| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
DeliCiousVP
Sweden343 Posts
On May 19 2012 10:13 HellRoxYa wrote: Actually we can prove it doesn't work. People have, repeatedly, done so throughout this thread, from a number of different angles.. You have a funny defintion of what justifies proof, and please walk away because you offer nothing of value and is one of the lest informed defenders of the status quo in this thread. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On May 19 2012 10:24 DeliCiousVP wrote: You have a funny defintion of what justifies proof, and please walk away because you offer nothing of value and is one of the lest informed defenders of the status quo in this thread. It's funny how you say this while you don't actually understand the status quo at all. I'm not alone in claiming this and it's glaringly obvious to anyone reading your posts in this thread. At least we've (the "people defending the status quo" - more accurately the people criticizing this idea of yours) got you to admit that you, and your fellow thinkers, actually have no idea how the system would actually work in practice. In any case, how about picking up some university classes? Perferably in conflict studies, political science or economics. Pick one, you don't need all of them. They all have valueable things to teach you, and they will all make clear to you, eventually, when you grasp it, that this idea is nonsense. | ||
|
DeliCiousVP
Sweden343 Posts
t's funny how you say this while you don't actually understand the status quo at all. I'm not alone in claiming this and it's glaringly obvious to anyone reading your posts in this thread The Irony the people criticizing this idea of yours) got you to admit that you, and your fellow thinkers, actually have no idea how the system would actually work in practice. I guess i missed this part. In any case, how about picking up some university classes? Perferably in conflict studies, political science or economics. Pick one, you don't need all of them. They all have valueable things to teach you, and they will all make clear to you, eventually, when you grasp it, that this idea is nonsense. Yes i can definitly see how lack of insight into our system has led to so much insight into our monetary system. But you see it is all moot with you anyway you are blocked your reception to anything discrediting this is astounding and your blockage to anything supporting it could convince you that you dont need to breathe. And here are some debunks because im not afraid the rest of you can also see it and decide for yourself how valid they seem. i will only send the ones that have either votes or commenting no censor. I also wanna add that if any chink in the armor is found the defenders of the status quo ravage it open thats why you see the attacks shift when they are proven wrong, It is however a silent process nobody admit that what the other person said and offer made sense instead they go silent and move away from that particular subject. As a defender of a new direction you dont have this luxury.. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
FeUerFlieGe United States. May 05 2012 04:02. Posts 502 PM Profile Report Quote # Sounds like communism. Sounds like the society in Fahrenheit 451. This has a lot of problems: 1. People are greedy. Money isn't the cause of greed, It's just an outlet. You can be equally greedy over any other object. Getting rid of money isn't going to change human nature. 2. This is extreme socialism. Every item would have to be generic. Nobody would have anything that would set them appart from everyone else. People would begin bartering for whatever unique item they found, like a trading card game. Eventually currency will develop again and our generic world would go obsolete as human materialism kicks in. Once again this is human nature. 3. I don't believe we would advance technologically. There would be no inovation. No competition. In this world, who cares about making a technological inovation. It brings nothing in return to the creator or company. It brings nothing to the company who makes the newest, fastest, safest car. After all, everything is generic anyway and there can only be 1 car company. And if there were say 2 car companies, why would a company waste it's time developing a better car? Even if people chose to have their car provided by the other company, is car company 1 negatively effected by that? No. Car company 1 does less work now and it's actually an easier job for them. I guess they could do it for fame, but there is no fortune. The only thing I see spurring technological advancement is the now unhindered human curiosity. But even then there still will be very little INOVATION. This may be plausible in a distant future. But it's going to take a bloody revolution to overthrow all the banks and the wealthy. And what happens when we have bloody revolutions against rich people?... history. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-Good point, removing monney wont neccesarely remove greed or desire Human greed and the nature to act in self interest is indeed a huge problem for this system. imagine it starting out with a community of idealistic people wich could slowly grow, i am not sure how to judge greed btw, is it realy something wich comes from within or is it something wich we culturally have developped over the past 1000,s years, and wich we could overcome slowly. Maybe a big part of greed is also a lack of trust and a way to protect ourselves. People want things for themselves because they cant trust other people around them taking care of them if needed,maybe once we dont have to struggle for our existance greed will slowly disapear. 2-Not neccesarely, people can always individualise themselves or produce items in small amounts, rbe does not neccesarely imply bulk production. Also its not like we have 1000,s of different products to choose from now, only with clothes we have. Making to manny different products is not efficient for corporations, cars only come in like 6 different colours, individualisation is only seen in the upper price class of products. 3-here you are completely wrong imo. The biggest technological improvements have not been monney driven and i think we will keep advancing technological, maybe even at a faster rate then now, capitalism holds back technologys wich could hurt direct profits and vested interests for example. If you read for example the autobiography of steve jobs (wich i can realy recommand) you can see that he is motivated by a vision , an ideal and a burning flame inside, not by monney (though it definatly was welcome off course) And i am convinced this goes for all realy important technological improvements and revolutions. Sony had everything in house to make itunes but they didnt. They definatly wanted to make monney but this prooved to be a less efficient drive then the drive of someone with a vision and an ideal (this is just the first example i can come up with) | ||
|
Competent
United States406 Posts
A main concern I see is, " How can we be sure things will be distributed evenly? Fairly? etc..." So I new plan has been suggested. A plan that will remove the current system that isn't fair, doesn't distribute evenly, is not just, etc and it was never implemented to be any of those things... Now, your main concern is the new system--which is aimed at being fair/just unlike the current one--won't be? Tell me, what the hell do you have to lose? Really? You are worried that this new idea might be like the current system, and THAT is the reason you are against it? Earth to you! Oh never fucking mind. If you haven't got it by now, I don't think you ever will. | ||
|
Arush
Canada80 Posts
| ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On May 19 2012 13:13 Rassy wrote: 3-here you are completely wrong imo. The biggest technological improvements have not been monney driven and i think we will keep advancing technological, maybe even at a faster rate then now, capitalism holds back technologys wich could hurt direct profits and vested interests for example. If you read for example the autobiography of steve jobs (wich i can realy recommand) you can see that he is motivated by a vision , an ideal and a burning flame inside, not by monney (though it definatly was welcome off course) And i am convinced this goes for all realy important technological improvements and revolutions. Sony had everything in house to make itunes but they didnt. They definatly wanted to make monney but this prooved to be a less efficient drive then the drive of someone with a vision and an ideal (this is just the first example i can come up with) Ever heard of a thing called the industrial revolution? There's a reason technology has advanced more in the last 200 years then the last 2000 before it. (And most of this has been by democratic-capitalistic countries. You see very little innovation in dictatorships or full-socialist states, except perhaps in the area of military.) And yeah, Steve Jobs was so motivated by an ideal that under his leadership Apple forced hundreds of thousands of Chinese laborers to work at sub 100 bucks a month wages to squeeze every last profit out. If he really cared about his vision and not money, then I'm sure Apple could have settled for 10 billion dollars in profit every year, and not 40. Great example. | ||
|
xeo1
United States429 Posts
| ||
|
Diks
Belgium1880 Posts
On May 19 2012 13:35 Arush wrote: People jsut dont realise that a socialist system like that to function you need a total new mindset and good luck to change people minds on it.... People mind does change. Just look at yourself, do you think the same way your grand parents did ? This is maybe not for the time we are alive but I sinceriely hope than one day humanity will stop shackling itself with debt systems and quantity of laws unprocessable for a human brain,... | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
What's interesting about an agitprop speech? | ||
|
0neheart
United States92 Posts
On May 19 2012 13:23 Competent wrote: I just read through 47 pages and I think I have absorbed enough to make a very valid point. A main concern I see is, " How can we be sure things will be distributed evenly? Fairly? etc..." So I new plan has been suggested. A plan that will remove the current system that isn't fair, doesn't distribute evenly, is not just, etc and it was never implemented to be any of those things... Now, your main concern is the new system--which is aimed at being fair/just unlike the current one--won't be? Tell me, what the hell do you have to lose? Really? You are worried that this new idea might be like the current system, and THAT is the reason you are against it? Earth to you! Oh never fucking mind. If you haven't got it by now, I don't think you ever will. A new plan had been suggested decades ago, and that plan was communism. The new plan resulted in millions of deaths and decades of social turmoil. That's what you have to lose. | ||
|
xwoGworwaTsx
United States984 Posts
| ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On May 19 2012 15:34 xwoGworwaTsx wrote: Does anyone have a specific government model if we indeed decide to not use money. Not anyone in this thread. But apparently, that isn't a problem. On May 19 2012 12:26 DeliCiousVP wrote: The Irony I guess i missed this part. Yes i can definitly see how lack of insight into our system has led to so much insight into our monetary system. But you see it is all moot with you anyway you are blocked your reception to anything discrediting this is astounding and your blockage to anything supporting it could convince you that you dont need to breathe. And here are some debunks because im not afraid the rest of you can also see it and decide for yourself how valid they seem. i will only send the ones that have either votes or commenting no censor. I also wanna add that if any chink in the armor is found the defenders of the status quo ravage it open thats why you see the attacks shift when they are proven wrong, It is however a silent process nobody admit that what the other person said and offer made sense instead they go silent and move away from that particular subject. As a defender of a new direction you dont have this luxury.. I'm open, don't you worry about that. The problem for me, though, is that I know and identify problem areas which you do not because you have no understanding of them. Not only that, but this idea isn't actually new, as others have pointed out. It's called communism, the real communism that Marx was talking about and not Stalinism or Maoism, which is the form socialism/communism takes in practice. The only difference is that you want to remove money aswell, for no good reason. At least Marx was smart enough to identify the correct problem areas which is why he is still studied today. He makes a much better case for himself than you do. On the other hand there's you, who's completely cut off from current knowledge. You have an idealistic vision cut off from reality and while it's nice, its main problem is that it's still cut off from reality. It's like you're saying "Why can't we call get along?!" and then just expect everyone to get along once you've asked the question. The answers to the question is something lots of very smart people have been working on for a very, very long time and it's not as simple as removing money and then expecting everyone to follow your or Joseph's or anyone else's command. And then there's the whole problem of not knowing how the system should actually work in practice. You see, it doesn't matter if Peter Joseph admitted that they don't have an answer for how the system should work in practice or not. The problem is that we need to be presented with a system that will work in practice or the idea is void. Who cares what he's said or not? We're interested in being presented with the workings of the system, no such presentation has occured. And no, idealistic dreaming is not a system. Lastly, don't mistake anyone in this thread for making excuses for capitalism. I'm a strong critic of a lot of things, and I am personally in favor of a lot of state intervention in the market in different ways (such as free healthcare, education, strong security for jobless and helpless people, and so on). This thread, however, is not about the downsides about capitalism but about the obviously more seriously flawed and ill-thoughtout replacement system being proposed. Please realize that noone's saying things are perfect, they are saying things are better than they ever have been before, for everyone, everywhere. (And don't you dare point to famines and other bullshit, the aggregate well-being of everyone on the planet is way higher than it was historically. I guess you might be deluded to think that it's all the work of technology, not realizing how technology comes about but again, how about some university courses) | ||
|
Competent
United States406 Posts
On May 19 2012 15:24 0neheart wrote: A new plan had been suggested decades ago, and that plan was communism. The new plan resulted in millions of deaths and decades of social turmoil. That's what you have to lose. Strange, last I remember the communist regimes you are speaking of had a sole intent of world domination. They were also fascists. They also didn't have the technology we have to make it possible. So if that is really your only argument, then looks like we have no reason to opt for the new plan. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
Last edit: 2012-05-19 19:41:47 That things are better for everyone everywhere is a claim wich is verry difficult to proove. Its more an opinion, Is the usa better off now then it was in the 1950,s? is africa better of now then it was at ~ 1900? I wouldnt dare to answer these questions with YES. When i think rational i can only agree with your post though and you (and also some others in this thread) make good points and come across as verry reasonable and openminded. The idea for this system i asume comes from comparing actual production to potential production. You can see this in the example where they calculate how much farm land there is on the world, and how much it could produce. Resources and extraction rates are all known, just like how manny are needed to make anny product. People look at the potential production and then look at the actual production and they (think to) see a huge difference between the 2. Then the conclusion naturally follows that the current system is far from perfect and the search for a new system begins. In wich we could reach our potential production ,wich can be scientifically calculated (i guess thats why they call this the scientific managing of the economy) We are now at the point that we see the failures of the current system to reach max output and we looking for a new one. This system is not practically possible atm, not only because we cant give an answer to manny obvious questions, also because the vast majority of the people prefer living in the relative safety of the current system. What this is for me is the start of awareness,the start of a process wich will take 100,s of year, Though for some other people its more, and they would like to see implementation in a relativly short time. | ||
|
Szordrin
Switzerland151 Posts
In order to install such an utopia there would be massive social disruptions, allocation problems, angry citizens (there would be losers too), terrorism, probably even wars if you intend to force it upon the world (and if its not worldwide its doomed to fail anyway...). Give me some answers on this please. Thanks  | ||
|
0neheart
United States92 Posts
On May 19 2012 22:12 Competent wrote: Strange, last I remember the communist regimes you are speaking of had a sole intent of world domination. They were also fascists. They also didn't have the technology we have to make it possible. So if that is really your only argument, then looks like we have no reason to opt for the new plan. My point is that there is a lot to lose by changing the system and screwing it up, and an example of that was communism. My aim was not to criticize the new plan itself, but answer the question "what do you have to lose" if it fails, which is quite a lot. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On May 19 2012 22:12 Competent wrote: Strange, last I remember the communist regimes you are speaking of had a sole intent of world domination. They were also fascists. They also didn't have the technology we have to make it possible. So if that is really your only argument, then looks like we have no reason to opt for the new plan. Is not administrating (ruling) the entire planet also a part of this brave new RBE world? | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On May 19 2012 22:12 Competent wrote: Strange, last I remember the communist regimes you are speaking of had a sole intent of world domination. They were also fascists. They also didn't have the technology we have to make it possible. So if that is really your only argument, then looks like we have no reason to opt for the new plan. 1. They wanted world domination because that is kind of the point of communism, just like this free world charter: to unite everyone on Earth under a worker's paradise. 2. They were not fascists, but they were totalitarian. Fascists were people like Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco, and they are on the far right of the political spectrum (very nationalistic, glorify past, use religion to their advantage). Communism is supposed to be internationalistic, they glorify the future, and they try to get rid of religion because it causes people to focus too much on the afterlife (which may or may not exist). The similarity is that they are totalitarian. 3. What technology did they not have? The internet? That's really the only thing I can think of that they did not have that could make any sort of difference, and as far as logistics go it's not like the internet can move real goods(computers obviously were invented before 1991). | ||
|
ixi.genocide
United States981 Posts
On May 19 2012 13:23 Competent wrote: I just read through 47 pages and I think I have absorbed enough to make a very valid point. A main concern I see is, " How can we be sure things will be distributed evenly? Fairly? etc..." So I new plan has been suggested. A plan that will remove the current system that isn't fair, doesn't distribute evenly, is not just, etc and it was never implemented to be any of those things... Now, your main concern is the new system--which is aimed at being fair/just unlike the current one--won't be? Tell me, what the hell do you have to lose? Really? You are worried that this new idea might be like the current system, and THAT is the reason you are against it? Earth to you! Oh never fucking mind. If you haven't got it by now, I don't think you ever will. So, the current system is really based off of a banking system, if u traveled in the middle ages you wouldnt be able to trade the wheat from your farm at your new destination, hauling the wheat and the agging in travel would ruin that prospect. So their has to be a common currency, fora long time it was gold, now it would probably be oil/gas. Before paper currency was introduced as the general currency silver and gold was the base currency, this was even true to an extent until 1972 when america (the worlds reserve currency) went off tue gold standard. A currency free world would never happen, everything has a price and that price would be weighted in the something such as gas. If you work on a farm right now, they will pay u 12-15 an hour, or 96-120 a day. If you worked on that farm without wages you would probably be payed with a room and food. One of those sounds like slavery... Because ppl wont do somthing that they dont have to a system without currency is doomed to fail in the world we have created. Communism, which is a step farther than what you are proposing is not a successful model. It will not be successful (outside of small family like communities) until our entire world is automated and there is no meed for wages, we have a few centuries for that to happen. Its interesting that you and others think that a capitalist system doesmt work, especially since capitalism is the reason a middle class exists. Not to mention that prior to tje industrial revolution and the tech that followed most of tje wealtj in every country was controlled by the ruling class. Its easy to think of a faceless picturecof some greedy business man and say that said person is bad forcthe country and is why currency system doesnt work, but if you apply a face such as bill gates, or warren buffet or Carlos slim (the 3richest ppl in the world outside of the rothschild family) then you have a way different opinion, not only that but look at peoppe such as mark zuckerberg, just because people have success doesnt mean that a currency system is bad. The american dream is a house, a boat and some kids, this is still possible and as long as businesses stay in america and keep their jobs in america it will live on. Obviously im not looking at europe or otjer countries in this reply because thats not where i live (and the economic systems in most european countries are failing). If you are looking for the reason why america is failing than look at our government. Ppl seem to constantly blame greed as tje cause for our problems when in reality greed and fear are the only emotions you can count on. PS. Posting from phone so there are grammatical errors | ||
| ||
|
|
PiGosaur Monday
The PondCast
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
ByuN vs Classic
Clem vs Cham
WardiTV European League
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
herO vs SHIN
Reynor vs Cure
WardiTV European League
FEL
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
