Coming from the lounge - money
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
harold aptroot wrote:
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.
No. That was true. It is not true in the modern world. The realities of slavery do not produce the same economic gain as other strategies.
-
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
mark merrens wrote:
There is only 1 house available: who get's it?
The gun owner!
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
harold aptroot wrote:
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.
No. That was true. It is not true in the modern world. The realities of slavery do not produce the same economic gain as other strategies.
-
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
-
Wow... I'm still looking for the joke icons, but it seems that most of you guys here are actually seriously discussing the pros and cons of communism. SERIOUSLY? Come on, are you 5 years old or what?
-
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
There is one way that communism can work: if everyone in the commune has a real personal interest in its wellbeing. You mentioned the Amish already, and their farmsteads work because it's a family group, and everyone does best if the farm keeps running as it needs to (though I imagine you'll found there is an authority figure, probably the man of the house, and much of the unfun work is done under threat of force or sanction, even there). Hippy communes work pretty well too, because all the people that are attracted to such things have a big self-interest in showing that the system works, so they pull their weight, and they also tend not to be selfish people. Most families work as a commune, when you study it with an objective eye: no-one is paid for cooking dinner, taking the bins out, painting the windowframes, etc, but they still do it because they have a personal investment in keeping the household in order. However, once you extend it beyond one person's immediate circle of close friends/family, people don't have that personal attachment and it's better for them personally in the short term to not do the work that helps the rest of the community. In a typical town, me repairing the fence of that guy three houses down does me no good, and it takes time and effort that I'd like to be spending doing something else.
-
Nothing actually... It just scares the *** out of me that some people here - most likely intelligent people - seriously consider it as an alternative. At least that's the feeling I get after reading the posts above.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
it seems to work rather well for China and India
I can only suggest that your definition of slavery differs from mine.
-
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
I think others have pointed towards it but here goes: Money in itself has no intrinsic value. The value of money is the value we bring to it, so a dopey actor(as mentioned by a previous poster) earns lots of money because society 'values' what this actor does. When inflation goes out of control barter systems take over - just look at Zimbabwe and how inflation made money almost worthless... I don't know what the answer is however I have lived in communes and can assure you that exactly the same dynamics we see taking place in the business world, people assuming power over others, occurs in communes too. I think the answer is more about the ability for people to empathise and understand other people, then to act from that position without necessarily having all the answers to hand - take the US where the healthcare system is for those who can pay for it - there are still physicians and hospitals that will treat people for free out of compassion.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
Yea I threw that in mostly to troll. Failed attempt, apparently. Seriously though, how does slavery suddenly not work anymore? The cheap labor of India and China work, and slavery would be even cheaper wouldn't it?
harold aptroot wrote:
The cheap labor of India and China work, and slavery would be even cheaper wouldn't it?
Your analogy rather specifically demonstrates the difference. The demand for cheap labor in India has risen over time and because of that now the people doing the actual work are getting paid more.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
The cheap labor of India and China work, and slavery would be even cheaper wouldn't it?
Your analogy rather specifically demonstrates the difference. The demand for cheap labor in India has risen over time and because of that now the people doing the actual work are getting paid more.
-
Right, so imagine you could whip them and pay them nothing. They'd still work, so you'd have more profit.
harold aptroot wrote:
Right, so imagine you could whip them and pay them nothing. They'd still work, so you'd have more profit.
You are still missing the point. You are equating slavery with nothing but hourly pay. You are also assuming that productivity and value could be effectively driven by physical hardship. Based on your analogy one need to nothing more than put a slave collar on an individual and then shareholders of companies would no longer need to pay a large salary for a CEO.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Right, so imagine you could whip them and pay them nothing. They'd still work, so you'd have more profit.
You are still missing the point. You are equating slavery with nothing but hourly pay. You are also assuming that productivity and value could be effectively driven by physical hardship. Based on your analogy one need to nothing more than put a slave collar on an individual and then shareholders of companies would no longer need to pay a large salary for a CEO.
I am still missing the point. Why don't you just explain to point instead of messing around with silly analogies? And well yes you don't want to have a slave as CEO. But then why can't you still produce more cheaply if you don't have to pay any wages to the workforce?