On May 13 2012 02:09 DeliCiousVP wrote: The market system sure regulates it makes sure we never achieve abundance or effiency because that would be unsubstainable to the market but great for human beings.
I don't understand. If a company wants to make as much money as possible, will it not work as efficiently as possible so it would maximize the amount of profit taken?
I understand the market economy may require inefficiencies to function (for example, the burning of crops during the great depression done to keep the price of food up for te farmers)
However, many of us are not convinced that the form of economy that you are suggesting is superior to the market economy we have today. I'd like for you to answer some questions that will answer my doubts about this.
1. I'd like to start with an example. Say that Joe is a robotic engineer when the drastic change occurred to the economic system, removing all forms of money. He now will receive free food and supplies, which have now been made abundant through efficient automaticized farms and factories. Because Joe enjoys creating robots, unlike many of his buddies that was in the job for the money the job provided and preferred to spend time with their families rather than at work, Joe still innovated new technology from time to time.
How will we make sure that researchers like Joe would develop specific technologies needed to perform a certain feat?
For example, if we wanted to send a man to mars, how will we make sure people like Joe is motivated to create robots that would assist sending a man to mars?
What if Joe wanted to spend time with his familiy instead, while other researchers are waiting on him to finish his part in the collaboration?
A lot of idealism in this thread backed up by a lot of nothing. The only way to overcome human laziness is to offer them something for their toil. Without the incentive, no one works hard. With it, you have a market based system and all the problems and dangers such systems entail. Most attempts to radically change or replace capitalism have resulted in black markets, worker malaise and increasing totalitarianism to enforce the new system. As for increasing standards of living for the majority, you cannot do that without extracting massive wealth from the elite, either by force or by devaluing their currency. The end result would simply be mass capital flight from your country.
Maybe im being too cynical though. If anyone really believes they have they found the key to utopia, by all means set up an enclave. Pay your great minds and laborers in ideals and fanciful notions rather than cash and we'll see how it goes.
''We found out that if tell an indian villager that if he does something he will get 5 months worth of salary, he suddenly gets stressed out and cant perform well, this is A CLEAR PROOF that being offered money doesnt make you more efficient ? RIGHT ?''
Seriously ?
Go see your neighbor tomorrow and ask him to paint your whole house for free, then go see your neighbor on the other side and tell him you will give him 50K to paint your house, let me know which one finishes it first.
A concept is one thing, applying a concept to reality is an other.
today's labor for income system is responsible for laziness, because people are forced into jobs to make a living regardless of whether they enjoy it or not, ultimately benefiting the company who hired them - spending time and energy for someone else's sake. on top of that, the occupations performed can easily be automated. clearly, this nonsensical system is not going to last a lot longer.
now, about incentive. most people have no incentive for these meaningless jobs, they simply have to work to make a living. the sole incentives which make humans work without being forced to are thirst for knowledge and self-fulfillment.
On May 13 2012 15:26 xeo1 wrote: today's labor for income system is responsible for laziness, because people are forced into jobs to make a living regardless of whether they enjoy it or not, ultimately benefiting the company who hired them - spending time and energy for someone else's sake. on top of that, the occupations performed can easily be automated. clearly, this nonsensical system is not going to last a lot longer.
now, about incentive. most people have no incentive for these meaningless jobs, they simply have to work to make a living. the sole incentives which make humans work without being forced to are thirst for knowledge and self-fulfillment.
I agree that the system is far from ideal, but you or anyone else has yet to propose a better one. It would be nice if everyone worked for their own sake but unfortunately, few have the motivation, ideas or courage to attempt it, when employment under another, already successful person provides much more security and is a more likely path to success. For those that do have the will, capitalism works fine; they can start a business.
So yeah, I don't really understand where your problem is. Unless you think people shouldn't have to work to make a living. In that case, why not start an organization made of like minded individuals and put your utopian ideals into practice. No one is stopping you from doing so under capitalism. It's just that you provide no incentives for participation. But there's no reason to blame the system for that.
On May 13 2012 15:26 xeo1 wrote: today's labor for income system is responsible for laziness, because people are forced into jobs to make a living regardless of whether they enjoy it or not, ultimately benefiting the company who hired them - spending time and energy for someone else's sake. on top of that, the occupations performed can easily be automated. clearly, this nonsensical system is not going to last a lot longer.
now, about incentive. most people have no incentive for these meaningless jobs, they simply have to work to make a living. the sole incentives which make humans work without being forced to are thirst for knowledge and self-fulfillment.
You have still yet to prove that "the occupations performed can easily be automated". Key word is "easily".
Also, basically what people are trying to tell you is this: you need to stop pointing out the flaws of our current system. We get it. It's imperfect, it's not 100% perfect efficiency, and there are flaws. We get it; no one ever said it's perfect. BUT what we're asking you to do, is to PROVE how your system is any better. You still have yet to do so. Basically we're just going around a religious-like debate. You're saying Heaven is better than Earth; well no shit. But all you're doing is saying how wonderful heaven is and how flawed Earth is, without actually proving that getting to Heaven is attainable and without telling us how exactly to get there.
On May 13 2012 15:26 xeo1 wrote: today's labor for income system is responsible for laziness, because people are forced into jobs to make a living regardless of whether they enjoy it or not, ultimately benefiting the company who hired them - spending time and energy for someone else's sake. on top of that, the occupations performed can easily be automated. clearly, this nonsensical system is not going to last a lot longer.
now, about incentive. most people have no incentive for these meaningless jobs, they simply have to work to make a living. the sole incentives which make humans work without being forced to are thirst for knowledge and self-fulfillment.
You have still yet to prove that "the occupations performed can easily be automated". Key word is "easily".
did you bother to check any of the videos linked which demonstrate? as I said before, the only 'jobs' still necessary are those which require intelligence and creativity, not mindless repetitive physical labor. and once we abolished the money system, all occupations related to it like banking and insurance would be gone as well. imagine the automation possibilities in such a system..
The way i see it, a free market is the democracy of economies. It is controlled by the consumers, the people, they make the demand after all. A government that controls resources of others can abuse the people it rules, a company selling products or services can not survive if it does not heed the consumers demands.
I picture democratic society as a living body. When there is corruption the body is sick, and it is not just sick because of the greed of those in power, but because of its own weakness. This weakness is the imperfection and ignorance of the people.
In a free market, and a democracy the people are the ones in power, the people are imperfect and so the result of applying them to these systems will be imperfect, but i would far rather have a less optimal system than one controlled entirely by a government (i assume thats how you would distribute reasources etc), the more power the government has, the more corruption, and the bigger the chance of outright abuse of the people. even if we could automize most work, would that really be a good thing? Taking away the power that is the peoples abilitie to work, and giving the government machines that do not question, leaving people powerless and worthless in the eyes of those in charge.
Please forgive my english, idiocy, ignorance, arogance etc. I lack propper education, I am but a child and these are merely the rantings of a childs mind.
I just watched the video on the free charter website and while it sounds wonderful and really appeals to your heart you have to stop and think about why would people turn around and just simply give whatever other people want at any time. People simply aren't like that, we simply can't be that good towards everyone. Not to mention just what is the limit of people having whatever they want? Would you be willing to let a complete stranger have a night with your wife/husband? Your sibling? Short of somehow changing human nature to be all generous and working towards the betterment of people without expecting returns in general I don't see a "free world" ever happening. I also didn't understand the whole demonisation of money. Money despite what some may think is extremely useful as a medium of exchange and makes life a lot easier. Can you imagine a world where everyone has to barter to get what they want? Very annoying and impractical for most people. The real barrier to this so called ideal world is human nature. Lastly the idea that many if not all jobs people do can be done by machines is not true. Making machines that can replace a human's job is not cheap in terms of time and effort and materials compared to simply training and equipping a human to do the same job for the most part.
Also, basically what people are trying to tell you is this: you need to stop pointing out the flaws of our current system. We get it. It's imperfect, it's not 100% perfect efficiency, and there are flaws. We get it; no one ever said it's perfect. BUT what we're asking you to do, is to PROVE how your system is any better. You still have yet to do so. Basically we're just going around a religious-like debate. You're saying Heaven is better than Earth; well no shit. But all you're doing is saying how wonderful heaven is and how flawed Earth is, without actually proving that getting to Heaven is attainable and without telling us how exactly to get there.
What saddens me is that manny people who oppose some verry unfair aspects of the current system promote such impractical and impossible solutions (like removing monney lol) that the stupidness (sry i cant call it otherwise) of their ideas completely overshadowd the original case and the things that are wrong with the current system. The common people would actually consider changing some of the verry unfair aspects of the economy if you would give them an credible alternative, by giving them them something impossible as alternative you actually make them keep supporting the current situation.
There is nothing wrong with monney (or even capitalism) it has so manny functions. It is essential, its the blood of the economy and its proven to be extremely efficient. What is wrong is that a private companys are allowed to make monney by creating monney. Monney creation and all profits wich come from it should be nationalised.
I don't in the least understand how this thread can have been kept going for 47 pages. I will say that the main motive behind all this misunderstanding, mass hysteria really, is a fundamnetal misunderstanding of the concept of work itself and those concepts surrounding it.
To ask yourself why it's necessary to produce things for someone else to sell, you must first understand a simpler question: why would you cut down a tree, or why would you hunt a deer? The concept of self-sufficiency, of needing to commit laborious action to yield desirable results, particular results instead of the random occurrences nature constantly throws at you, this concept of self-reliance does not just magically stop when you begin living among other people. The cooperative opportunities of society make your life easier - they enable you to translate less labour into the same results or the same amount of labour into superior results - they do not, however, make your life automatic or guaranteed. The fact that you can have other people do what work you must have done for you is a mere distraction. The crux of the issue is that the work must be done.
The other thing that society does not change is the fact that if you yourself do not do it, there is no guarantee someone else will. You must personally offer them an incentive. You must trade - this is the REAL essence of society's benefit, the opportunity to TRADE. The most efficient way to trade is by a common commodity, one suitable for the task of being the unit of measurement for value for human individuals of disperate interests, one which has a stable and regular value to all individuals, is easily transported and can be broken up into smaller parts for trade of fractional value. Currency, money. It is simply the medium for translating your work into something of value to you via trade with others.
THAT is a fact of life. The dependence of the fulfillment of your desires upon your work, whether you enjoy doing that work or not, is inherent to reality, and you must face up to that reality and learn to shape your life around it, instead of acting on some distorted moral view which is incompatable with that which is real, that which has the capacity to affect you, and that which you should rationally care about. Your attachment to ideals based not on principle but on arbitrary conjecture and your failure to acknowledge reality will be your failure to live, whether absolutely or incrimentally. That is ultimately the cause of laziness, apathy, incompetence, and poverty.
You have to be naive or plain stupid to think that abolishing currency will somehow lead to overarching reforms in society, politics, and human psychology. It will obviously happen in the other order. Human "evolution" could lead to changes in the system, but thats obviously not gonna happen in any forseeable future. If you force the issue, there would be nothing but chaos.
No one is denying the fact that some type of resource based economy could happen in the future. Not one person was able to outline how this type of change can come about though. Its all idealism if you cannot provide pragmatic solutions to address the obvious problems that will arise during the transition period.
the reason this wont work is because people dont do the same amount of work no matter what. why bother trying when that retard who doesn't want to do anything who sits in a corner still gets the same amount of stuff as you do?
On May 13 2012 19:28 zobz wrote: I don't in the least understand how this thread can have been kept going for 47 pages. I will say that the main motive behind all this misunderstanding, mass hysteria really, is a fundamnetal misunderstanding of the concept of work itself and those concepts surrounding it.
To ask yourself why it's necessary to produce things for someone else to sell, you must first understand a simpler question: why would you cut down a tree, or why would you hunt a deer? The concept of self-sufficiency, of needing to commit laborious action to yield desirable results, particular results instead of the random occurrences nature constantly throws at you, this concept of self-reliance does not just magically stop when you begin living among other people. The cooperative opportunities of society make your life easier - they enable you to translate less labour into the same results or the same amount of labour into superior results - they do not, however, make your life automatic or guaranteed. The fact that you can have other people do what work you must have done for you is a mere distraction. The crux of the issue is that the work must be done.
The other thing that society does not change is the fact that if you yourself do not do it, there is no guarantee someone else will. You must personally offer them an incentive. You must trade - this is the REAL essence of society's benefit, the opportunity to TRADE. The most efficient way to trade is by a common commodity, one suitable for the task of being the unit of measurement for value for human individuals of disperate interests, one which has a stable and regular value to all individuals, is easily transported and can be broken up into smaller parts for trade of fractional value. Currency, money. It is simply the medium for translating your work into something of value to you via trade with others.
THAT is a fact of life. The dependence of the fulfillment of your desires upon your work, whether you enjoy doing that work or not, is inherent to reality, and you must face up to that reality and learn to shape your life around it, instead of acting on some distorted moral view which is incompatable with that which is real, that which has the capacity to affect you, and that which you should rationally care about. Your attachment to ideals based not on principle but on arbitrary conjecture and your failure to acknowledge reality will be your failure to live, whether absolutely or incrimentally. That is ultimately the cause of laziness, apathy, incompetence, and poverty.
This is all true but does not explain how it is fair that 1% own more money then 99%. Do those 1% work so much more then 99%? Or is the system rigged?
What abolishing money movement actually wants is that every person gets as much as he contributes personally instead of getting so much more through labor of others. Without money one cannot increase its worth artificially as easy as it is today.
Personally I am not for abolishing money, but I am for making the current monetary system more fair. I would not let anyone be more then 2x more wealthy then anyone else (for example CEO gets 2x money of lowest payed worker of the company).
On May 13 2012 19:28 zobz wrote: I don't in the least understand how this thread can have been kept going for 47 pages. I will say that the main motive behind all this misunderstanding, mass hysteria really, is a fundamnetal misunderstanding of the concept of work itself and those concepts surrounding it.
To ask yourself why it's necessary to produce things for someone else to sell, you must first understand a simpler question: why would you cut down a tree, or why would you hunt a deer? The concept of self-sufficiency, of needing to commit laborious action to yield desirable results, particular results instead of the random occurrences nature constantly throws at you, this concept of self-reliance does not just magically stop when you begin living among other people. The cooperative opportunities of society make your life easier - they enable you to translate less labour into the same results or the same amount of labour into superior results - they do not, however, make your life automatic or guaranteed. The fact that you can have other people do what work you must have done for you is a mere distraction. The crux of the issue is that the work must be done.
The other thing that society does not change is the fact that if you yourself do not do it, there is no guarantee someone else will. You must personally offer them an incentive. You must trade - this is the REAL essence of society's benefit, the opportunity to TRADE. The most efficient way to trade is by a common commodity, one suitable for the task of being the unit of measurement for value for human individuals of disperate interests, one which has a stable and regular value to all individuals, is easily transported and can be broken up into smaller parts for trade of fractional value. Currency, money. It is simply the medium for translating your work into something of value to you via trade with others.
THAT is a fact of life. The dependence of the fulfillment of your desires upon your work, whether you enjoy doing that work or not, is inherent to reality, and you must face up to that reality and learn to shape your life around it, instead of acting on some distorted moral view which is incompatable with that which is real, that which has the capacity to affect you, and that which you should rationally care about. Your attachment to ideals based not on principle but on arbitrary conjecture and your failure to acknowledge reality will be your failure to live, whether absolutely or incrimentally. That is ultimately the cause of laziness, apathy, incompetence, and poverty.
This is all true but does not explain how it is fair that 1% own more money then 99%. Do those 1% work so much more then 99%? Or is the system rigged?
What abolishing money movement actually wants is that every person gets as much as he contributes personally instead of getting so much more through labor of others. Without money one cannot increase its worth artificially as easy as it is today.
Personally I am not for abolishing money, but I am for making the current monetary system more fair. I would not let anyone be more then 2x more wealthy then anyone else (for example CEO gets 2x money of lowest payed worker of the company).
If it's such a cushy job, with easy work that isn't, lets say, 2x as difficult as the lowest paid worker...why aren't you a CEO?
Wonder if its because you don't have the skills...
Wonder if those skills are worth something. Hmm, well, I'll think about it.
The good thing about capitalism? If you don't want to participate, you don't have to. Capitalism is the expression of a free society. It isn't a "system" that has been put in place, capitalism is what happens when you leave people to make their own decisions.
An "abolish all money" society can't have that. You can't have a seperate division of capitalists doing their own thing. Why? Because you NEED everyone to participate in your utopia. If you don't, if the workers choose not to, if the doers choose otherwise, you fail. It fails.
On May 13 2012 02:09 DeliCiousVP wrote: The market system sure regulates it makes sure we never achieve abundance or effiency because that would be unsubstainable to the market but great for human beings.
I don't understand. If a company wants to make as much money as possible, will it not work as efficiently as possible so it would maximize the amount of profit taken?
You ever heard of peasants burning their crops? Diamond being evaporated because it would budge supply and demand in an infavourable direction. You cannot make money out of making something abundant we reached the age where we have the technology to create abundance in a great many things. But it is being halted because its no profitable.
It is not profitable to have abundant energy it is not profitable to have efficent electric cars it is not proftiable to have a healthy society(Look at Americas health industry) It is not proftiable to have Peace and unity. it is not proftiable to be uncorrupted and lawful moraly and effienctly.
America is the most profitable country on earth and one of the sickest.
And before you bother to say none of this is possible do 5 minute of google research or go back to the first page and watach the videos.
he reason this wont work is because people dont do the same amount of work no matter what. why bother trying when that retard who doesn't want to do anything who sits in a corner still gets the same amount of stuff as you do?
Working in itself is a reward when you are doing what you are intrested in. also working collectivly can be as powerful as an experience like going to war with 10 buddies Horror free.
For the last time, YOUR STUPID VIDEOS PROVE NOTHING! They say how the world OUGHT to be, without giving even 1 shred of information, evidence, ANYTHING about how to get there. How can you possibly be so dense. Its mind boggling. Youve linked the same nonsensical videos 15 times, they are useless! Utterly, totally, USELESS.
I, as well as countless other posters have asked you to outline the transition process, and supply even 1 credible source, and the best you can do is relink those dumb videos or tell us to google search. You are living in a fantasy. You need help getting out of your dreamland. You are brainwashed.
Changes can be made to the current system, but REALISTIC ones. You offer nothing but utopian fantasies. You have been more frustrating to deal with than the religous fanatics on any forum I have ever visited. Its not healthy to be so ignorant.
On May 13 2012 02:09 DeliCiousVP wrote: The market system sure regulates it makes sure we never achieve abundance or effiency because that would be unsubstainable to the market but great for human beings.
I don't understand. If a company wants to make as much money as possible, will it not work as efficiently as possible so it would maximize the amount of profit taken?
You ever heard of peasants burning their crops? Diamond being evaporated because it would budge supply and demand in an infavourable direction. You cannot make money out of making something abundant we reached the age where we have the technology to create abundance in a great many things. But it is being halted because its no profitable.
It is not profitable to have abundant energy it is not profitable to have efficent electric cars it is not proftiable to have a healthy society(Look at Americas health industry) It is not proftiable to have Peace and unity. it is not proftiable to be uncorrupted and lawful moraly and effienctly.
America is the most profitable country on earth and one of the sickest.
And before you bother to say none of this is possible do 5 minute of google research or go back to the first page and watach the videos.
he reason this wont work is because people dont do the same amount of work no matter what. why bother trying when that retard who doesn't want to do anything who sits in a corner still gets the same amount of stuff as you do?
Working in itself is a reward when you are doing what you are intrested in. also working collectivly can be as powerful as an experience like going to war with 10 buddies Horror free.
Wow, you cant possibly be serious, stop trying to shove your videos and your ''superduperhighknowledge'' into peoples face, it is quite obvious that your knowledge of basic economics principle is extremely limited and that you can't even filter the information given in those videos, most of them are all blabla mixed with baseless conclusions in order to support their arguments.
Do you know what ''competition'' is ? Do you know why there are many anti-trust organs established in each countries ?
Of course if you are in front of a monopoly abundance is not profitable, thats why in a free market you have the option for people to say ''hey, that looks like good money, I will do that too''. Competition is one of the primary source of development, and of efficience creation, you need to be better than your competitor, else hes going to steal your market place. If you take all of this away suddenly there is no more reason to push things further other than ''oh well I like doing what I do'' which is clearly not enough.
''it is not profitable to have efficent electric cars'' : It is not to the oil industry, it is to the electric car industry, these guys want to make money, so they want those efficient electric cars. If you didnt have those guys trying to make money in that particular market, you wouldnt have electric cars at all.
''it is not proftiable to be uncorrupted and lawful moral.'' : Hey, you got this one right! So you tell me that if we remove money suddenly this concept disappears ? Of course not, people at the top will manage advantages for themselves over others, thats how human nature works.
EPT![[image loading]](http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/468144_412036315496487_212514318782022_1286934_2021700133_o.jpg)
it makes sure we never achieve abundance or effiency because that would be unsubstainable to the market but great for human beings. 
