Coming from the lounge - money
-
Metro Atlanta. Still lots of cheap land for sale but in the middle of populated areas so there are plenty of buyers. The organic market continues to grow every year and people continue to realize how much junk is in the food we eat and are looking for alternatives so I think it will always be a very good market.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
Collin Jasnoch wrote: I think we should just abandon hard currency all together.
loctrice:
I'm for no money at all. People just doing what they want/like to do. Everyone has a job [or attends school (etc) to be trained for a job]. Would be nice, unfortunately people [and government] would screw it up. I put this off to a friend of mine once, and he was very abrasive about it. The notion that people would just go to work and nothing would cost any money was not something he could grasp. So people can just go to the market during the open operating hours and pick up some groceries.. stopping to check out only because it would be necessary for inventory. Things like that. He "what if'ed" me to death worried over details and explaining how it wouldn't work, and never even got the concept.
BobJanova:
In brief it wouldn't work because no-one would do the unfun things – fixing the sewers, taking your rubbish away, cleaning toilets, farming to the level that it would feed everyone – and you wouldn't be able to get people to work on large scale infrastructure projects.
I don't think that is true. First, it's hard to tell because money is a motivating factor for many people. This makes it very hard to find the actual truth. Also, I know many people who really enjoy physical labor. Some to feel honest, some to keep fit, etc. That may also be dishonest due to money being behind motivation.I also know people who feel it's a responsibility to do things (in reference to cleaning the garbage, etc.) Another thing we would have, is different solutions to problems. Who is to say, when corporations, money, etc.. don't run things that we find an entirely different solution to problems like hauling away the garbage and cleaning the sewer? Things like our electrical grids in the US would likely change by people who enjoy solving these types of problems... and probably in a way that wouldn't require the electricity to go out until the change was made. It is hard to say what would/could come about in these different circumstances because everything is engineered around the money situation. Some people really love to teach, others to research, others to work hard. There are people for everything and I believe it would work well.
If it moves, compile it
-
Quote:
Collin Jasnoch wrote: I think we should just abandon hard currency all together.
loctrice:
I'm for no money at all. People just doing what they want/like to do. Everyone has a job [or attends school (etc) to be trained for a job]. Would be nice, unfortunately people [and government] would screw it up. I put this off to a friend of mine once, and he was very abrasive about it. The notion that people would just go to work and nothing would cost any money was not something he could grasp. So people can just go to the market during the open operating hours and pick up some groceries.. stopping to check out only because it would be necessary for inventory. Things like that. He "what if'ed" me to death worried over details and explaining how it wouldn't work, and never even got the concept.
BobJanova:
In brief it wouldn't work because no-one would do the unfun things – fixing the sewers, taking your rubbish away, cleaning toilets, farming to the level that it would feed everyone – and you wouldn't be able to get people to work on large scale infrastructure projects.
I don't think that is true. First, it's hard to tell because money is a motivating factor for many people. This makes it very hard to find the actual truth. Also, I know many people who really enjoy physical labor. Some to feel honest, some to keep fit, etc. That may also be dishonest due to money being behind motivation.I also know people who feel it's a responsibility to do things (in reference to cleaning the garbage, etc.) Another thing we would have, is different solutions to problems. Who is to say, when corporations, money, etc.. don't run things that we find an entirely different solution to problems like hauling away the garbage and cleaning the sewer? Things like our electrical grids in the US would likely change by people who enjoy solving these types of problems... and probably in a way that wouldn't require the electricity to go out until the change was made. It is hard to say what would/could come about in these different circumstances because everything is engineered around the money situation. Some people really love to teach, others to research, others to work hard. There are people for everything and I believe it would work well.
If it moves, compile it
It's been tried. Didn't work. Some people play nice, others don't. If you gathered the right kind of people on an island, maybe it'll work.. for a while.. until someone someday fails to properly indoctrinate their child. A related concept (in that it doesn't use money as an incentive for people to work) does work - slavery. People dislike it for some reason, but it does work great. From an economic perspective, slavery is a great thing. Cheap labor means cheap stuff, lots of it. Just ask the Romans, or just about anyone else.
-
I agree there are people that are overlooked but in the end it is sometimes irrelevent. Someone else will develop the tech if there is a demand for it. Someone else will do it because they wanted to make money. Not because they simply had a passion or nack for doing it. Granted I said 'sometimes' irrelevent. Some people are entirely overlooked because they could not afford it etc. I think in the end it balances though. I know a lot of people that are very smart in tech fields doing what they do because the money is good. They are also very good at it. However it is not their 'passion'. If you take away the money drive for it they would likely sit around all day playing video games or something.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Yes, but along with taking away the money for it you will be offering the opportunity to find (and then do) what they are actually passionate about. In some ways I agree with your points. I think, however, that it would still balance out if money was done away with. I also understand that some people will just do nothing because they can get away with it. That will also balance out though.
If it moves, compile it
-
Your system: I collect trash but want to live in a 10000 square foot mansion overlooking the ocean. I'm a doctor and want the same thing. There is only 1 house available: who get's it? Bottom line: money is a really good way to effect a fair system where you take the money you earn and use it to barter for the goods and services you need to live. The more effort you put in the more you will earn, the more things you can buy. Of course the system isn't fair: why should some dopey short ass actor earn millions and a nurse is barely able to survive? That is life: regardless of the system used there will always be inequalities. The system you propose is, essentially, communism and even with that there are the haves and have-nots. Until we have a society in which replicators can freely produce what we need and there are robots to do the heavy lifting we have the best system that money can buy.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
Communism looks pretty good on paper :D It's one of those things that we, as people in general, messed up. I have opinions as to why, but that's a different topic :D Communism , from the parts I knew of, still functioned on money which in the end allows people to strive for power (and then more power). It's in our nature to turn things into selfish situations, and then apply envy and greed. Those things are not bad, but the way we apply them can be. You make good points. I had not came up with proper solutions for two people wanting the same house. I hadn't though past a lot of things, because it's just a thought not an actual system. I hadn't sat around and defined a whole government/system because a) I'm not smart enough and b) it wouldn't likely happen anyway.
mark merrens wrote:
we have the best system that money can buy.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
If it moves, compile it
-
Yes, but along with taking away the money for it you will be offering the opportunity to find (and then do) what they are actually passionate about. In some ways I agree with your points. I think, however, that it would still balance out if money was done away with. I also understand that some people will just do nothing because they can get away with it. That will also balance out though.
If it moves, compile it
Someday it will. Not today though. We have only a fraction of our society automated. So many things to do and really there is not enough people. I know I know. You are going to say but unemployement is at double digits etc. That is not because there is a lack of work. That is more likely because people are not trained for the work that is needed. For every field that is laying off there is multiple fields that can not hire fast enough because the candidates simply are not there.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
I'm pretty sure there are nowhere near enough people who love taking rubbish away, cleaning up after the lazy and so on to have those things actually done without getting some people who don't want to do it to do so, which is what money does. There are alternatives, like slavery or compulsion, but those are fairly self-evidently (I hope!) worse than a monetary incentive. Most of your post is 'well maybe if we tried it it would all be fine' and frankly that's not a good way to promote an idea. And as already stated, there's the issue of how you solve competition for scarce resources. In an imaginary utopia you can forget about that, but in the real world there is only one perfect site for a house on the bend in the river, there probably isn't enough food for everyone to eat exactly what they want, and if you want to apply that to the modern world, there certainly aren't enough Lambos and Learjets for everyone. How do you determine who gets the best things? I agree that unfettered capitalism and using money to determine that has problems, but you have to provide a credible alternative.
BobJanova wrote:
I'm pretty sure there are nowhere near enough people who love taking rubbish away, cleaning up after the lazy and so on
I'm pretty sure that other ways would be brought about to do this (as I mentioned before).
BobJanova wrote:
there certainly aren't enough Lambos and Learjets for everyone.
But there could be. Economically it wouldn't make sense to make only Lambos right now because it would bankrupt you. Not everyone wants a Lambo either, and not everyone would because with the abolishment of money then status quos would change and it wouldn't be the "cool thing" then. Also, for [our current economy] and our earth it doesn't make a lot of sense to keep producing the lambo's, jets, and fuel/gas guzzlers. This is already in the process of changing, it just hasn't happened yet.
BobJanova wrote:
in the real world there is only one perfect site for a house on the bend in the river,
You are correct, and I have no solution for this. In history tribes have warred over the same things. Warring isn't really a valid solution, but that is likely what would happen, and then rise another government leading back through the pages to where we are today. I agree, this is a tough problem and a solution would have to be brought about. I don't have it though. All good points.
If it moves, compile it
-
Someday it will. Not today though. We have only a fraction of our society automated. So many things to do and really there is not enough people. I know I know. You are going to say but unemployement is at double digits etc. That is not because there is a lack of work. That is more likely because people are not trained for the work that is needed. For every field that is laying off there is multiple fields that can not hire fast enough because the candidates simply are not there.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
That is not because there is a lack of work. That is more likely because people are not trained for the work that is needed. For every field that is laying off there is multiple fields that can not hire fast enough because the candidates simply are not there.
I would have made this argument :D but you did it for me. I would have only followed with the availability of training and the means to do so. I think everyone is definately right about automation/robots. That seems to be a common agreement. Too bad I won't see significant automation in my lifetime.
If it moves, compile it
-
If I could keep my same standard of living and length of work day, I'd rather be farming in a second!
If I could do whatever I wanted right now I would probably do construction/remodeling and some other physical labor/maintinence like lawn mowing,etc.. for a good portion of my day/week. I would have software development going on in free hours if it were still available. If the fight game was still going on (since money wouldn't be around) then I would still fight. If not, I would start a new circuit so we/others could still compete. All this and still time for video gaming :D Almost the same thing I am doing now, except for switching my "main" function of a job back to construction/maint. I'd go back to programming as a passionate hobby, and keep the fight hobby. Ah, to dream.
If it moves, compile it
-
If I could do whatever I wanted right now I would probably do construction/remodeling and some other physical labor/maintinence like lawn mowing,etc.. for a good portion of my day/week. I would have software development going on in free hours if it were still available. If the fight game was still going on (since money wouldn't be around) then I would still fight. If not, I would start a new circuit so we/others could still compete. All this and still time for video gaming :D Almost the same thing I am doing now, except for switching my "main" function of a job back to construction/maint. I'd go back to programming as a passionate hobby, and keep the fight hobby. Ah, to dream.
If it moves, compile it
Yeah, I would probably do farming fulltime, and where I currently garden, brew beer, and generally DIY projects- programming would replace them. I'd hope to be able to do comedy, as it doesn't make money or produce living necessities now, it would probably exist in hobby form. This brings me to a point, what would happen to the large amount of creative types, artists, performers, we wouldn't need many, would they be forced to do labor jobs (as opposed to bartending, waittering, or tour guiding like they do now)?
-
It's been tried. Didn't work. Some people play nice, others don't. If you gathered the right kind of people on an island, maybe it'll work.. for a while.. until someone someday fails to properly indoctrinate their child. A related concept (in that it doesn't use money as an incentive for people to work) does work - slavery. People dislike it for some reason, but it does work great. From an economic perspective, slavery is a great thing. Cheap labor means cheap stuff, lots of it. Just ask the Romans, or just about anyone else.
-
Societies have actually tried this in the past and except for the City of Enoch, it hasn't worked. One simple reason. "Me". It's all about me. It will only work when everyone is working together. As soon as someone wants more than someone else, it no longer works. Most all of us are too "me" focused. It would be great though. Everyone contributing. Regardless if they are a doctor or a garbage man, as long as they contribute they all receive the same.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Amish are one society I can think of that do o.k. some cults have functioned just fine, though they are lacking benefits of being connected with the world for the good cases that I have read. I'm not talking about the abusive cults, or the get rich cults either, so we can exclude them. both cases are missing the benefits of society, technology, etc. But they are the only examples I could muster :doh:
ryanb31 wrote:
One simple reason. "Me". It's all about me. It will only work when everyone is working together.
I fully agree with this. Our religious teachings/feelings are a bit different on things like Greed, Envy, etc.. but both of us believe that they should be managed, and both of us have learned the "proper" way to go about that. The fact that they aren't is what causes problems. In what I have learned to believe, it is because they are repressed and denied. Either way, they play a negative roll for the most part. (I tried to flesh that out without going into religion or offending you.. not sure how I did).
If it moves, compile it
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
That is not because there is a lack of work. That is more likely because people are not trained for the work that is needed. For every field that is laying off there is multiple fields that can not hire fast enough because the candidates simply are not there.
I would have made this argument :D but you did it for me. I would have only followed with the availability of training and the means to do so. I think everyone is definately right about automation/robots. That seems to be a common agreement. Too bad I won't see significant automation in my lifetime.
If it moves, compile it
Ya never know. Technology is crazy like that. Small break throughs trigger intense changes that society rides the tidal waves on for decades and then starts new large waves off the ripples even after things seem to settle. Look at the digital computer and how it developed and has driven us into a mobile era. I stand in line at Chipolte and look around and atleast 50% of the people are doing something online with smart phones. Augmented reality will like improve the efficiency of what they are doing and also increase that number. And that is just around the corner.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Amish are one society I can think of that do o.k. some cults have functioned just fine, though they are lacking benefits of being connected with the world for the good cases that I have read. I'm not talking about the abusive cults, or the get rich cults either, so we can exclude them. both cases are missing the benefits of society, technology, etc. But they are the only examples I could muster :doh:
ryanb31 wrote:
One simple reason. "Me". It's all about me. It will only work when everyone is working together.
I fully agree with this. Our religious teachings/feelings are a bit different on things like Greed, Envy, etc.. but both of us believe that they should be managed, and both of us have learned the "proper" way to go about that. The fact that they aren't is what causes problems. In what I have learned to believe, it is because they are repressed and denied. Either way, they play a negative roll for the most part. (I tried to flesh that out without going into religion or offending you.. not sure how I did).
If it moves, compile it
You're right, I hadn't thought about the Amish. Good call.
Quote:
I tried to flesh that out without ... offending you.
I must not understand you because I was not offended. :)
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Yeah, I would probably do farming fulltime, and where I currently garden, brew beer, and generally DIY projects- programming would replace them. I'd hope to be able to do comedy, as it doesn't make money or produce living necessities now, it would probably exist in hobby form. This brings me to a point, what would happen to the large amount of creative types, artists, performers, we wouldn't need many, would they be forced to do labor jobs (as opposed to bartending, waittering, or tour guiding like they do now)?
People who actually wanted to perform, there isn't much reason why they shouldn't. I would think there would be more creative types as a result, which would give us all richer fuller experiences. I would also expect talent-less people to stop doing it for the money :D It is hard to say where people would go if they had the opportunity. I doubt as many would sit at home as people think. From my experience we like to have a purpose. IMO we tend to settle for less than we would like out of need.
If it moves, compile it
-
To me, the largest problem, is that someone has to divi everything up, or be in charge of the system that divi's things up.
-
You're right, I hadn't thought about the Amish. Good call.
Quote:
I tried to flesh that out without ... offending you.
I must not understand you because I was not offended. :)
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
Collin Jasnoch wrote: I think we should just abandon hard currency all together.
loctrice:
I'm for no money at all. People just doing what they want/like to do. Everyone has a job [or attends school (etc) to be trained for a job]. Would be nice, unfortunately people [and government] would screw it up. I put this off to a friend of mine once, and he was very abrasive about it. The notion that people would just go to work and nothing would cost any money was not something he could grasp. So people can just go to the market during the open operating hours and pick up some groceries.. stopping to check out only because it would be necessary for inventory. Things like that. He "what if'ed" me to death worried over details and explaining how it wouldn't work, and never even got the concept.
BobJanova:
In brief it wouldn't work because no-one would do the unfun things – fixing the sewers, taking your rubbish away, cleaning toilets, farming to the level that it would feed everyone – and you wouldn't be able to get people to work on large scale infrastructure projects.
I don't think that is true. First, it's hard to tell because money is a motivating factor for many people. This makes it very hard to find the actual truth. Also, I know many people who really enjoy physical labor. Some to feel honest, some to keep fit, etc. That may also be dishonest due to money being behind motivation.I also know people who feel it's a responsibility to do things (in reference to cleaning the garbage, etc.) Another thing we would have, is different solutions to problems. Who is to say, when corporations, money, etc.. don't run things that we find an entirely different solution to problems like hauling away the garbage and cleaning the sewer? Things like our electrical grids in the US would likely change by people who enjoy solving these types of problems... and probably in a way that wouldn't require the electricity to go out until the change was made. It is hard to say what would/could come about in these different circumstances because everything is engineered around the money situation. Some people really love to teach, others to research, others to work hard. There are people for everything and I believe it would work well.
If it moves, compile it
loctrice wrote:
First, it's hard to tell because money is a motivating factor for many people. This makes it very hard to find the actual truth.
That is simplistic. It doesn't really encapsulate the idea that money is an idealization of worth. I like $100 more than $1 because I can buty more loafs of bread with $100, rather than just because I want to roll around in money. (And for those that do like to roll around in it the rational for that is still tied up in idealization.)
loctrice wrote:
Also, I know many people who really enjoy physical labor.
Again simplistic. First it isn't just a matter of physical activity, but rather what the specific activity is. Just because I like to ride a bike doesn't mean that I am going to enjoy hiking down a sewer line. Second it ignores whether there is enough desire to meet the need. There probably are people that like sewer lines. But are there enough willing to do it for enough hours to keep it working? Finally it doesn't speak to competence. The fact that someone might want to walk down a sewer line doesn't mean that they can actually fix the problems that exist. So an alternative system would still need an incentive system and a system that excludes some (no matter how much they want to do it.)
loctrice wrote:
Who is to say, when corporations, money, etc.. don't
History for one. There are alternative culture norms for the idealization of worth but the fact remains that all had some way to do it. And since all had humans one can be sure that all such systems had problems as well. And the alternatives did not need to deal with very large economies either. If everyone is a farmer then helping the neighbor build a barn works because you need a farm too. But it completely fails when I need a heart surgeon and I am a farmer. It is no longer simple to exchange what is needed nor to determine how to judge worth.
-
I wanted to get my point across about those thoughts/feelings/emotions without triggering a religious debate about the deadly sins :D
If it moves, compile it
-
I think out technology is not ramping because of the money. We have potential engineers and scientists who do not make it into the field because they cannot afford to go to get the degrees, and in the end get overlooked entirely. As a simple example, I know a friend who was very much into circuitry. He could build breadboards, iron on circuits, and stuff that was way out of my league. He said he always wanted to do it, but in the end was a carpenter because that was what was necessary (money) at the time. I almost had him talked into pursuing it, because he really was gifted, but he died in a car crash. How many of those types of people are we overlooking? How many great artists will we never see because of the lack of adobe? etc...
If it moves, compile it
loctrice wrote:
I think out technology is not ramping because of the money.
I can't speak about you but money pays my bills. That money comes from sales. No innovation in the above. And certainly no innovation in the day to day realities of the market.
loctrice wrote:
How many great artists will we never see because of the lack of {fill in any term here}
Certainly far less than the average number of artists and certainly no more than the below average number of artists that any such statement would lead to.