Coming from the lounge - money
-
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?
-
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?
harold aptroot wrote:
I am still missing the point. Why don't you just explain to point instead of messing around with silly analogies?
First because the analogies demonstrate that the slavery model is not just a matter of wages. Second for a full analysis you need to find some economic studies based on the decline of slavery in the US.
harold aptroot wrote:
But then why can't you still produce more cheaply if you don't have to pay any wages to the workforce?
I would suggest reading some economic studies. But a simplisitic answer is because free people won't do that. And slaves won't produce a competitive product.