RE: So what's your plan?

RE: So what's your plan? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/9/2011 11:15:54 AM)
quote: And it will fall on deaf ears for those who want to blame everything on the GOP. Certainly there's plenty of blame to go around, on a bipartisan basis.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/9/2011 2:23:59 PM)
quote: Because the Federal Reserve is the only institution in the world which can legally create US Dollars, the federal government must borrow from it. Maybe this is your disconnect...or one of them. It's flatly false. The Treasury Department auctions Treasury securities, and anyone can buy them. The Fed might choose to buy some if it wishes to increase currency. But it isn't even a majority stakeholder. As of 6/08/2011, $9,743,261,382,320.32 of the debt was in public hands, and the total intragovernment holdings is only $4,601,372,779,544.67 (of the total $14,344,634,161,864.99 debt). And if the Fed doesn't want an increase, it just sits out the auction. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/9/2011 7:32:39 PM)
quote: I would start with adjusting zoning laws so we can get vertical. We build massive housing tracts that are miles away from places of employment thus forcing the citizens into their cars to get to their jobs and the local mall. We can be smart about it. I don't want bars next to parks or peep shows next to schools but a little common sense can go a long way here. How much fuel is used to get from point A to point B? As a country, we once had the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world. We used up 1/2 of that resource in the span of 25 years. Billions of dollars worth of fuel have been wasted simply by sitting in traffic. By going vertical we can solve several problems in one fell swoop and avoid the prediction that we will increase our fuel consumption by 58% by the year 2025. We are the determiners of our future. Vertical - First two floors, small businesses, next 10 floors for housing, next 5 for manufacturing and so on. I'll let the experts work out the logistics but again common sense says that if you can walk downstairs to shop, walk upstairs and go to work you will save time and money and saving big bux every month can be used for other needful things since you won't need to make car payments, insurance payments or pay for gas, new tires etc. This also will cut down on our need for foreign oil. It needn't be mandatory because some people will die with their car keys in their hands, but given the option I believe enough people will make up for those who still want to drive. Along with new zoning laws, we need to get serious about public transportation and we can look over the pond to the amazing systems which are already in place in Europe and working well. Good ideas come from all over and we should not hesitate to cannibalize good ideas regardless of their origin. Bita, Question. Much of the population lives in rural areas, and many "city dwellers" live in the suburbs by choice. Would you force people to live in the cities? If not, would this adequately reflect a savings within a given city?

subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/9/2011 11:08:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: No, this isn't a resource-based economy. So you repeat, but you do so ignoring the explanation for why it is, and at a very basic level at that. Money greases transaction and facilitates accounting and portability of value, but you are mistaking this for the resource economy it reflects. In fact, ALL economies are resource economies. Now, whether resources are scarce is another discussion. Economically, "scarce" really means "finite." I'd be willing to entertain at an idealistic level that this is not strictly true, but that's a philosophical musing other than the point at hand. No, all economies are not resource economies; they are monetary-economic systems. Take away enough of the money, and everything comes to a grinding halt. Take my previous Great Depression comment for example... the willing and able workers were still there, the factories were still there, the natural resources were still there. So what was the problem? A lack of money! A resource based economy (RBE), in the Mechnocratic theory and as explained by the Zeitgeist Movement, is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society. A RBE would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all. Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: "Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war?" The answer was "No, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources." It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war. In a RBE, all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative. This approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. The RBE vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body. A RBE would not only add to the well being of people, but it would also provide the necessary information enabling people to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power. At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of earth's inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today's society would no longer be necessary. A RBE would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern. Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case, however. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people; they would instead shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat. A RBE would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. Consider the fact that the sun in just one hour could give us enough energy to power the entire earth for a year! A RBE must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people. What else would a RBE do? Apply technology intelligently and efficiently, conserve energy, reduce waste, and provide more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Planned obsolescence and cyclical consumption for the purpose of supporting a monetary-economic system would become unnecessary and non-existent in a resource based economy. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity. With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat. This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities. If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water; their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold. Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed, and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/9/2011 11:13:56 PM)
quote: As I mentioned earlier, there's $54 trillion in wealth in the U.S. The national debt is $14 trillion. Private debt is around $36 trillion. So we've got it covered, if you really want to pay it off. In regards to the repayment of debt, then what you're saying is that we can collectively retire all debt without triggering a monetary contraction that would collapse the economy. Is this your position?

BitaTruble -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/10/2011 1:42:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Bita, Question. Much of the population lives in rural areas, and many "city dwellers" live in the suburbs by choice. Would you force people to live in the cities? If not, would this adequately reflect a savings within a given city? No, not at all. People can live where they like, but given the option, I would choose to walk downstairs to the store and upstairs to work with my residence on the middle floors and maybe a school on the top floor where I can send my children (if I wasn't an old lady and still had schoolers at home). I remember a couple of days when I was living in MN and working at UHC. I was the only employee in my department who showed up for work because no one else could get there due to snow storms. I lived across the street and simply walked. Such an arrangement would cut down on absenteeism for the employer, help keep the kids in school (MN closes for snow days which have to be made up sometime during the year which costs more money) and so on and so forth. I already know that there are people who would rather die than give up their car keys but there will be plenty of people who would give up their cars which is going to free up the roads so folks aren't sitting in traffic and for those who still want to drive, it's going to be cheaper in the long run for them as well. No sitting in traffic wasting gas, less cars on the road, cheaper insurance because there are less cars on the road. The people who would choose the option of living and working in a vertical enviornment are going to be saving a LOT of money just be getting rid of car insurance and car payments. That money can be used for other priorities for the individual family in whatever manner they choose and a lot of folks are going to like getting that extra $10000 or so a year in their pockets. Just seems like win-win to me if we start planning our new cities vertically instead of horizontally.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/10/2011 7:23:34 AM)
quote: No, all economies are not resource economies; they are monetary-economic systems. Sorry, but you need to make a convincing, supported case for this. We don't even measure the economy by money, but rather the resources--we don't even have that much money (nor would we want to). What you're saying is like saying "We don't have things, because we count them in numbers. We only have numbers. Without numbers, we would have no things."

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/10/2011 11:04:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Bita, Question. Much of the population lives in rural areas, and many "city dwellers" live in the suburbs by choice. Would you force people to live in the cities? If not, would this adequately reflect a savings within a given city? No, not at all. People can live where they like, but given the option, I would choose to walk downstairs to the store and upstairs to work with my residence on the middle floors and maybe a school on the top floor where I can send my children (if I wasn't an old lady and still had schoolers at home). I remember a couple of days when I was living in MN and working at UHC. I was the only employee in my department who showed up for work because no one else could get there due to snow storms. I lived across the street and simply walked. Such an arrangement would cut down on absenteeism for the employer, help keep the kids in school (MN closes for snow days which have to be made up sometime during the year which costs more money) and so on and so forth. I already know that there are people who would rather die than give up their car keys but there will be plenty of people who would give up their cars which is going to free up the roads so folks aren't sitting in traffic and for those who still want to drive, it's going to be cheaper in the long run for them as well. No sitting in traffic wasting gas, less cars on the road, cheaper insurance because there are less cars on the road. The people who would choose the option of living and working in a vertical enviornment are going to be saving a LOT of money just be getting rid of car insurance and car payments. That money can be used for other priorities for the individual family in whatever manner they choose and a lot of folks are going to like getting that extra $10000 or so a year in their pockets. Just seems like win-win to me if we start planning our new cities vertically instead of horizontally. Bita, the reason I ask is that some future planners do, in fact, envision a world where rural/suburban living no longer becomes a viable option energy-wise or travel-wise, indeed, forcing people to move to the cities.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/10/2011 9:11:26 PM)
quote: The premise upon which this system is based is that the earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant This snippet I can agree with (not the hyperbole you tacked on after the quoted portion). quote: Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society. But here's the problem--why would these goods be supplied? By whom? What's the incentive? quote: money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources That's only one function of money, and the resources need not be scarce in the sense you're using it (vs. the economic sense of finite). Money are serves as a unit of account and a store of value. As a medium of exchange, it lowers transaction costs. Look, there's one aspect of this I can get behind. A few studies have shown that we spend about three hours a day producing; the rest of the day is spent taking things away, essentially spinning our wheels. A capitalist system relies on competition, and while that can be healthy and bring forth the best, it also has it's negative human side. But to blame money for this is like blaming numbers for a hurricane's destruction. The numbers just help you determine the extent. The hurricane did the damage (and perhaps some poorly planned housing). Money also provides a system to solve the above problem.

subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/11/2011 12:16:37 AM)
quote: Sorry, but you need to make a convincing, supported case for this. We don't even measure the economy by money, but rather the resources--we don't even have that much money (nor would we want to) The point I've made twice on this thread already and will make again, is that without enough money in the system, the economy slows to the speed of molasses as it did during the Great Depression. If we have the: willing and able workers, factories, and resources; but the economy is in ruins because of a monetary contraction; then we have a monetary-economic system. Resources don't mean squat in our system with no money to process and move them to the end users. Laborers don't mean squat in our system without money to pay them. Business infrastructure doesn't mean squat in our system without money to run them. But if you've got money, there are many other directions to go in to profit, if your primary resource is absent. Even if all natural resources were unavailable to you, your money could profit by just using the money itself. Institutions are well known for labeling things in ways to mask the truth from the people. Why is the Federal Reserve called "Federal" when it has never been a federal entity? Why is the word "economy" used when our planned-obsolescence and cyclical-consumption laden system does the exact opposite of economize? It's all sugarcoating, so reality becomes easier for the masses to swallow. When anyone calls our economy resource-based, they sugarcoat and help mask the truth.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/11/2011 9:04:07 AM)
quote: When anyone calls our economy resource-based, they sugarcoat and help mask the truth. Oh come on. Look, sub...yes, money facilitates transaction, but AMONG RESOURCES. Your version of an economy still begs the question, as yet unanswered: quote: But here's the problem--why would these goods be supplied? By whom? What's the incentive? Without money, how will you do this? There's a convenient omission that sugar coats your idealistic fantasy. Also, your depression example arbitrarily picks money contraction as the root cause. Rampant speculation preceded it, and the Fed tightened money to try to curb it. Banks had been failing all through the 20s, about 1,000 per year since 1921. The value of the banks, their net worth, actually increased from $9.8 billion in 1929 to $10.4 billion in 1930. Their total deposits also increased from $58.3 billion in 1929 to an all time high of $60.4 billion in 1930. The banking system saw hard times in the early years of the Great Depression but this did not occur prior to the start of the depression. Presumably, people were moving from stocks back to money. The banks were accumulating cash. This cash was funds they had available but were not loaning out either because there was insufficient demand for loans or because the banks were being cautious. In a fractional reserve system, that's going to tighten the money supply. But it's an effect, not a cause. The credit crunch was the root problem---and actually, that's the root problem today. The money contraction followed.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/11/2011 3:08:43 PM)
quote: A RBE would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. Consider the fact that the sun in just one hour could give us enough energy to power the entire earth for a year! A RBE must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people. Incidentally, I agree with this part, especially the solar part, but this is in no way unique to your RBE; we could do it now if we had the will.

subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/11/2011 3:42:50 PM)
quote: Look, sub...yes, money facilitates transaction, but AMONG RESOURCES. Muse, I've already demonstrated how our current system crumbles without adequate money. I'm not going to argue with you about this. I've said what I have to say regarding why we have a monetary-economic system and not a resource-based economy, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. quote: Your version of an economy still begs the question, as yet unanswered: --why would these goods be supplied? By whom? What's the incentive? Without money, how will you do this? There's a convenient omission that sugar coats your idealistic fantasy. Why? Because humanity requires them for survival. How, and by whom? By harnessing full technological capabilities within an almost fully cybernated system. When fully implemented, this would require between 3 to 4% of the population to run. What's the incentive? This small percentage of people would choose to serve a benevolent system that provides for all needs for all of mankind. The incentive would be very similiar to the reasons why people today volunteer for charities and other worthy causes. It is amazing how many man-hours are freely volunteered today. Within an honest, benevolent system that serves all, even more people would volunteer. quote: Also, your depression example arbitrarily picks money contraction as the root cause. Rampant speculation preceded it, and the Fed tightened money to try to curb it. Banks had been failing all through the 20s, about 1,000 per year since 1921. The value of the banks, their net worth, actually increased from $9.8 billion in 1929 to $10.4 billion in 1930. Their total deposits also increased from $58.3 billion in 1929 to an all time high of $60.4 billion in 1930. The banking system saw hard times in the early years of the Great Depression but this did not occur prior to the start of the depression. Presumably, people were moving from stocks back to money. The banks were accumulating cash. This cash was funds they had available but were not loaning out either because there was insufficient demand for loans or because the banks were being cautious. In a fractional reserve system, that's going to tighten the money supply. But it's an effect, not a cause. The credit crunch was the root problem---and actually, that's the root problem today. The money contraction followed. The monetary-economic system requires perpetual growth to sustain itself. Perpetual growth is impossible on a finite planet with finite natural resources. The monetary system also breeds corruption and greed, which help fuel boom cycles that invariably lead to bust cycles. Bust cycles include monetary contractions. So perhaps you're right when you say that the monetary contraction wasn't the root cause of the Great Depression... but the invalid monetary system sure the hell was! We need to evolve as a species and move beyond an invalid, corrupt system that causes most of the pain, suffering, and aberrated behavior that we see today.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/11/2011 8:04:19 PM)
quote: Muse, I've already demonstrated how our current system crumbles without adequate money. But this is a tautology. Money is how we facilitate the exchange of resources, and obviously the system doesn't work without what we use to facilitate it. Your version of an economy still begs the question, as yet unanswered: --why would these goods be supplied? By whom? What's the incentive? Without money, how will you do this? There's a convenient omission that sugar coats your idealistic fantasy. quote: Why? Because humanity requires them for survival. No, in most cases, we really don't. quote: How, and by whom? By harnessing full technological capabilities within an almost fully cybernated system. When fully implemented, this would require between 3 to 4% of the population to run. What's the incentive? This small percentage of people would choose to serve a benevolent system that provides for all needs for all of mankind. The incentive would be very similiar to the reasons why people today volunteer for charities and other worthy causes. It is amazing how many man-hours are freely volunteered today. Within an honest, benevolent system that serves all, even more people would volunteer. But that's not to say those efforts get directed where they need to go, as markets offer incentive to do so. In short, your RBE has no facilitation of resource exchange, beyond "it will just work out for the benefit of all."

subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/11/2011 10:06:59 PM)
My version of an economy is based on economizing the earth's natural resources, and distributing them equally to all the earth's inhabitants. Your version is based upon sustained growth, which requires planned obsolescence, cyclical consumption, massive waste and pollution to perpetuate itself; which is the direct opposite of economizing. Your concern about incentive is a common concern. Most people can't even imagine being incentivized by anything other than monetary reward, for the monetary system is all we've known. This has been our life long conditioning, even though we're smart enough to understand that the current system is corrupt, causes waste, pollution, aberrated behavior, hunger, war, etc. In other words, we want and need our money, but ignore the rest of the equation. But once again, people would choose to serve a benevolent system that provides for all needs for all of mankind. The incentive would be very similiar to the reasons why people today volunteer for charities and other worthy causes. How would a resource-based economy work? Based upon the scientific method, here is how the logical reasoning for industrial production methods would unfold: 1) Survey the planetary resources. 2) Decide upon what needs to be produced, oriented by priority ranging from bare necessities (food, water, shelter, etc.) to utility-based production items (raw materials, automated machines, technological development, etc.) to production items used for non-utility based purposes (entertainment media, musical instruments, etc.) 3) Optimization of production methods to maximize product lifespan. 4) Distribution methods for human access. 5) Optimized recycling of those products that eventually become obsolete or inoperable.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/12/2011 7:14:56 AM)
quote: Your version is based upon sustained growth, which requires planned obsolescence, cyclical consumption, massive waste and pollution to perpetuate itself; which is the direct opposite of economizing. That's an unsupported leap in logic. Since you're a fan of the scientific method, draw the connection. Seems you're pointing to abuses and proclaiming them causal factors. If such abuse is mandatory, make the case. While you're at it, explain how your utopia will be free from such abuses.

subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/12/2011 1:20:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: Your version is based upon sustained growth, which requires planned obsolescence, cyclical consumption, massive waste and pollution to perpetuate itself; which is the direct opposite of economizing. That's an unsupported leap in logic. Since you're a fan of the scientific method, draw the connection. Seems you're pointing to abuses and proclaiming them causal factors. If such abuse is mandatory, make the case. While you're at it, explain how your utopia will be free from such abuses. Before you send me off an a wild goose chase, let's clarify a few things. Do you agree or disagree that the current economic system requires sustained growth? If you believe it does require sustained growth as I do, please also state whether you agree or disagree with the following: 1) On a finite planet with finite resources, sustained growth requires planned obsolescence and cyclical consumption. 2) Planned obsolescence and cyclical consumption produce massive waste and pollution. Just for the record, a resource-based economy utililizing the scientific method and maximized cybernation, is not a utopia. I never made such claims, and never will.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/13/2011 7:39:13 AM)
OK, fair enough--in fact, good idea. Let me add a couple too. First, you seem to be using "monetary system" as synonymous with "capitalism" (i.e., socialism also uses a monetary system, as does feudalism, etc.). This may be at the heart of some of our disparate takes. As such, the monetary system is a reflection, not a cause, of the type of economic woes you're lamenting, all of which are consequences (potentially) of capitalism and/or fiscal policy (not monetary policy). So, speaking of capitalism....(yes, mixed with a little socialism in our economic system, as are all major economies today)... Capitalism does depend on growth. That need not be sustained, just long term (i.e., cycles are natural). Resources are only finite in the short run, and all the graphs you learned in school are snapshots of a moment, and aren't about growth. Growth does not depend on planned obsolescence. I will always need to consume food, for example. Many other goods are also continually consumed, and others wear out, not by design, but by wear and tear over time. Yes, competitive companies in leading edge industries will wisely make their own product obsolete, before the competition does. But that's relevant only to those who demand the latest iPod, and is industry specific. It's not some immutable economic law. Capitalism does rely on consumption, yes. As above, however, consumption is ongoing. Some of it is essential, some is luxury, a lot is in the middle. quote: 2) Planned obsolescence and cyclical consumption produce massive waste and pollution. *As an immutable law? Absolutely not. Does that happen? Yes, because of market externalities. Here's where regulation can prove useful. Not to dismiss these out of hand...but these are things for which you would need to make a case.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/13/2011 10:50:27 AM)
Oh, also... I don't buy your assertion (if I'm understanding you correctly) that the current system limits abundance. Resources are resources, and they continue to be what they are. I DO think that people mistakenly get caught up in seeing only the monetary system portion (I think you do too, honestly), taking it for the whole, missing the resources whose exchange it facilitates. Thanks.

subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/13/2011 7:02:10 PM)
Thanks for your explaining your thoughts, Muse. More about planned obsolescence and cyclical consumption for the benefit of all reading: It's the requirement of perpetual consumption that keeps an employer in business, maintains the employees' jobs, and gives both of them income to consume. It's important to understand that this payment-consumption cycle, or "cyclical consumption," cannot stop, or the entire economic structure would collapse. Nothing that is physically produced can ever maintain an operational lifespan longer than what can be endured, in order to maintain economic integrity through cyclical consumption. In other words, everything produced must break down within a respective amount of time in order to continue sufficient financial circulation to support the players (consumers, employees, employers) in the game. This could be defined as planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence can be intentional, which deliberately withholds efficiency so that the product breaks down; or it can be consequential, which could include shortcuts in production, cheap materials, and poor design, in an effort to save money and quickly create repeat customers... which all contributes to massive waste. A quick stroll through any Dollar Store would show many examples of items with short life spans. Waste is a deliberate byproduct of industry's need to perpetuate cyclical consumption. Replaced and obsolete products often end up in landfills, further polluting our environment. This need for cyclical consumption, which could be considered the engine which powers the entire economic system, is inherently dangerous and corrupt; for the nature of economic necessity doesn't allow for environmentally sustainable practices to be maximized. On a finite planet, why would we want to settle for unsustainable practices? More to follow...

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625