|
On May 16 2012 13:18 Corsair212 wrote:
One last thing, have any of you read "The Time Machine" by H.G. Wells? We'd end up as the Eloi, and there would most certainly be some type of Morlocks, who prey on us and eventually kill us all when we are too feeble and senseless to defend ourselves.
That's why the commies always need a strong army, to 'protect us' 
|
On May 16 2012 13:12 DeliCiousVP wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2012 13:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 16 2012 12:52 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 16 2012 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 16 2012 12:30 DeliCiousVP wrote:
Its an ideology an ideology is not based on the scientific method but on opinion, And since we know opinion can be changed and manipulated at whim it is utterly inefficient.
If you design a rocket to fly to the moon you base it of data,experience and experiments not of someones opinion. we must adapt this method to society aswel. We went over this before. RBE is NOT based on the scientific method. You admitted yourself that it has not been tested, and therefore we should not believe it until it has been scientifically proven to work! On the other hand the current field of economics as well as businesses use the scientific method all the time. If you refer to everything as a whole no but what is being discused and how the infrastrucure is to operate and the technology discussed have. and are undergoing steady improvement so that most of what i have been given out as to good to advanced to be true is most likely already old and even more advanced today. Yeah, and as I've pointed out time and again what you keep saying "is more efficient" is not. You can't just post a video of an automated farm and say "look! we can do this!!" Automating a farm is not free, and in modern countries it is already used so you offer nothing but new inefficiencies. You just want to throw technology at the problem the same way that communists before you did with the result of complete failure (see China's Great Leap Forward). You are simple wrong and why dont you find a point to argue or dicuss rather then recycle this useless BS this is a thread about a RBE you bore me with your talk of chinas great leap or what words you feel like applying to things you dont understand. You have to sources and if your to lazy to go throught it(You spend enough time in this tread to have time for it) Then just watch the short Freeworldcharter and bring up a point in there that you "belive,imagine,assume" is incorrect and discuss it. Sleep <--
From Freeworld Charter's FAQ:
3. Debt and Unemployment
"Private companies continually replace staff with machines that can work faster and cheaper, to increase their productivity and profits."
As in, that exact thing you are arguing for (automation) and the exact thing that you are saying capitalism is inhibiting due to profits only being gained through artificial scarcity which is contradicted by Xeo1 talking about 'overproduction.'
"Also, since it enters the economy as a debt, it is subject to interest. Since the money to pay this interest doesn't even exist, it ultimately requires another debt - and more interest!"
I pointed out earlier that this is false. You do not need mo money to pay the interest. It's paid for as money flows through the economy.
In short, it's all rubbish. Just made up fantasy land communism.
|
With lots of brands of shades available today, you’d think that the market for sunglasses is a healthy and competitive one – but you’d be wrong. Brett Arends of the Wall Street Journal writes:
Do you prefer the "quality" of Ray-Ban to Oakley? Do you think Bulgari is better than Dolce & Gabbana, or Salvatore Ferragamo is better than Prada? Wake up. They’re all made by one company, Italian manufacturer Luxottica–one of the biggest consumer companies that consumers have never heard of. Luxottica also makes sunglasses branded Burberry, Chanel, Polo Ralph Lauren, Paul Smith, Stella McCartney, Tiffany, Versace, Vogue, Persol, Miu Miu, Tory Burch and Donna Karan.
"We manufacture about 70% of those brands in our factories in Italy, and the balance in America and China," says Luxottica spokesman Luca Biondolillo. "We do the design, the manufacturing, and the marketing," he adds. The company makes most of those brands under license, working closely with designers at the relevant fashion houses. But it owns several brands itself, including Ray-Ban, Oakley, Oliver Peoples and REVO. [...]
In many cases, the same company is also selling you the glasses. Luxottica also owns LensCrafters, Pearle Vision and Sunglass Hut. This is extreme vertical integration. The eye doctor telling you that you need a new pair of glasses, the sales people helping you choose them and the people who design and make the glasses all work for the same company.
(http://www.neatorama.com/2010/07/15/who-actually-made-all-those-brand-name-sunglasses/)
lol I find this interesting 
|
On May 16 2012 13:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2012 13:12 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 16 2012 13:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 16 2012 12:52 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 16 2012 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 16 2012 12:30 DeliCiousVP wrote:
Its an ideology an ideology is not based on the scientific method but on opinion, And since we know opinion can be changed and manipulated at whim it is utterly inefficient.
If you design a rocket to fly to the moon you base it of data,experience and experiments not of someones opinion. we must adapt this method to society aswel. We went over this before. RBE is NOT based on the scientific method. You admitted yourself that it has not been tested, and therefore we should not believe it until it has been scientifically proven to work! On the other hand the current field of economics as well as businesses use the scientific method all the time. If you refer to everything as a whole no but what is being discused and how the infrastrucure is to operate and the technology discussed have. and are undergoing steady improvement so that most of what i have been given out as to good to advanced to be true is most likely already old and even more advanced today. Yeah, and as I've pointed out time and again what you keep saying "is more efficient" is not. You can't just post a video of an automated farm and say "look! we can do this!!" Automating a farm is not free, and in modern countries it is already used so you offer nothing but new inefficiencies. You just want to throw technology at the problem the same way that communists before you did with the result of complete failure (see China's Great Leap Forward). You are simple wrong and why dont you find a point to argue or dicuss rather then recycle this useless BS this is a thread about a RBE you bore me with your talk of chinas great leap or what words you feel like applying to things you dont understand. You have to sources and if your to lazy to go throught it(You spend enough time in this tread to have time for it) Then just watch the short Freeworldcharter and bring up a point in there that you "belive,imagine,assume" is incorrect and discuss it. Sleep <-- From Freeworld Charter's FAQ: 3. Debt and Unemployment "Private companies continually replace staff with machines that can work faster and cheaper, to increase their productivity and profits." As in, that exact thing you are arguing for (automation) and the exact thing that you are saying capitalism is inhibiting due to profits only being gained through artificial scarcity which is contradicted by Xeo1 talking about 'overproduction.' "Also, since it enters the economy as a debt, it is subject to interest. Since the money to pay this interest doesn't even exist, it ultimately requires another debt - and more interest!" I pointed out earlier that this is false. You do not need mo money to pay the interest. It's paid for as money flows through the economy. In short, it's all rubbish. Just made up fantasy land communism.
capitalism -> automation for profits -> people replaced -> unemployment -> no purchasing power -> no profits
RBE -> automation for mass distribution -> no useless jobs to replace in the first place
I don't get the comment about artificial scarcity. Walk into a store at the mall and tell me there is no overproduction. Full of overpriced stuff that's never going to get sold
|
On May 16 2012 14:03 xeo1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2012 13:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 16 2012 13:12 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 16 2012 13:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 16 2012 12:52 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 16 2012 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 16 2012 12:30 DeliCiousVP wrote:
Its an ideology an ideology is not based on the scientific method but on opinion, And since we know opinion can be changed and manipulated at whim it is utterly inefficient.
If you design a rocket to fly to the moon you base it of data,experience and experiments not of someones opinion. we must adapt this method to society aswel. We went over this before. RBE is NOT based on the scientific method. You admitted yourself that it has not been tested, and therefore we should not believe it until it has been scientifically proven to work! On the other hand the current field of economics as well as businesses use the scientific method all the time. If you refer to everything as a whole no but what is being discused and how the infrastrucure is to operate and the technology discussed have. and are undergoing steady improvement so that most of what i have been given out as to good to advanced to be true is most likely already old and even more advanced today. Yeah, and as I've pointed out time and again what you keep saying "is more efficient" is not. You can't just post a video of an automated farm and say "look! we can do this!!" Automating a farm is not free, and in modern countries it is already used so you offer nothing but new inefficiencies. You just want to throw technology at the problem the same way that communists before you did with the result of complete failure (see China's Great Leap Forward). You are simple wrong and why dont you find a point to argue or dicuss rather then recycle this useless BS this is a thread about a RBE you bore me with your talk of chinas great leap or what words you feel like applying to things you dont understand. You have to sources and if your to lazy to go throught it(You spend enough time in this tread to have time for it) Then just watch the short Freeworldcharter and bring up a point in there that you "belive,imagine,assume" is incorrect and discuss it. Sleep <-- From Freeworld Charter's FAQ: 3. Debt and Unemployment "Private companies continually replace staff with machines that can work faster and cheaper, to increase their productivity and profits." As in, that exact thing you are arguing for (automation) and the exact thing that you are saying capitalism is inhibiting due to profits only being gained through artificial scarcity which is contradicted by Xeo1 talking about 'overproduction.' "Also, since it enters the economy as a debt, it is subject to interest. Since the money to pay this interest doesn't even exist, it ultimately requires another debt - and more interest!" I pointed out earlier that this is false. You do not need mo money to pay the interest. It's paid for as money flows through the economy. In short, it's all rubbish. Just made up fantasy land communism. capitalism -> automation for profits -> people replaced -> unemployment -> no purchasing power -> no profits RBE -> automation for mass distribution -> no useless jobs to replace in the first place
*sigh*
There's a slightly (and by "slightly" I mean "the most important") part being left out of your cute little progression there.
capitalism -> automation for mass distribution -> mass distribution = lower cost to consumer -> more products bought -> profits
I don't get the comment about artificial scarcity. Walk into a store at the mall and tell me there is no overproduction. Full of overpriced stuff that's never going to get sold
And yet, it gets sold... somehow. Perhaps by magic.
Anyone who has worked in retail knows how ridiculous it is to say that they don't sell their product. Why do those trucks keep coming with more every few weeks? Is there some black hole back behind mall security where they dump it?
|
On May 16 2012 14:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2012 14:03 xeo1 wrote:On May 16 2012 13:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 16 2012 13:12 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 16 2012 13:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 16 2012 12:52 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 16 2012 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 16 2012 12:30 DeliCiousVP wrote:
Its an ideology an ideology is not based on the scientific method but on opinion, And since we know opinion can be changed and manipulated at whim it is utterly inefficient.
If you design a rocket to fly to the moon you base it of data,experience and experiments not of someones opinion. we must adapt this method to society aswel. We went over this before. RBE is NOT based on the scientific method. You admitted yourself that it has not been tested, and therefore we should not believe it until it has been scientifically proven to work! On the other hand the current field of economics as well as businesses use the scientific method all the time. If you refer to everything as a whole no but what is being discused and how the infrastrucure is to operate and the technology discussed have. and are undergoing steady improvement so that most of what i have been given out as to good to advanced to be true is most likely already old and even more advanced today. Yeah, and as I've pointed out time and again what you keep saying "is more efficient" is not. You can't just post a video of an automated farm and say "look! we can do this!!" Automating a farm is not free, and in modern countries it is already used so you offer nothing but new inefficiencies. You just want to throw technology at the problem the same way that communists before you did with the result of complete failure (see China's Great Leap Forward). You are simple wrong and why dont you find a point to argue or dicuss rather then recycle this useless BS this is a thread about a RBE you bore me with your talk of chinas great leap or what words you feel like applying to things you dont understand. You have to sources and if your to lazy to go throught it(You spend enough time in this tread to have time for it) Then just watch the short Freeworldcharter and bring up a point in there that you "belive,imagine,assume" is incorrect and discuss it. Sleep <-- From Freeworld Charter's FAQ: 3. Debt and Unemployment "Private companies continually replace staff with machines that can work faster and cheaper, to increase their productivity and profits." As in, that exact thing you are arguing for (automation) and the exact thing that you are saying capitalism is inhibiting due to profits only being gained through artificial scarcity which is contradicted by Xeo1 talking about 'overproduction.' "Also, since it enters the economy as a debt, it is subject to interest. Since the money to pay this interest doesn't even exist, it ultimately requires another debt - and more interest!" I pointed out earlier that this is false. You do not need mo money to pay the interest. It's paid for as money flows through the economy. In short, it's all rubbish. Just made up fantasy land communism. capitalism -> automation for profits -> people replaced -> unemployment -> no purchasing power -> no profits RBE -> automation for mass distribution -> no useless jobs to replace in the first place I don't get the comment about artificial scarcity. Walk into a store at the mall and tell me there is no overproduction. Full of overpriced stuff that's never going to get sold *sigh* There's a slightly (and by "slightly" I mean "the most important") part being left out of your cute little progression there. capitalism -> automation for mass distribution -> mass distribution = lower cost to consumer -> more products bought -> profits
by people replaced I mean EVERY occupation that can be automated. when the service sector gets automated, where the majority of the population works today, people will be unemployed, leading to no purchasing power and this profit game comes to an end. OR, the wealth gap increases even larger while even more are left in the dirt.
|
by people replaced I mean EVERY occupation that can be automated. when the service sector gets automated, where the majority of the population works today, people will be unemployed, leading to no purchasing power and this profit game comes to an end. OR, the wealth gap increases even larger while even more are left in the dirt.
Same argument used when manufacturing started increasing automation, didn't lead to mass unemployment. Now you just move the goalposts down another twenty yards to make the same argument again, nothing has changed. New jobs for humans will be created as the service sector becomes increasingly automated, and the key element of many service sector jobs is that they cannot be automated, unless a true AI is created which may just be impossible. And even if it is possible it is decades away. And even then these jobs may not be ones that consumers prefer having an AI do over a real, live human being. Which puts human beings in the position of maximizing profit through holding those jobs.
|
On May 16 2012 14:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +
by people replaced I mean EVERY occupation that can be automated. when the service sector gets automated, where the majority of the population works today, people will be unemployed, leading to no purchasing power and this profit game comes to an end. OR, the wealth gap increases even larger while even more are left in the dirt.
Same argument used when manufacturing started increasing automation, didn't lead to mass unemployment. Now you just move the goalposts down another twenty yards to make the same argument again, nothing has changed. New jobs for humans will be created as the service sector becomes increasingly automated, and the key element of many service sector jobs is that they cannot be automated, unless a true AI is created which may just be impossible. And even if it is possible it is decades away. And even then these jobs may not be ones that consumers prefer having an AI do over a real, live human being. Which puts human beings in the position of maximizing profit through holding those jobs.
what can't be automated specifically? unfortunately, this labor for income game is coming to an end as automation advances ever further. I can't wait 
|
I can't wait
Good, we wouldn't want you doing anything futile like waiting for something that isn't going to happen in your lifetime, or that of your grandchildren either for that matter.
unfortunately, this labor for income game is coming to an end as automation advances ever further.
Orly owl says "taunting assertions are not arguments."
what can't be automated specifically?
Anything that requires judgement and taste and human interaction. Like, oh, service jobs.
|
On May 16 2012 14:26 xeo1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2012 14:21 DeepElemBlues wrote:
by people replaced I mean EVERY occupation that can be automated. when the service sector gets automated, where the majority of the population works today, people will be unemployed, leading to no purchasing power and this profit game comes to an end. OR, the wealth gap increases even larger while even more are left in the dirt.
Same argument used when manufacturing started increasing automation, didn't lead to mass unemployment. Now you just move the goalposts down another twenty yards to make the same argument again, nothing has changed. New jobs for humans will be created as the service sector becomes increasingly automated, and the key element of many service sector jobs is that they cannot be automated, unless a true AI is created which may just be impossible. And even if it is possible it is decades away. And even then these jobs may not be ones that consumers prefer having an AI do over a real, live human being. Which puts human beings in the position of maximizing profit through holding those jobs. what can't be automated specifically? unfortunately, this labor for income game is coming to an end as automation advances ever further. I can't wait
Even if this hypothetical work availability plateau ever hit, you could rectify this by just lowering the work hours in a week to increase total jobs to have better distribution of the workload and implementing a far more progressive tax to account for any wealth imbalances that accrue.
|
On May 16 2012 13:59 xeo1 wrote:With lots of brands of shades available today, you’d think that the market for sunglasses is a healthy and competitive one – but you’d be wrong. Brett Arends of the Wall Street Journal writes: Do you prefer the "quality" of Ray-Ban to Oakley? Do you think Bulgari is better than Dolce & Gabbana, or Salvatore Ferragamo is better than Prada? Wake up. They’re all made by one company, Italian manufacturer Luxottica–one of the biggest consumer companies that consumers have never heard of. Luxottica also makes sunglasses branded Burberry, Chanel, Polo Ralph Lauren, Paul Smith, Stella McCartney, Tiffany, Versace, Vogue, Persol, Miu Miu, Tory Burch and Donna Karan. "We manufacture about 70% of those brands in our factories in Italy, and the balance in America and China," says Luxottica spokesman Luca Biondolillo. "We do the design, the manufacturing, and the marketing," he adds. The company makes most of those brands under license, working closely with designers at the relevant fashion houses. But it owns several brands itself, including Ray-Ban, Oakley, Oliver Peoples and REVO. [...] In many cases, the same company is also selling you the glasses. Luxottica also owns LensCrafters, Pearle Vision and Sunglass Hut. This is extreme vertical integration. The eye doctor telling you that you need a new pair of glasses, the sales people helping you choose them and the people who design and make the glasses all work for the same company. (http://www.neatorama.com/2010/07/15/who-actually-made-all-those-brand-name-sunglasses/) lol I find this interesting
Yeah it's called contract manufacturing. It's done so that the contract manufacturer can specialize in manufacturing (and employ the best manufacturing technology and practices) while other companies specialize in other areas of work. Apple uses CM's (Foxconn) so they can focus on designing their products.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_manufacturer
People don't buy sunglasses just for their utilitarian use ya know. And no, this does not make the market 'uncompetitive.'
|
On May 16 2012 14:16 xeo1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2012 14:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:On May 16 2012 14:03 xeo1 wrote:On May 16 2012 13:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 16 2012 13:12 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 16 2012 13:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 16 2012 12:52 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 16 2012 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 16 2012 12:30 DeliCiousVP wrote:
Its an ideology an ideology is not based on the scientific method but on opinion, And since we know opinion can be changed and manipulated at whim it is utterly inefficient.
If you design a rocket to fly to the moon you base it of data,experience and experiments not of someones opinion. we must adapt this method to society aswel. We went over this before. RBE is NOT based on the scientific method. You admitted yourself that it has not been tested, and therefore we should not believe it until it has been scientifically proven to work! On the other hand the current field of economics as well as businesses use the scientific method all the time. If you refer to everything as a whole no but what is being discused and how the infrastrucure is to operate and the technology discussed have. and are undergoing steady improvement so that most of what i have been given out as to good to advanced to be true is most likely already old and even more advanced today. Yeah, and as I've pointed out time and again what you keep saying "is more efficient" is not. You can't just post a video of an automated farm and say "look! we can do this!!" Automating a farm is not free, and in modern countries it is already used so you offer nothing but new inefficiencies. You just want to throw technology at the problem the same way that communists before you did with the result of complete failure (see China's Great Leap Forward). You are simple wrong and why dont you find a point to argue or dicuss rather then recycle this useless BS this is a thread about a RBE you bore me with your talk of chinas great leap or what words you feel like applying to things you dont understand. You have to sources and if your to lazy to go throught it(You spend enough time in this tread to have time for it) Then just watch the short Freeworldcharter and bring up a point in there that you "belive,imagine,assume" is incorrect and discuss it. Sleep <-- From Freeworld Charter's FAQ: 3. Debt and Unemployment "Private companies continually replace staff with machines that can work faster and cheaper, to increase their productivity and profits." As in, that exact thing you are arguing for (automation) and the exact thing that you are saying capitalism is inhibiting due to profits only being gained through artificial scarcity which is contradicted by Xeo1 talking about 'overproduction.' "Also, since it enters the economy as a debt, it is subject to interest. Since the money to pay this interest doesn't even exist, it ultimately requires another debt - and more interest!" I pointed out earlier that this is false. You do not need mo money to pay the interest. It's paid for as money flows through the economy. In short, it's all rubbish. Just made up fantasy land communism. capitalism -> automation for profits -> people replaced -> unemployment -> no purchasing power -> no profits RBE -> automation for mass distribution -> no useless jobs to replace in the first place I don't get the comment about artificial scarcity. Walk into a store at the mall and tell me there is no overproduction. Full of overpriced stuff that's never going to get sold *sigh* There's a slightly (and by "slightly" I mean "the most important") part being left out of your cute little progression there. capitalism -> automation for mass distribution -> mass distribution = lower cost to consumer -> more products bought -> profits by people replaced I mean EVERY occupation that can be automated. when the service sector gets automated, where the majority of the population works today, people will be unemployed, leading to no purchasing power and this profit game comes to an end. OR, the wealth gap increases even larger while even more are left in the dirt.
Yeah so we should jump on board the Free World Charter NOW because in 200 years we'll be so productive we won't need money? Same arguments as communists in the past...
|
Regardless of what you want to call it, what we need is global system that ensures economic cooperation, ecological sustainability, and technological automation. Obviously, the current profit-based system cannot meet all of these requirements.
|
On May 16 2012 08:31 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2012 07:33 silynxer wrote:On May 16 2012 06:53 Reason wrote:On May 16 2012 06:05 silynxer wrote:On May 16 2012 05:45 Reason wrote:
None of this is relevant. Money, a credit system, which replaced barter, an exchange system, was as significant an advancement as the wheel or fire. There is absolutely nothing to debate here.
The current economic system and the state of the world economy have absolutely nothing to do with money, and that is what you are all talking about.
All of this is highly debatable and the highlighted parts are most likely completely wrong and I can only advise everybody to read David Graeber's Debt to learn something about the emergence of money. One of his thesis being that a barter system never actually existed (unless in societies where a money system had collapsed) and credit systems predate money systems. Now I know given Graeber's activism many people will dismiss him outright and I cannot stop you but if you want to be a shining example against confirmation bias I really urge you to read the book, it will be worth your time even if you disagree with all of his opinions. No, no, no. What you are talking about is highly debatable, yes. The charter proposes a world without money, without a credit system. That is impractical, counterproductive and virtually impossible. That is why there is nothing to debate. You are being unnecessary aggressive. I do understand that nobody is going to read a book just for the sake of fighting an internet argument and that my post might have come of similar to the "read this article on mises.org" crowd, though I don't see how I can change this. I also agree that the charter is rubbish but probably for different reasons than you.
Ranting about the current economic system and the state of the world economy is frankly off topic and boring as hell.
Money is not economics, politics or sociology. It is a phsyical manifestation of what you yourself are claiming to be an extremely ancient invention, the credit system.
Money is both credit and actual physical thing (like gold) and to what degree it is what is important and has effects on the society using it. Furthermore it might be interesting to look at societies without money and how they organize, we might learn something from those "primitives", crazy I know. And again, that money (especially in the current form) has nothing to do with the current economic system needs a lot more explaining on your part or is simply wrong.
The notion that people invented currency and a credit system before they traded goods and services is stupid as far as I'm concerned.
Which is not what I wrote, although you might be surprised what one could call a credit system in gift societies, where the notion of trade does not exist in the sense of today.
Even if I'm wrong, which I doubt very very very strongly, and it was actually true it's completely irrelevant and doesn't even begin to argue that money is bad or needs removing, if anything in fact it argues in favour of what I'm saying.
Also it's a moot point really, I only used the example of progression from barter/exchange to money/credit to explain clearly what I meant when I described money as a credit system.
If you have actually have something to say on topic that you can formulate yourself instead of quoting some book and just bolding sections of what I have said and calling it "most likely completely wrong" with absolutely zero basis for making this assessment.... well then I'll be interested to read and respond to your post.
The thing is that your assesment about how money emerged has also no basis. If you really want to argue this you could start to point to a single society that exercised barter in our modern sense (that was not using money beforehand) or any historical text suggesting such a thing. The problem is, I cannot prove the nonexistence since me finding no matter how many counterexamples would be meaningless (if you insist I could list some though).
Until then, I don't care how corrupt people are, I don't care how high the national debt is, I don't care how much the banks are screwing us or any of this bullshit it's absolutely nothing to do "money" and the non existant need for it's demise.
I don't even understand how you can say this. Just look at societies with and without money and see for yourself the profound effect money has. Yeah the difference is not only money of course, but to state that the existence of money has no effect at all is quite a stretch, how do you get there? I'm really struggling to find any coherent points here. What effects does money have on society using it? That's like asking what effects does that wheel have? It allows things to roll. That's what the wheel does. What does money do? It allows you to buy and sell instead of having to exchange. That's all it does. The charter isn't rubbish, the values it holds dear and the world it describes are admirable and I can only dream of living in such a world. As I explained previously, the proposed methodology behind the charter is the problem. It proposes the removal of money, in essence the removal of a credit system. Try to make any serious arguments in favour of a different way of exchanging goods and services and you will quickly realise they are invalid. I repeat this is impractical, counterproductive and virtually impossible. That is why there is nothing to debate. You are suggesting we look at societies without money? To try to learn something from them? You find me one country in the world that has transport infrastructure, health care, an education system etc that doesn't use money and perhaps you will have a basis for making this suggestion. Until then "primitive" is a good way to describe a society without money and primitive is nothing you should be aspiring to. To live in a better world we need to progress, not regress. Sure there may be some social or cultural lessons we could learn from primitive societies... but what has that got to do with anything? As I have already said, how money emerged is a moot point. This means it is irrelevant and off topic and has nothing to do with what is being discussed and bringing this up again serves no purpose. The fact is that money is a credit system as opposed to a bartering or exchange system. I seriously couldn't care less how it came about or which came first. The reason we use this system is because it is better. That is all that matters here. As far as I am aware it is generally understood that people were exchanging goods and services long before they decided to invent a uniform currency to facilitate the exchange of these goods and services. If I am wrong about this, it doesn't matter, it is still irrelevant. Look at societies with and without money and look at the differences? See the profound effect money has? Yeah so like you mean that every wealthy country has a higher quality of life in almost every conceivable way to countries that don't have lots of money? You are basically arguing that more money = good and less money = bad, which further solidifies what you seem to think I am saying, but actually I am not. You are confusing wealth with money. Wealth is an accumulation of credit. You hear of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? That is an unfair distribution of wealth, in an increasing trend. I have already clearly explained that the uneven and unfair distribution of wealth is the problem we have in today's world. We do not have a well established, fair and integrated global society. People live in mansions and have huge estates and lands while children starve and dehydrate in poor countries all around the world. This is because of society, politics, economics etc Not. Money. Money is a credit system. Money is good. It is an ancient invention that is simply the preferable alternative to a more direct method of exchange or bartering. I don't know how to say this any simpler. This simple tool of exchange is not responsible for the state of affairs we have in the world. Greed, corruption, dishonesty, exploitation etc etc cannot in any way be attributed to such a simple and innocent improvement in the method of exchange of goods and services between human beings. If you want to make such a wild claim the burden of proof is on you, not on me.
You accuse me of not making a coherent point while writing rants in this weird segmented way, especially when I answer segment by segment? The history of money is important exactly to understand that money is not just like the wheel, it is not a simple way of exchange but a very complicated one. In fact the way money works and it's implications on society changed in such a way that to call it by the same name is muddying the conversation.
To call money a simple and especially innocent improvement is again highly loaded. The existence of money implies some form of power to back it up in the last instance by force. History is full of examples where nations with money economies went to length to impose their system on people who did not actually want this oh so innocent vehicle of trade (e.g. Madagascar and France, but real examples don't seem to matter in this conversation).
If you want to say that therefore not money is the problem but the force behind it I would actually agree, though I do not think you can disconnect the two. So it makes little sense to talk about abolition of money while keeping nation states (the other way around might be possible but also rather uninteresting since it doesn't change the implications of force).
Finally, yes human misfeatures cannot be atributed to money alone but your economic system (which includes your monetary system) has a big impact in how these misfeatures manifest themselves. Why would you think that greed and exploitation takes the same form in a society where there is not some sort of "wealth" you can simply amass? To verify that this is wrong you unfortunately would need to study such societies, like for example the Tiv (just from the top of my head, but any pre colonial tribal society should do the job).
[EDIT]: I found an interview with Graeber that does a decent job at summarizing his findings here, since I seem to be unable to convey them...
|
silynxer Germany. May 16 2012 16:54. Posts 175
Well i agree that there are manny things wrong with the current system, and the forces behind monney and i do hope that one day humanity has evolved far enough that we can leave this system.
Atm though the alternatives presented dont offer a good alternative
The major problem of a system without monney is that the productivity is way and way lower.
A secondary major problem is that despite all good intentions, 99% of the people will take more then they contribute to the system.
It is true that now also manny people take more then they contribute, but its far from 99%.
Btw i like your post and its ideas, its just that i see humans as such idiots that i think it wont work, and a system based on greed unfortunatly seems to work best for now, despite all its flaws.
|
On May 16 2012 14:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2012 14:03 xeo1 wrote:On May 16 2012 13:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 16 2012 13:12 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 16 2012 13:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 16 2012 12:52 DeliCiousVP wrote:On May 16 2012 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 16 2012 12:30 DeliCiousVP wrote:
Its an ideology an ideology is not based on the scientific method but on opinion, And since we know opinion can be changed and manipulated at whim it is utterly inefficient.
If you design a rocket to fly to the moon you base it of data,experience and experiments not of someones opinion. we must adapt this method to society aswel. We went over this before. RBE is NOT based on the scientific method. You admitted yourself that it has not been tested, and therefore we should not believe it until it has been scientifically proven to work! On the other hand the current field of economics as well as businesses use the scientific method all the time. If you refer to everything as a whole no but what is being discused and how the infrastrucure is to operate and the technology discussed have. and are undergoing steady improvement so that most of what i have been given out as to good to advanced to be true is most likely already old and even more advanced today. Yeah, and as I've pointed out time and again what you keep saying "is more efficient" is not. You can't just post a video of an automated farm and say "look! we can do this!!" Automating a farm is not free, and in modern countries it is already used so you offer nothing but new inefficiencies. You just want to throw technology at the problem the same way that communists before you did with the result of complete failure (see China's Great Leap Forward). You are simple wrong and why dont you find a point to argue or dicuss rather then recycle this useless BS this is a thread about a RBE you bore me with your talk of chinas great leap or what words you feel like applying to things you dont understand. You have to sources and if your to lazy to go throught it(You spend enough time in this tread to have time for it) Then just watch the short Freeworldcharter and bring up a point in there that you "belive,imagine,assume" is incorrect and discuss it. Sleep <-- From Freeworld Charter's FAQ: 3. Debt and Unemployment "Private companies continually replace staff with machines that can work faster and cheaper, to increase their productivity and profits." As in, that exact thing you are arguing for (automation) and the exact thing that you are saying capitalism is inhibiting due to profits only being gained through artificial scarcity which is contradicted by Xeo1 talking about 'overproduction.' "Also, since it enters the economy as a debt, it is subject to interest. Since the money to pay this interest doesn't even exist, it ultimately requires another debt - and more interest!" I pointed out earlier that this is false. You do not need mo money to pay the interest. It's paid for as money flows through the economy. In short, it's all rubbish. Just made up fantasy land communism. capitalism -> automation for profits -> people replaced -> unemployment -> no purchasing power -> no profits RBE -> automation for mass distribution -> no useless jobs to replace in the first place *sigh* There's a slightly (and by "slightly" I mean "the most important") part being left out of your cute little progression there. capitalism -> automation for mass distribution -> mass distribution = lower cost to consumer -> more products bought -> profits Show nested quote +I don't get the comment about artificial scarcity. Walk into a store at the mall and tell me there is no overproduction. Full of overpriced stuff that's never going to get sold And yet, it gets sold... somehow. Perhaps by magic. Anyone who has worked in retail knows how ridiculous it is to say that they don't sell their product. Why do those trucks keep coming with more every few weeks? Is there some black hole back behind mall security where they dump it?
It is called a trash bin.
|
What a completely stupid idea. I work longer and harder than most I work with in my field, why should they be rewarded equally for less effort? Why when I am working 80+ hours a week, should I be rewarded the same as the worthless dirtbag sitting on their ass doing near nothing? What a load of idealistic garbage that has zero chance of ever happening. Let me explain something that anyone supporting stupid crap like this fails to understand. Systems like this fail completely to deal with 2 very specific groups of people. Group A - Those who are extremely driven to be better than everyone around them and to achieve all the things that come with being driven. I myself fall into this group. I find the notion of "someones appreciation" for my work to be insulting. I don't care about appreciation or even what they think of me personally. I am going to do my job to the absolute best of my ability because I enjoy the rewards of doing so. Then there is Group B - Those who are content to let society support them if they can get away with it. The Current Welfare system in the US is full of these people (note, not everyone on welfare is) as an example. These people cannot be motivated for lift a finger to help even with being handed the bare minimums to survive. The notion that in this type of society that they would somehow work harder is laughable.
Now bear in mind there are plenty of people that do not fall into these groups and it would be impossible to attempt to describe them all. However the Above two groups alone are clear examples of why a silly system like this would never work anywhere and why anyone who believes it needs to get in touch with reality.
|
It is called a trash bin.
Do they throw the trash bins into the black hole?
|
On May 16 2012 16:54 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2012 08:31 Reason wrote:On May 16 2012 07:33 silynxer wrote:On May 16 2012 06:53 Reason wrote:On May 16 2012 06:05 silynxer wrote:On May 16 2012 05:45 Reason wrote:
None of this is relevant. Money, a credit system, which replaced barter, an exchange system, was as significant an advancement as the wheel or fire. There is absolutely nothing to debate here.
The current economic system and the state of the world economy have absolutely nothing to do with money, and that is what you are all talking about.
All of this is highly debatable and the highlighted parts are most likely completely wrong and I can only advise everybody to read David Graeber's Debt to learn something about the emergence of money. One of his thesis being that a barter system never actually existed (unless in societies where a money system had collapsed) and credit systems predate money systems. Now I know given Graeber's activism many people will dismiss him outright and I cannot stop you but if you want to be a shining example against confirmation bias I really urge you to read the book, it will be worth your time even if you disagree with all of his opinions. No, no, no. What you are talking about is highly debatable, yes. The charter proposes a world without money, without a credit system. That is impractical, counterproductive and virtually impossible. That is why there is nothing to debate. You are being unnecessary aggressive. I do understand that nobody is going to read a book just for the sake of fighting an internet argument and that my post might have come of similar to the "read this article on mises.org" crowd, though I don't see how I can change this. I also agree that the charter is rubbish but probably for different reasons than you.
Ranting about the current economic system and the state of the world economy is frankly off topic and boring as hell.
Money is not economics, politics or sociology. It is a phsyical manifestation of what you yourself are claiming to be an extremely ancient invention, the credit system.
Money is both credit and actual physical thing (like gold) and to what degree it is what is important and has effects on the society using it. Furthermore it might be interesting to look at societies without money and how they organize, we might learn something from those "primitives", crazy I know. And again, that money (especially in the current form) has nothing to do with the current economic system needs a lot more explaining on your part or is simply wrong.
The notion that people invented currency and a credit system before they traded goods and services is stupid as far as I'm concerned.
Which is not what I wrote, although you might be surprised what one could call a credit system in gift societies, where the notion of trade does not exist in the sense of today.
Even if I'm wrong, which I doubt very very very strongly, and it was actually true it's completely irrelevant and doesn't even begin to argue that money is bad or needs removing, if anything in fact it argues in favour of what I'm saying.
Also it's a moot point really, I only used the example of progression from barter/exchange to money/credit to explain clearly what I meant when I described money as a credit system.
If you have actually have something to say on topic that you can formulate yourself instead of quoting some book and just bolding sections of what I have said and calling it "most likely completely wrong" with absolutely zero basis for making this assessment.... well then I'll be interested to read and respond to your post.
The thing is that your assesment about how money emerged has also no basis. If you really want to argue this you could start to point to a single society that exercised barter in our modern sense (that was not using money beforehand) or any historical text suggesting such a thing. The problem is, I cannot prove the nonexistence since me finding no matter how many counterexamples would be meaningless (if you insist I could list some though).
Until then, I don't care how corrupt people are, I don't care how high the national debt is, I don't care how much the banks are screwing us or any of this bullshit it's absolutely nothing to do "money" and the non existant need for it's demise.
I don't even understand how you can say this. Just look at societies with and without money and see for yourself the profound effect money has. Yeah the difference is not only money of course, but to state that the existence of money has no effect at all is quite a stretch, how do you get there? I'm really struggling to find any coherent points here. What effects does money have on society using it? That's like asking what effects does that wheel have? It allows things to roll. That's what the wheel does. What does money do? It allows you to buy and sell instead of having to exchange. That's all it does. The charter isn't rubbish, the values it holds dear and the world it describes are admirable and I can only dream of living in such a world. As I explained previously, the proposed methodology behind the charter is the problem. It proposes the removal of money, in essence the removal of a credit system. Try to make any serious arguments in favour of a different way of exchanging goods and services and you will quickly realise they are invalid. I repeat this is impractical, counterproductive and virtually impossible. That is why there is nothing to debate. You are suggesting we look at societies without money? To try to learn something from them? You find me one country in the world that has transport infrastructure, health care, an education system etc that doesn't use money and perhaps you will have a basis for making this suggestion. Until then "primitive" is a good way to describe a society without money and primitive is nothing you should be aspiring to. To live in a better world we need to progress, not regress. Sure there may be some social or cultural lessons we could learn from primitive societies... but what has that got to do with anything? As I have already said, how money emerged is a moot point. This means it is irrelevant and off topic and has nothing to do with what is being discussed and bringing this up again serves no purpose. The fact is that money is a credit system as opposed to a bartering or exchange system. I seriously couldn't care less how it came about or which came first. The reason we use this system is because it is better. That is all that matters here. As far as I am aware it is generally understood that people were exchanging goods and services long before they decided to invent a uniform currency to facilitate the exchange of these goods and services. If I am wrong about this, it doesn't matter, it is still irrelevant. Look at societies with and without money and look at the differences? See the profound effect money has? Yeah so like you mean that every wealthy country has a higher quality of life in almost every conceivable way to countries that don't have lots of money? You are basically arguing that more money = good and less money = bad, which further solidifies what you seem to think I am saying, but actually I am not. You are confusing wealth with money. Wealth is an accumulation of credit. You hear of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? That is an unfair distribution of wealth, in an increasing trend. I have already clearly explained that the uneven and unfair distribution of wealth is the problem we have in today's world. We do not have a well established, fair and integrated global society. People live in mansions and have huge estates and lands while children starve and dehydrate in poor countries all around the world. This is because of society, politics, economics etc Not. Money. Money is a credit system. Money is good. It is an ancient invention that is simply the preferable alternative to a more direct method of exchange or bartering. I don't know how to say this any simpler. This simple tool of exchange is not responsible for the state of affairs we have in the world. Greed, corruption, dishonesty, exploitation etc etc cannot in any way be attributed to such a simple and innocent improvement in the method of exchange of goods and services between human beings. If you want to make such a wild claim the burden of proof is on you, not on me. You accuse me of not making a coherent point while writing rants in this weird segmented way, especially when I answer segment by segment? The history of money is important exactly to understand that money is not just like the wheel, it is not a simple way of exchange but a very complicated one. In fact the way money works and it's implications on society changed in such a way that to call it by the same name is muddying the conversation. To call money a simple and especially innocent improvement is again highly loaded. The existence of money implies some form of power to back it up in the last instance by force. History is full of examples where nations with money economies went to length to impose their system on people who did not actually want this oh so innocent vehicle of trade (e.g. Madagascar and France, but real examples don't seem to matter in this conversation). If you want to say that therefore not money is the problem but the force behind it I would actually agree, though I do not think you can disconnect the two. So it makes little sense to talk about abolition of money while keeping nation states (the other way around might be possible but also rather uninteresting since it doesn't change the implications of force). Finally, yes human misfeatures cannot be atributed to money alone but your economic system (which includes your monetary system) has a big impact in how these misfeatures manifest themselves. Why would you think that greed and exploitation takes the same form in a society where there is not some sort of "wealth" you can simply amass? To verify that this is wrong you unfortunately would need to study such societies, like for example the Tiv (just from the top of my head, but any pre colonial tribal society should do the job). [EDIT]: I found an interview with Graeber that does a decent job at summarizing his findings here, since I seem to be unable to convey them...
I answered segment by segment, I just didn't draw pretty little lines.
What I did was read every line in your post and then write a direct response, the fact that you didn't notice that says a lot.
Your English is terrible. Once translated your post is still not convincing.
Your massive wall of gibberish doesn't deserve another well structured and though out response, but trust me I've read it and it's basically nonsense.
Everything I have said still stands.
Good bye and good luck.
|
On May 16 2012 15:19 xeo1 wrote:
Regardless of what you want to call it, what we need is global system that ensures economic cooperation, ecological sustainability, and technological automation. Obviously, the current profit-based system cannot meet all of these requirements.
I dont think anyone in this topic would be in total disagreement with you on that point.
What people are trying to explain is that this RBE crap/free world charter would be the worst possible way to achieve these goals. Our current system might not geared towards meeting those requirements, but its the system that has proven to be the less terrible of all. Like it or not, the current system has flaws, but its still the best we can get.
Profit based system could meet these requirements if everyone in the population would collectively decide that this is what they want, if we all decide we want ecological sustainability, then companies would have to be ecological else people wouldnt buy their stuff, its as easy as that. The fact of the matter is, people are not ready to do this, yet you plead that everyone wuold suddenly be ready to live in total harmony and apply a RBE system, this is incremely close minded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
