is this any different than me saying "this will happen because in the future, technology will create a metal wand that can materialize anything our brain can imagine" If you belive the monetary system speeds up technical improvement you are sorely mistaken. They fight improvements with the ferioucness of a wolvererine you think the gas companies want electric cars? Power companies want abundunant energy ? bottled water companies want clean water thats not their own? medical companies want a cure for HIV? Tell me what their incentive will be. Yeah they totally fight it. That's why the most technologically advanced parts of the world are also the market economies. Their incentive will be the profit they get from selling the cure. It doesn't matter if the current treatments are more profitable. If they do not make the cure themselves a competitor will. So companies have every incentive, due to competition, to produce new technology that is better and cheaper than what they currently offer. Thats because of our high standard of living we have. If working hard was the way to innovate then africa would be the epithany of technological advancement. i can tell you this the incentive would be to join the cartell and reap some profits sending HIV medicne that keeps you alive. and competeting against an enstablished company is like playing SC2 for the first time gainst MKP with 200/200 army. But hey whats the problem its competetion. We got the high standard of living we have because of capitalism. The poor parts of Africa don't do not have the stable societies that capitalism needs to prosper. The ones that do (Botswana or Mauitius for example) do just fine. Again, cartels are illegal. Second, biotech start ups are extremely common. The develop new products so the fact that they are smaller than a big pharma is irrelevant. Heck, most biotechs get part of their funding from big pharma because those companies want access to their new revolutionary cures. We got the high standard of living because of technology, and our exploits across the globe.
It was more than just technology that created the industrial revolution and modern wealthy societies. The new technology required new forms of ownership and new social structures to work.
http://www.economist.com/node/18008627
If it was JUST about technology China and the Muslim world would not have fell behind economically. Now, of course, China's catching up since it embraced market reforms.
|
On May 07 2012 04:32 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 04:24 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 04:14 Myles wrote:On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:59 Myles wrote:On May 07 2012 03:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:54 Myles wrote:
I'm still left wondering who develops, produces, and maintains the robots and how everything is centrally planned. If that right there can't be answered this whole thing never gets out of the ideal phase. Universal civil service. And the answer is not central planning, it's distributive networked local planning. Universal civil service? And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning? Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc. Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible. In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc. the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican) Thank you. You are the only person who I've ever met to give quantifiable answers to questions that most act who believe in communism/ect like can be shrugged off as no big deal to overcome. Would the civil service be volunteers? Would they receive any extra benefits compared to those who reap their rewards? Thanks for you kind words. This kind of thing is actually a professional interest of mine, so I try to go beyond slogans and actually engage with the problems . I am glad that this sort of discussion is becoming part of the popular discourse but people really underestimate the power of what capitalism actually does so they don't really engage with the problem of how to replace it. I think the civil service is a requirement for enfranchisement - you don't get to vote until you've done it. In practice, I think it will be something that pretty much everybody does and they will enjoy it. I.e. they will look back on the experience in the same way that people look back on college, hanging out with other young people, learning about yourself and life, etc. It will be an educational program as well as a supply of labor for necessary social tasks, and you will get to meet people (and knowing people is only going to get MORE important in an information economy). You would also get a stipend while you are doing it, of course.
The distributive network you speak of is also the most plausible form of central planning I could imagine. How feasible do you think it is to create such a network where surpluses and shortages are predicted/accounted for as well as the different value different people attribute to different things?
I think it is a very hard problem but feasible. I can't really speak to the details atm, that is a part I am still working on. I am currently studying some things about monetary policy, finance, etc. to attempt to get a better picture. I definitely think it can be done, though. Humans are pretty smart and we have some very clever little machines to organize things for us. Again thank you. I'm sure we could get into a large discussion about the specifics of such a society, but I'm glad to know there's at least one anarcho-communist(I hope that is somewhat of a proper label) here that understand all the little things that go into making such a change to the world instead of the nausea inducing idealists who spout without actually thinking anything through past 'everyone works together and everyone does what they like and everything still gets done!' and for now I'm going to play some Crusader Kings 2; so good day to you sir
<3
I wouldn't call myself an anarchist - I think the last time I tried to invent a name for me it was "open-source Marxist-Confucian"
enjoy your game
And to all of, as Jameson called them, "comrades in the party of Utopia" -
it's good that you want to make something new. But WHAT that new thing will be is the truly important and interesting question. Don't vilify capitalism - it is what it is and it is very powerful. Try to understand it so you can harness its power and render all the rest of it obsolete. Only then can we kick all the bankers out to the curb.
|
On May 07 2012 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 03:53 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:41 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 03:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:14 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 02:57 Fubi wrote:On May 07 2012 02:35 DeliCiousVP wrote:Faith is what exist for money it dont have any real value accept for what people belive it does. So you already have faith and faith is the opposite of what is required. The sytem runs of a proccess called the scientific method. 1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodIt is a belief and the belief is we should all believe in what we as human being can prove to be real. So far there exist no more advanced method and no method that has withstood the test of time like the scientific method. Some assumption (Taken for granted but still) Humans need to survive. One human life has value. Our enviroment has practical aswel as sentimental value to us and thus needs to be preserved. Humans need to live comftorable yet stimulating lifes Humans need to feel incontrol of their life. Humans need to be aware of the two discovered ultimate truths emergence,symbiosis. There is a difference between the blind faith that are presented in religions and "faith" that are based on logical axioms. Money is based on supply and demand, not blind faith. Yes you can argue that supply and demand is based on economics which is based on math, which at the very root of math has basic assumptions called axioms, but these are actually based on logics and rationales. All I'm saying is, you're using the religious approach of simply telling people to believe in an idea and then go watch a video that provides even more ideas, backed up by no evidence; and most of your argument are in the line of "this WILL happen, this would happen, it really will". How is this any different than me saying "this will happen because in the future, technology will create a metal wand that can materialize anything our brain can imagine" If you belive the monetary system speeds up technical improvement you are sorely mistaken. They fight improvements with the ferioucness of a wolvererine you think the gas companies want electric cars? Power companies want abundunant energy ? bottled water companies want clean water thats not their own? medical companies want a cure for HIV? Tell me what their incentive will be. Yeah they totally fight it. That's why the most technologically advanced parts of the world are also the market economies. Their incentive will be the profit they get from selling the cure. It doesn't matter if the current treatments are more profitable. If they do not make the cure themselves a competitor will. So companies have every incentive, due to competition, to produce new technology that is better and cheaper than what they currently offer. Thats because of our high standard of living we have. If working hard was the way to innovate then africa would be the epithany of technological advancement. i can tell you this the incentive would be to join the cartell and reap some profits sending HIV medicne that keeps you alive. and competeting against an enstablished company is like playing SC2 for the first time gainst MKP with 200/200 army. But hey whats the problem its competetion. We got the high standard of living we have because of capitalism. The poor parts of Africa don't do not have the stable societies that capitalism needs to prosper. The ones that do (Botswana or Mauitius for example) do just fine. Again, cartels are illegal. Second, biotech start ups are extremely common. The develop new products so the fact that they are smaller than a big pharma is irrelevant. Heck, most biotechs get part of their funding from big pharma because those companies want access to their new revolutionary cures. We got the high standard of living because of technology, and our exploits across the globe. It was more than just technology that created the industrial revolution and modern wealthy societies. The new technology required new forms of ownership and new social structures to work.
 Yes and now we need new social structures to facilitate our advancements so we can continue.
Access instead of ownership
Co-operation instead of competition
And if you think that sounds weak look at the American army as a prime example.
|
On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 03:59 Myles wrote:On May 07 2012 03:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:54 Myles wrote:
I'm still left wondering who develops, produces, and maintains the robots and how everything is centrally planned. If that right there can't be answered this whole thing never gets out of the ideal phase. Universal civil service. And the answer is not central planning, it's distributive networked local planning. Universal civil service? And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning? Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc. Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible. In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc. the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning)
How is that different from what China tried?
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China
"lack of flexibility in the decision-making process convinced the nation's leaders - particularly Mao Zedong - that the highly centralized, industry-based Soviet model was not appropriate for China. In 1957 the government adopted measures to shift a great deal of the authority for economic decision making to the provincial-level, county, and local administrations."
The result of which was 30 million people dying in their "Great Leap Forward."
|
On May 07 2012 04:47 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:53 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:41 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 03:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:14 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 02:57 Fubi wrote:On May 07 2012 02:35 DeliCiousVP wrote:Faith is what exist for money it dont have any real value accept for what people belive it does. So you already have faith and faith is the opposite of what is required. The sytem runs of a proccess called the scientific method. 1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodIt is a belief and the belief is we should all believe in what we as human being can prove to be real. So far there exist no more advanced method and no method that has withstood the test of time like the scientific method. Some assumption (Taken for granted but still) Humans need to survive. One human life has value. Our enviroment has practical aswel as sentimental value to us and thus needs to be preserved. Humans need to live comftorable yet stimulating lifes Humans need to feel incontrol of their life. Humans need to be aware of the two discovered ultimate truths emergence,symbiosis. There is a difference between the blind faith that are presented in religions and "faith" that are based on logical axioms. Money is based on supply and demand, not blind faith. Yes you can argue that supply and demand is based on economics which is based on math, which at the very root of math has basic assumptions called axioms, but these are actually based on logics and rationales. All I'm saying is, you're using the religious approach of simply telling people to believe in an idea and then go watch a video that provides even more ideas, backed up by no evidence; and most of your argument are in the line of "this WILL happen, this would happen, it really will". How is this any different than me saying "this will happen because in the future, technology will create a metal wand that can materialize anything our brain can imagine" If you belive the monetary system speeds up technical improvement you are sorely mistaken. They fight improvements with the ferioucness of a wolvererine you think the gas companies want electric cars? Power companies want abundunant energy ? bottled water companies want clean water thats not their own? medical companies want a cure for HIV? Tell me what their incentive will be. Yeah they totally fight it. That's why the most technologically advanced parts of the world are also the market economies. Their incentive will be the profit they get from selling the cure. It doesn't matter if the current treatments are more profitable. If they do not make the cure themselves a competitor will. So companies have every incentive, due to competition, to produce new technology that is better and cheaper than what they currently offer. Thats because of our high standard of living we have. If working hard was the way to innovate then africa would be the epithany of technological advancement. i can tell you this the incentive would be to join the cartell and reap some profits sending HIV medicne that keeps you alive. and competeting against an enstablished company is like playing SC2 for the first time gainst MKP with 200/200 army. But hey whats the problem its competetion. We got the high standard of living we have because of capitalism. The poor parts of Africa don't do not have the stable societies that capitalism needs to prosper. The ones that do (Botswana or Mauitius for example) do just fine. Again, cartels are illegal. Second, biotech start ups are extremely common. The develop new products so the fact that they are smaller than a big pharma is irrelevant. Heck, most biotechs get part of their funding from big pharma because those companies want access to their new revolutionary cures. We got the high standard of living because of technology, and our exploits across the globe. It was more than just technology that created the industrial revolution and modern wealthy societies. The new technology required new forms of ownership and new social structures to work. Yes and now we need new social structures to facilitate our advancements so we can continue. Access instead of ownership Co-operation instead of competition And if you think that sounds weak look at the American army as a prime example.
A prime example of what?
|
On May 07 2012 04:49 DannyJ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 04:47 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:53 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:41 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 03:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:14 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 02:57 Fubi wrote:On May 07 2012 02:35 DeliCiousVP wrote:Faith is what exist for money it dont have any real value accept for what people belive it does. So you already have faith and faith is the opposite of what is required. The sytem runs of a proccess called the scientific method. 1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodIt is a belief and the belief is we should all believe in what we as human being can prove to be real. So far there exist no more advanced method and no method that has withstood the test of time like the scientific method. Some assumption (Taken for granted but still) Humans need to survive. One human life has value. Our enviroment has practical aswel as sentimental value to us and thus needs to be preserved. Humans need to live comftorable yet stimulating lifes Humans need to feel incontrol of their life. Humans need to be aware of the two discovered ultimate truths emergence,symbiosis. There is a difference between the blind faith that are presented in religions and "faith" that are based on logical axioms. Money is based on supply and demand, not blind faith. Yes you can argue that supply and demand is based on economics which is based on math, which at the very root of math has basic assumptions called axioms, but these are actually based on logics and rationales. All I'm saying is, you're using the religious approach of simply telling people to believe in an idea and then go watch a video that provides even more ideas, backed up by no evidence; and most of your argument are in the line of "this WILL happen, this would happen, it really will". How is this any different than me saying "this will happen because in the future, technology will create a metal wand that can materialize anything our brain can imagine" If you belive the monetary system speeds up technical improvement you are sorely mistaken. They fight improvements with the ferioucness of a wolvererine you think the gas companies want electric cars? Power companies want abundunant energy ? bottled water companies want clean water thats not their own? medical companies want a cure for HIV? Tell me what their incentive will be. Yeah they totally fight it. That's why the most technologically advanced parts of the world are also the market economies. Their incentive will be the profit they get from selling the cure. It doesn't matter if the current treatments are more profitable. If they do not make the cure themselves a competitor will. So companies have every incentive, due to competition, to produce new technology that is better and cheaper than what they currently offer. Thats because of our high standard of living we have. If working hard was the way to innovate then africa would be the epithany of technological advancement. i can tell you this the incentive would be to join the cartell and reap some profits sending HIV medicne that keeps you alive. and competeting against an enstablished company is like playing SC2 for the first time gainst MKP with 200/200 army. But hey whats the problem its competetion. We got the high standard of living we have because of capitalism. The poor parts of Africa don't do not have the stable societies that capitalism needs to prosper. The ones that do (Botswana or Mauitius for example) do just fine. Again, cartels are illegal. Second, biotech start ups are extremely common. The develop new products so the fact that they are smaller than a big pharma is irrelevant. Heck, most biotechs get part of their funding from big pharma because those companies want access to their new revolutionary cures. We got the high standard of living because of technology, and our exploits across the globe. It was more than just technology that created the industrial revolution and modern wealthy societies. The new technology required new forms of ownership and new social structures to work. Yes and now we need new social structures to facilitate our advancements so we can continue. Access instead of ownership Co-operation instead of competition And if you think that sounds weak look at the American army as a prime example. A prime example of what?
efficency and cooperation.
|
Seeing as how at least one person on this thread has admitted to being an anarcho-communist, maybe this is a good place to ask about the contradiction in that term:
How are you going to stop people from engaging in capitalism? How do you deal with people who dont want to go along with your plans? Wouldnt that go against everything anarchy stands for?
As an anarchist you dont have the ability to force people to do anything. How can you be an anarchist, and yet try to 'plan' society at the same time?
|
On May 07 2012 04:47 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:53 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:41 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 03:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:14 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 02:57 Fubi wrote:On May 07 2012 02:35 DeliCiousVP wrote:Faith is what exist for money it dont have any real value accept for what people belive it does. So you already have faith and faith is the opposite of what is required. The sytem runs of a proccess called the scientific method. 1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodIt is a belief and the belief is we should all believe in what we as human being can prove to be real. So far there exist no more advanced method and no method that has withstood the test of time like the scientific method. Some assumption (Taken for granted but still) Humans need to survive. One human life has value. Our enviroment has practical aswel as sentimental value to us and thus needs to be preserved. Humans need to live comftorable yet stimulating lifes Humans need to feel incontrol of their life. Humans need to be aware of the two discovered ultimate truths emergence,symbiosis. There is a difference between the blind faith that are presented in religions and "faith" that are based on logical axioms. Money is based on supply and demand, not blind faith. Yes you can argue that supply and demand is based on economics which is based on math, which at the very root of math has basic assumptions called axioms, but these are actually based on logics and rationales. All I'm saying is, you're using the religious approach of simply telling people to believe in an idea and then go watch a video that provides even more ideas, backed up by no evidence; and most of your argument are in the line of "this WILL happen, this would happen, it really will". How is this any different than me saying "this will happen because in the future, technology will create a metal wand that can materialize anything our brain can imagine" If you belive the monetary system speeds up technical improvement you are sorely mistaken. They fight improvements with the ferioucness of a wolvererine you think the gas companies want electric cars? Power companies want abundunant energy ? bottled water companies want clean water thats not their own? medical companies want a cure for HIV? Tell me what their incentive will be. Yeah they totally fight it. That's why the most technologically advanced parts of the world are also the market economies. Their incentive will be the profit they get from selling the cure. It doesn't matter if the current treatments are more profitable. If they do not make the cure themselves a competitor will. So companies have every incentive, due to competition, to produce new technology that is better and cheaper than what they currently offer. Thats because of our high standard of living we have. If working hard was the way to innovate then africa would be the epithany of technological advancement. i can tell you this the incentive would be to join the cartell and reap some profits sending HIV medicne that keeps you alive. and competeting against an enstablished company is like playing SC2 for the first time gainst MKP with 200/200 army. But hey whats the problem its competetion. We got the high standard of living we have because of capitalism. The poor parts of Africa don't do not have the stable societies that capitalism needs to prosper. The ones that do (Botswana or Mauitius for example) do just fine. Again, cartels are illegal. Second, biotech start ups are extremely common. The develop new products so the fact that they are smaller than a big pharma is irrelevant. Heck, most biotechs get part of their funding from big pharma because those companies want access to their new revolutionary cures. We got the high standard of living because of technology, and our exploits across the globe. It was more than just technology that created the industrial revolution and modern wealthy societies. The new technology required new forms of ownership and new social structures to work. Yes and now we need new social structures to facilitate our advancements so we can continue. Access instead of ownership Co-operation instead of competition And if you think that sounds weak look at the American army as a prime example.
As you've admitted yourself your new paradigm has yet to be proven to work.
Accomplish that first please, then we will listen to you. The majority of people will not destroy the systems that have created the wealthiest nations in the world based on an unproven theory when history has shown similar theories end in disaster.
That's really the end of the discussion. Until you can prove that it works it will go nowhere.
|
True anarchy is neither capitalist nor communist. It is voluntary. Those who want to to live on a commune, and those who want to start a business are both free to do so.
|
On May 07 2012 04:49 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 04:49 DannyJ wrote:On May 07 2012 04:47 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:53 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:41 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 03:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:14 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 02:57 Fubi wrote:
[quote]
There is a difference between the blind faith that are presented in religions and "faith" that are based on logical axioms.
Money is based on supply and demand, not blind faith. Yes you can argue that supply and demand is based on economics which is based on math, which at the very root of math has basic assumptions called axioms, but these are actually based on logics and rationales. All I'm saying is, you're using the religious approach of simply telling people to believe in an idea and then go watch a video that provides even more ideas, backed up by no evidence; and most of your argument are in the line of "this WILL happen, this would happen, it really will".
How is this any different than me saying "this will happen because in the future, technology will create a metal wand that can materialize anything our brain can imagine" If you belive the monetary system speeds up technical improvement you are sorely mistaken. They fight improvements with the ferioucness of a wolvererine you think the gas companies want electric cars? Power companies want abundunant energy ? bottled water companies want clean water thats not their own? medical companies want a cure for HIV? Tell me what their incentive will be. Yeah they totally fight it. That's why the most technologically advanced parts of the world are also the market economies. Their incentive will be the profit they get from selling the cure. It doesn't matter if the current treatments are more profitable. If they do not make the cure themselves a competitor will. So companies have every incentive, due to competition, to produce new technology that is better and cheaper than what they currently offer. Thats because of our high standard of living we have. If working hard was the way to innovate then africa would be the epithany of technological advancement. i can tell you this the incentive would be to join the cartell and reap some profits sending HIV medicne that keeps you alive. and competeting against an enstablished company is like playing SC2 for the first time gainst MKP with 200/200 army. But hey whats the problem its competetion. We got the high standard of living we have because of capitalism. The poor parts of Africa don't do not have the stable societies that capitalism needs to prosper. The ones that do (Botswana or Mauitius for example) do just fine. Again, cartels are illegal. Second, biotech start ups are extremely common. The develop new products so the fact that they are smaller than a big pharma is irrelevant. Heck, most biotechs get part of their funding from big pharma because those companies want access to their new revolutionary cures. We got the high standard of living because of technology, and our exploits across the globe. It was more than just technology that created the industrial revolution and modern wealthy societies. The new technology required new forms of ownership and new social structures to work. Yes and now we need new social structures to facilitate our advancements so we can continue. Access instead of ownership Co-operation instead of competition And if you think that sounds weak look at the American army as a prime example. A prime example of what? efficency and cooperation.
Don't they compete with other armies?
So you're describing a corporation - cooperating internally while competing externally.
|
On May 07 2012 04:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 04:06 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:59 Myles wrote:On May 07 2012 03:56 sam!zdat wrote:On May 07 2012 03:54 Myles wrote:
I'm still left wondering who develops, produces, and maintains the robots and how everything is centrally planned. If that right there can't be answered this whole thing never gets out of the ideal phase. Universal civil service. And the answer is not central planning, it's distributive networked local planning. Universal civil service? And whats the difference between distributive networked local planning and central planning? Yeah, universal civil service. Like the army, but instead of blowing things up you do useful things for society, interact with people from other parts of society, build national(global) identity and sense of community, build character, gain skills, etc etc. Distributive networked local planning works like a network does. You don't plan everything from one central hub because this is an intractable calculation problem. Instead you define guidelines, parameters, strategic goals etc. at the high level and leave the details to low levels in the network where those sorts of direct implementations are feasible. In a way, you can think of it as harnessing the distributive information processing power of capitalism while removing some of the aspects of that system that lead it to internal contradictions, unsustainability, economic inequality, consumerism, mechanization and instrumentalization of life, etc. the only good government is a local government, but these local governments have to be networked together in a way that they can each act for the good of the whole without having to understand the whole in all of its messy detail. This is the network paradigm (as opposed to the broadcast paradigm, e.g. the Vatican - edit: and Soviet central planning) How is that different from what China tried?
Democracy, information technology, advanced industrial infrastructure, freedom of speech, open source mode of production (3d printing, biotech, etc), radical government transparency to eliminate corruption...
I mean, cmon dude, let me count the ways. Any problem you can think of there's a solution out there waiting to be found. But maybe I just believe in "innovation" - silly me
edit: you can't just post three lines about Mao's explicit programme and say ---> 30 million people died. Things are much more complex than that.
|
On May 07 2012 04:47 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:53 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:41 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 03:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:14 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 02:57 Fubi wrote:On May 07 2012 02:35 DeliCiousVP wrote:Faith is what exist for money it dont have any real value accept for what people belive it does. So you already have faith and faith is the opposite of what is required. The sytem runs of a proccess called the scientific method. 1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodIt is a belief and the belief is we should all believe in what we as human being can prove to be real. So far there exist no more advanced method and no method that has withstood the test of time like the scientific method. Some assumption (Taken for granted but still) Humans need to survive. One human life has value. Our enviroment has practical aswel as sentimental value to us and thus needs to be preserved. Humans need to live comftorable yet stimulating lifes Humans need to feel incontrol of their life. Humans need to be aware of the two discovered ultimate truths emergence,symbiosis. There is a difference between the blind faith that are presented in religions and "faith" that are based on logical axioms. Money is based on supply and demand, not blind faith. Yes you can argue that supply and demand is based on economics which is based on math, which at the very root of math has basic assumptions called axioms, but these are actually based on logics and rationales. All I'm saying is, you're using the religious approach of simply telling people to believe in an idea and then go watch a video that provides even more ideas, backed up by no evidence; and most of your argument are in the line of "this WILL happen, this would happen, it really will". How is this any different than me saying "this will happen because in the future, technology will create a metal wand that can materialize anything our brain can imagine" If you belive the monetary system speeds up technical improvement you are sorely mistaken. They fight improvements with the ferioucness of a wolvererine you think the gas companies want electric cars? Power companies want abundunant energy ? bottled water companies want clean water thats not their own? medical companies want a cure for HIV? Tell me what their incentive will be. Yeah they totally fight it. That's why the most technologically advanced parts of the world are also the market economies. Their incentive will be the profit they get from selling the cure. It doesn't matter if the current treatments are more profitable. If they do not make the cure themselves a competitor will. So companies have every incentive, due to competition, to produce new technology that is better and cheaper than what they currently offer. Thats because of our high standard of living we have. If working hard was the way to innovate then africa would be the epithany of technological advancement. i can tell you this the incentive would be to join the cartell and reap some profits sending HIV medicne that keeps you alive. and competeting against an enstablished company is like playing SC2 for the first time gainst MKP with 200/200 army. But hey whats the problem its competetion. We got the high standard of living we have because of capitalism. The poor parts of Africa don't do not have the stable societies that capitalism needs to prosper. The ones that do (Botswana or Mauitius for example) do just fine. Again, cartels are illegal. Second, biotech start ups are extremely common. The develop new products so the fact that they are smaller than a big pharma is irrelevant. Heck, most biotechs get part of their funding from big pharma because those companies want access to their new revolutionary cures. We got the high standard of living because of technology, and our exploits across the globe. It was more than just technology that created the industrial revolution and modern wealthy societies. The new technology required new forms of ownership and new social structures to work. Yes and now we need new social structures to facilitate our advancements so we can continue. Access instead of ownership Co-operation instead of competition And if you think that sounds weak look at the American army as a prime example.
You do realize the army is basically a giant feudal system, with one person yielding to one above them, and so on and on up to the President himself, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_United_States_Army
And there is immense competition between the various branches and units; that's how you advance, how you gain recognition, etc. If you're going to use that as an example of "cooperation" then why wouldn't you use say Samsung and Shell working together to limit gas costs? Or Microsoft and IBM? etc
|
On May 07 2012 04:51 Equity213 wrote:
How are you going to stop people from engaging in capitalism? How do you deal with people who dont want to go along with your plans? Wouldnt that go against everything anarchy stands for?
?
You remove the incentive for it, thats the point in trading when everything is free and abundant?
|
On May 07 2012 04:56 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 04:47 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:53 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:41 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 03:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:14 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 02:57 Fubi wrote:On May 07 2012 02:35 DeliCiousVP wrote:Faith is what exist for money it dont have any real value accept for what people belive it does. So you already have faith and faith is the opposite of what is required. The sytem runs of a proccess called the scientific method. 1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodIt is a belief and the belief is we should all believe in what we as human being can prove to be real. So far there exist no more advanced method and no method that has withstood the test of time like the scientific method. Some assumption (Taken for granted but still) Humans need to survive. One human life has value. Our enviroment has practical aswel as sentimental value to us and thus needs to be preserved. Humans need to live comftorable yet stimulating lifes Humans need to feel incontrol of their life. Humans need to be aware of the two discovered ultimate truths emergence,symbiosis. There is a difference between the blind faith that are presented in religions and "faith" that are based on logical axioms. Money is based on supply and demand, not blind faith. Yes you can argue that supply and demand is based on economics which is based on math, which at the very root of math has basic assumptions called axioms, but these are actually based on logics and rationales. All I'm saying is, you're using the religious approach of simply telling people to believe in an idea and then go watch a video that provides even more ideas, backed up by no evidence; and most of your argument are in the line of "this WILL happen, this would happen, it really will". How is this any different than me saying "this will happen because in the future, technology will create a metal wand that can materialize anything our brain can imagine" If you belive the monetary system speeds up technical improvement you are sorely mistaken. They fight improvements with the ferioucness of a wolvererine you think the gas companies want electric cars? Power companies want abundunant energy ? bottled water companies want clean water thats not their own? medical companies want a cure for HIV? Tell me what their incentive will be. Yeah they totally fight it. That's why the most technologically advanced parts of the world are also the market economies. Their incentive will be the profit they get from selling the cure. It doesn't matter if the current treatments are more profitable. If they do not make the cure themselves a competitor will. So companies have every incentive, due to competition, to produce new technology that is better and cheaper than what they currently offer. Thats because of our high standard of living we have. If working hard was the way to innovate then africa would be the epithany of technological advancement. i can tell you this the incentive would be to join the cartell and reap some profits sending HIV medicne that keeps you alive. and competeting against an enstablished company is like playing SC2 for the first time gainst MKP with 200/200 army. But hey whats the problem its competetion. We got the high standard of living we have because of capitalism. The poor parts of Africa don't do not have the stable societies that capitalism needs to prosper. The ones that do (Botswana or Mauitius for example) do just fine. Again, cartels are illegal. Second, biotech start ups are extremely common. The develop new products so the fact that they are smaller than a big pharma is irrelevant. Heck, most biotechs get part of their funding from big pharma because those companies want access to their new revolutionary cures. We got the high standard of living because of technology, and our exploits across the globe. It was more than just technology that created the industrial revolution and modern wealthy societies. The new technology required new forms of ownership and new social structures to work. Yes and now we need new social structures to facilitate our advancements so we can continue. Access instead of ownership Co-operation instead of competition And if you think that sounds weak look at the American army as a prime example. You do realize the army is basically a giant feudal system, with one person yielding to one above them, and so on and on up to the President himself, right?
The feudal mode is coming back into style. Think about corporations.
|
Also using the army as an example for anything is absurd. Everything they have is stolen, and have the authority to kill whoever disagrees. That has NOTHING to do with voluntary competition in the business world.
|
On May 07 2012 04:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 04:51 Equity213 wrote:
How are you going to stop people from engaging in capitalism? How do you deal with people who dont want to go along with your plans? Wouldnt that go against everything anarchy stands for?
? You remove the incentive for it, thats the point in trading when everything is free and abundant?
And how is everything going to be free and abundant? Economics itself is balancing the finite resources of this world with the infinite desires of humanity.
If your imagining some Star Trek world 500 years in the future where robots can make everything then how can anyone argue with you... Thats just science fiction.
But yeah, if you can take care of all my wants and needs I wont ever engage in commerce again. Ill wait...
|
On May 07 2012 04:57 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 04:56 1Eris1 wrote:On May 07 2012 04:47 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 04:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:53 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:41 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 03:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 07 2012 03:14 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 02:57 Fubi wrote:
[quote]
There is a difference between the blind faith that are presented in religions and "faith" that are based on logical axioms.
Money is based on supply and demand, not blind faith. Yes you can argue that supply and demand is based on economics which is based on math, which at the very root of math has basic assumptions called axioms, but these are actually based on logics and rationales. All I'm saying is, you're using the religious approach of simply telling people to believe in an idea and then go watch a video that provides even more ideas, backed up by no evidence; and most of your argument are in the line of "this WILL happen, this would happen, it really will".
How is this any different than me saying "this will happen because in the future, technology will create a metal wand that can materialize anything our brain can imagine" If you belive the monetary system speeds up technical improvement you are sorely mistaken. They fight improvements with the ferioucness of a wolvererine you think the gas companies want electric cars? Power companies want abundunant energy ? bottled water companies want clean water thats not their own? medical companies want a cure for HIV? Tell me what their incentive will be. Yeah they totally fight it. That's why the most technologically advanced parts of the world are also the market economies. Their incentive will be the profit they get from selling the cure. It doesn't matter if the current treatments are more profitable. If they do not make the cure themselves a competitor will. So companies have every incentive, due to competition, to produce new technology that is better and cheaper than what they currently offer. Thats because of our high standard of living we have. If working hard was the way to innovate then africa would be the epithany of technological advancement. i can tell you this the incentive would be to join the cartell and reap some profits sending HIV medicne that keeps you alive. and competeting against an enstablished company is like playing SC2 for the first time gainst MKP with 200/200 army. But hey whats the problem its competetion. We got the high standard of living we have because of capitalism. The poor parts of Africa don't do not have the stable societies that capitalism needs to prosper. The ones that do (Botswana or Mauitius for example) do just fine. Again, cartels are illegal. Second, biotech start ups are extremely common. The develop new products so the fact that they are smaller than a big pharma is irrelevant. Heck, most biotechs get part of their funding from big pharma because those companies want access to their new revolutionary cures. We got the high standard of living because of technology, and our exploits across the globe. It was more than just technology that created the industrial revolution and modern wealthy societies. The new technology required new forms of ownership and new social structures to work. Yes and now we need new social structures to facilitate our advancements so we can continue. Access instead of ownership Co-operation instead of competition And if you think that sounds weak look at the American army as a prime example. You do realize the army is basically a giant feudal system, with one person yielding to one above them, and so on and on up to the President himself, right? The feudal mode is coming back into style. Think about corporations.
That's how it's always been. The worker yields to the manager who yields to the district manager who yields to the regional manager who yields to the VP of X who yiels to the COO who yields to the CEO who yields to the board who yields to the Shareholders, etc. It's the same in the government, the army, everything really.
edit: And that's because it's the most optimal system. You work your way up to earn your position (compared to the old feudal days where it was based on birth.), or if you don't want to you, you start your own structure. There are obviously still some inequalities, but those are being weeded out over time. If there was a better system, people would have found it and done it by now.
|
On May 07 2012 04:59 Equity213 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 04:57 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 07 2012 04:51 Equity213 wrote:
How are you going to stop people from engaging in capitalism? How do you deal with people who dont want to go along with your plans? Wouldnt that go against everything anarchy stands for?
? You remove the incentive for it, thats the point in trading when everything is free and abundant? And how is everything going to be free and abundant? Economics itself is balancing the finite resources of this world with the infinite desires of humanity. If your imagining some Star Trek world 500 years in the future where robots can make everything then how can anyone argue with you... Thats just science fiction.
our Economy is an anti economy its about manufacturaing resources unevenly distrubute them and create waste oh so much waste all the waste.
a RBE is a true economy that has one focus to create abundance for all recquired resources in demand and make everything recyclable so we create the least waste possible.
Fact there is a thousand reasons why our monetary system is shit. and as someone as someone say its to expansive they continue proving how shitty the system is. When i show my students i take a piece of papper shred the corner of the page
and say guess which one represents the resources and which one the money we have to attain the resources?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
