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

subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/13/2011 8:06:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery 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. Ah... but I beg to differ with you. The current system works on a premise of scarcity. The more scarce the product or commodity, the more money/profit can be made. Here's perhaps an extreme example, but it illustrates something most will be able to identify with: The diamond industry. Its manipulation of scarcity artificially drives up price and profits. On the other end of the spectrum, you have air. It's so abundant, that there's no profit to be made. Pretty much everything else falls in-between. Take crops for example. Most of us have heard that the government pays farmers not to grow crops. Why would the government ever subsidize this, other than to help create artifical scarcity to prop up grain prices? Even money itself is kept scarce, to retain its value. For an example of what happens when money is no longer scarce, see Weimar Germany 1923. The current system requires scarcity, whether genuine or contrived.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/14/2011 8:36:39 AM)
Honestly, sub, I feel you're ignoring points I've already explained in favor of posting pet points so long repeated that you've accepted them as truth without further examination. I have to go for now, but will answer this point by point later.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/14/2011 8:23:07 PM)
OK. In addition to the point above, you have these listed as if one argument, but in fact it's a scatter shot of multiple issues, along with several misunderstandings, and as such, misrepresents the situation. quote: The current system works on a premise of scarcity. The more scarce the product or commodity, the more money/profit can be made. No. Rather, the models commonly studied in school are SNAPSHOTS of just one particular point. At one particular point, we will have what we have, and no more. But resources are continually growing. My orchard grows larger, people complete work, new ideas add value...it's an ongoing process, not static at all. If it were, you couldn't earn anything, but only get it from someone/somewhere else. But that's not the case. quote: Here's perhaps an extreme example, but it illustrates something most will be able to identify with: The diamond industry. Its manipulation of scarcity artificially drives up price and profits. The diamond/water paradox goes back to Adam Smith, and it demonstrates another mistaken assumption--value is assigned not on need, but on marginal utility. You absolutely need water...but you DON'T need all the abundance of water available (in this country...it's more scarce elsewhere in the world). And once you have what you need, more water has no value. You don't need diamonds personally, though they're handy in industry. Those who want them badly enough bid them up, as they are relatively scarce. Further, you introduce an absolute fabrication--what manipulation? Diamonds ARE scarce...no one's making that up. You seem determined to be fighting the forces of evil. But some things just are. This is one of those things. quote: On the other end of the spectrum, you have air. It's so abundant, that there's no profit to be made. Here's where adding value comes in. I pay for compressed air for my tires, and I'm glad of the service. Some pay for air ionizers, filters, humidifiers/dehumidifiers, and many of us pay for air conditioners or forced hot air furnaces. People pay for tanks of oxygen for medical purposes. In each case, a need is met, providing value. quote: Pretty much everything else falls in-between. Take crops for example. Most of us have heard that the government pays farmers not to grow crops. Why would the government ever subsidize this, other than to help create artifical scarcity to prop up grain prices? This is hardly an example that fits "pretty much everything else," as most things do NOT have government subsidies. In this case, yes, it limits supply to prop up prices. If you want to oppose that program, fair enough. But it's hardly representative of the entire economic system. quote: Even money itself is kept scarce, to retain its value. For an example of what happens when money is no longer scarce, see Weimar Germany 1923. No, to retain its accuracy as the accounting system it is. Otherwise, it no longer serves as a secure measure of the resources it represents. You keep discussing money as if it's a resource crowding out other resources. It's not. It's a concept, a unit of measurement, not the resources themselves, which are the actual economy. quote: The current system requires scarcity, whether genuine or contrived. Again, you haven't made a case...just reasserted your assertion. In fact, the system assumes growth over the long term.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/14/2011 9:31:56 PM)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6186684678299366197&hl=en# PBS Frontline episode on diamonds. Goes over the "rarity" and "value" and history of the diamond industry which has not always been good.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/15/2011 5:20:19 AM)
OK, but begs the question. Some commodities simply ARE more rare than others, not because greedy people are manipulating them, but because they are relatively scarce. Is that in question, or do either of you want to argue that all scarcity is contrived?

NeedToUseYou -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/15/2011 5:46:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery OK, but begs the question. Some commodities simply ARE more rare than others, not because greedy people are manipulating them, but because they are relatively scarce. Is that in question, or do either of you want to argue that all scarcity is contrived? no, a lot of things are rare, but there are things that aren't as rare or valuable as they are presented to be and some of that "rarity" stems from "maximizing" profit to the detriment of the consumer. However, most of the time that situation only can exist because of the government, or outright illegal intimidation. I was just pointing out diamonds suck, and are an evil industry overall, that does try to artificially keep production and availability limited. I'm not a zeitgeister, I simply think the world isn't advanced enough for it, and an economy like subfever wants, IMO, will naturally emerge when and only when technology develops that allows it, until then we will just do what we are doing. Maybe a 100 years from now? I don't know. I think it's possible at some point to eliminate money entirely and still have a functional system, but like I said, we aren't there yet, and probably won't be for a long while.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/15/2011 8:11:03 AM)
But here's the point--greed and corruption far precede our present day monetary system, including over diamonds, gold, and so forth. Further, there still was, in those days of yore, a monetary system, just different from today--goods had a medium of exchange, there was a unit of account, and thus value could be stored. In short, the two phenomena are proximate, but not linked causally.

eihwaz -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/15/2011 5:51:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery greed and corruption far precede our present day monetary system In addition to being a medium of exchange, money is also a medium for the expression of greed and corruption.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/15/2011 6:51:52 PM)
Again, greed and corruption have been around for quite some time, and manage to thrive without a monetary system.

eihwaz -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/15/2011 8:26:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Again, greed and corruption have been around for quite some time, and manage to thrive without a monetary system. Quite so. I was making just that point albeit more implicitly. Money is one possible medium, not the source, of greed and corruption. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. 1 Timothy 6:10 And who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool? Yet he will have control over all the work into which I have poured my effort and skill under the sun. This too is meaningless. Ecclesiastes 2:19

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/16/2011 9:44:12 AM)
OK, thanks for clarifying--I did indeed miss your implicit intent originally.

subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/16/2011 11:36:40 PM)
quote: In addition to being a medium of exchange, money is also a medium for the expression of greed and corruption. The monetary system's foremost motivating principle is profit, or, the acquisition of money through the exploitation... of others. All players in the game must seek out a strategy to acquire income in order to survive. Profit interest almost always comes before human concern. The psychological and sociological ramifications resulting from the priority of profit are of grave proportions when it comes to the conduct of human beings. An entire structure of imposed control, the legal system, has been created to deal with the endless problems associated with the need for survival by way of gain/profit/income. And if you look closely enough, you will see that nearly every act of strategic monetary gain is corrupt by its very construct, but it is just accepted as normal by the conditioned culture to whatever degree is deemed tolerable by consensus. This lends itself to a distortion of values, including the manipulation of consumers by advertising. An example would be "fashion." Signature "Tommy Hilfiger" shirts, trade marked "Prada Bags," and flashy Rolex watches are examples of products where the actual utility or function of an items has lost relevance, with importance now derived by what the item represents ... giving further rise to collective greed, ego, and jealously. Our behavior should be guided by the priority of seeking the highest optimization of circumstances that preserve and maximize the abundance and quality of the necessities of life for all people. Sadly, this is not happening. The monetary system continues to operate with the primary interest of short-term gains, while ignoring long-term destruction. It is easy to brush these truths aside by saying that people were greedy even before the monetary system came into existence, and therefore, there is no casual effect. Yes, there were greedy people, but what was that greed based upon? It was based upon scarcity and fear. However, what we have today is far different than what existed back then, and that is, the technological means to provide abundance for all. There would be no need to horde, and feed one's ego unless still confined to our current aberrations... which evolved from a world of scarcity and a lack of means to equitably distribute. It's time to evolve as a species, before we... and our environment... reach the point of no return.

subfever -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/17/2011 7:54:18 AM)
I think most would agree that our monetary-economic system requires that we all feed off each other, one way or another. Has anyone ever noticed all the entities and people feeding off of a simple real estate transaction? Or, let’s look at health care. Health care comprises 17.3% of the GDP. That’s more than 1/6th of our economy! And what does health care represent? Sick and dying people! Let’s take a hypothetical example, apply it to our monetary-economic system, and examine what the end result might be. Let’s suppose, for example, that an inexpensive and natural (organically-based and non-patentable) common cure was suddenly developed for most major health ailments and allowed to surface to the mainstream for the benefit of all. For the sake of illustrative simplicity, we’ll leave diet and nutrition out of the equation. So now this “miraculous” common cure has quickly eliminated the vast majority of disease, leaving the primary focus of health care on injury repair and related rehab... which is a small fraction of today’s overall health care field. How would this change affect the overall economy, assuming no new sector simultaneously emerged to replace traditional health care? Keep in mind that we’ve already seen technological replacement of human labor in other sectors, with no signs of this trend stopping either. To summarize, what affect upon the overall economy would the above hypothetical scenario have?

eihwaz -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/17/2011 9:32:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subfever quote: In addition to being a medium of exchange, money is also a medium for the expression of greed and corruption. The monetary system's foremost motivating principle is profit, or, the acquisition of money through the exploitation... of others. All players in the game must seek out a strategy to acquire income in order to survive. Disagree. The profit motive is a feature of capitalism and, in particular, American capitalism. While it may be used to pursue the profit motive, the monetary system itself is an intrinsically neutral mechanism, one of several systems used to implement the profit motive. quote: ORIGINAL: subfever The psychological and sociological ramifications resulting from the priority of profit are of grave proportions when it comes to the conduct of human beings. Agreed. The supremacy of the profit motive is destructive. One could imagine that there are possible capitalistic systems which balance incentives such as profit with the public good, while preserving the creativity, innovation, and beneficent competition of capitalism. quote: ORIGINAL: subfever It's time to evolve as a species, before we... and our environment... reach the point of no return. Agreed. Although, in the long run, the environment will probably do just fine. It could very well happen that we will be forced to evolve by environmental change or even catastrophe. Probably wouldn't be the first time a species had to do or die (although I can't think of any examples). "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power." -- President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/18/2011 8:28:39 PM)
quote: The monetary system's foremost motivating principle is profit, or, the acquisition of money through the exploitation... of others. All players in the game must seek out a strategy to acquire income in order to survive. Profit interest almost always comes before human concern. The psychological and sociological ramifications resulting from the priority of profit are of grave proportions when it comes to the conduct of human beings. fever, Another post that ends with the destruction of humankind. Gesh. As for "brushing things aside," look--I've repeatedly asked you to make your case. You haven't. Instead, you're offering a growing list of other beefs, continuing to assign them to the monetary system, continually without being able to demonstrate the causal link. Come on. At what point do you admit that you don't have any causal link---you have a mistaken assumption. Let's just take the quoted portion above. It's nonsense. Here's why....again. You're mixing other things into the monetary system. 1) Profit is not the principle of the monetary system. It is the basic assumption of economic models--NOT to be confused with the monetary system, which again, is a unit of measurement/exchange/storing value, not the economy itself (which could actually run without money, just inconveniently). 2) That acquisition of money demands exploitation of others is absolutely ridiculous. It can involve that, but the vast majority of money is earned by supplying goods. Do you exploit others to earn a paycheck? I certainly don't--in fact, I substantially help others, often by helping them help still others. 3) "The game," as you call it, is not dependent upon earning an income. That's common, yes, but it's hardly the only way to do this. It's not the only avenue to access to resources. 4) Profit interest actually almost never comes before human concern. As a business consultant before I was hired away to teach, I can tell you that the main reason most businesses have trouble is that the primary motivating factor is not profit, as economic models must assume, but ego. Incidentally, that's the reason most people have trouble too, and why they make decisions not in their best interest. 5) Your last sentence quoted above is as obviously false as it is sweepingly ponderous. Come on. Look around you. Does this describe you, your friends, your neighbors, your family, your associates? It certainly doesn't describe me or mine. It doesn't even describe the vast majority of businesses, which, if you ever actually spent time with them, you'll find take their role in the community and in society very seriously and responsibly. What you have, fever, is a set of unsupported assumptions mistakenly extrapolated from two points: there are evils and abuses in the world of economics and business there is waste and unsustainable practice in business and in the economy These are true. There certainly are such instances, even many of them. But you then jump to conclude that this defines the entire economy and all the people in it, and fever, it simply doesn't. Look around you. Open your eyes. Fight the evil, sure, but recognize the vast good that's around you every moment of every day...including in the economic realm. Let go of tightly held myths you're unable to support, beyond lamenting others "brushing aside" what you can only pretend is universal truth. I'm making an issue of this because it saddens me to see such misery repeated. These myths serve as unconscious excuses not to thrive, to live as a victim at the mercy of the system, and it's all nonsense. The problem isn't the entire world except for you and a few selected evolved thinkers who can see the light. The problem is your fantasy of a dark world held in chains by...numbers. A system to count the relative value among goods. Only this, and nothing more. Go in peace. Sleep well. It's a beautiful world, filled with beautiful people. Flawed in places, yes. But beautiful. See it. I promise you, it will be well worth it, and honestly, it will change your life.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/20/2011 7:46:46 PM)
quote: This lends itself to a distortion of values, including the manipulation of consumers by advertising. An example would be "fashion." Signature "Tommy Hilfiger" shirts, trade marked "Prada Bags," and flashy Rolex watches are examples of products where the actual utility or function of an items has lost relevance, with importance now derived by what the item represents ... giving further rise to collective greed, ego, and jealously. Incidentally, this is a good example of why it's NOT about money, but about EGO. Without the ego desire to appear with branded goods, the demand wouldn't push the price up. I.e., in this instance, money is at the END of the causal chain, not the start. Without money, it'd be who has the biggest feather.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/21/2011 10:31:48 AM)
You know I agree with subfever, if you isolate his viewpoint to large corporations/orgs. They really are completely without soul, they really are run purely from the profit motive, they have to because the leader(s) is/are transient and completely replaceable. As in the only goal that is permanent is profit. The exceptions to that rule are those companies that grew up from small to large under the same group of founders, but even then sometimes they are just as bad. As opposed to small or even medium corporations, where most of the time, the owners, and decision makers are local, or semi-local, those businesses do take other factors into account beyond profit motive, at least most of the time. If you can separate yourself from those you harm it becomes easier to harm, and international megacorps have that down to a science. If you run a single factory and you live in the area, well, it is much harder to condone dumping shit in the local stream, or screwing up the air, or pumping the ground water dry, though it can still happen. However, if I live in Chicago, and outsource one of my 3000 product lines to some shit hole factory in China, that dumps all kinds of shit in the river, and makes the birth defect rate skyrocket, well, I don't see it, it doesn't exist, and I can go pontificate what great products we are making and changing the world, and go to church thinking myself a good person. IMO, this world needs far far far less megacorps, and far far far more small medium corps. But I doubt it will happen anytime soon. So, is it about money, sure, is it about ego? Sure, but that isn't going away, the best way to dull the effect of ego overpowering responsibility, is to make someone see the destruction they are causing in the pursuit of ego, and, IMO, you can not effectively do that when you are an International Megacorp. The leaders don't see the mess, they don't ever have to see it, they just see spreadsheets. I think if the president of BP were required to live in the worst effected area of the oil spill until it was cleaned up, it would be a pristine oasis. However, it's an annoyance to him to be dragged away from his country club meetings, and go to some hick part of the world, and see it. Anyway, International Megacorps are the problem, IMO, and the quality that makes them a problem is that of size, and the reason size is a problem is because it allows diffusion of responsibility, and isolates those that could make a positive change from the reality of the situations caused by their decisions that ultimately are made by spreadsheets. LOL. So, first goal, is bringing down any large organization, as that will cause a lesser degree of separation between the decision makers and the impact of those decisions, and then, in theory, barring complete sociopaths, the decisions would be more in line with the individuals view of himself, as a person that wants more good in this world, than bad. But we don't live in a world with that viewpoint, we live in a world that will give billions to save megacorps and let the small medium businesses die. So, this is the world we live in, and until the focus changes from supporting the megacorps , megabanks, etc... then the world will only get worse. IMO.

Marini -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/21/2011 7:45:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou You know I agree with subfever, if you isolate his viewpoint to large corporations/orgs. They really are completely without soul, they really are run purely from the profit motive, they have to because the leader(s) is/are transient and completely replaceable. As in the only goal that is permanent is profit.The exceptions to that rule are those companies that grew up from small to large under the same group of founders, but even then sometimes they are just as bad. As opposed to small or even medium corporations, where most of the time, the owners, and decision makers are local, or semi-local, those businesses do take other factors into account beyond profit motive, at least most of the time. If you can separate yourself from those you harm it becomes easier to harm, and international megacorps have that down to a science. If you run a single factory and you live in the area, well, it is much harder to condone dumping shit in the local stream, or screwing up the air, or pumping the ground water dry, though it can still happen. However, if I live in Chicago, and outsource one of my 3000 product lines to some shit hole factory in China, that dumps all kinds of shit in the river, and makes the birth defect rate skyrocket, well, I don't see it, it doesn't exist, and I can go pontificate what great products we are making and changing the world, and go to church thinking myself a good person. [sm=goodpost.gif] IMO, this world needs far far far less megacorps, and far far far more small medium corps. But I doubt it will happen anytime soon. So, is it about money, sure, is it about ego? Sure, but that isn't going away, the best way to dull the effect of ego overpowering responsibility, is to make someone see the destruction they are causing in the pursuit of ego, and, IMO, you can not effectively do that when you are an International Megacorp. The leaders don't see the mess, they don't ever have to see it, they just see spreadsheets. I think if the president of BP were required to live in the worst effected area of the oil spill until it was cleaned up, it would be a pristine oasis. However, it's an annoyance to him to be dragged away from his country club meetings, and go to some hick part of the world, and see it. Anyway, International Megacorps are the problem, IMO, and the quality that makes them a problem is that of size, and the reason size is a problem is because it allows diffusion of responsibility, and isolates those that could make a positive change from the reality of the situations caused by their decisions that ultimately are made by spreadsheets. LOL. So, first goal, is bringing down any large organization, as that will cause a lesser degree of separation between the decision makers and the impact of those decisions, and then, in theory, barring complete sociopaths, the decisions would be more in line with the individuals view of himself, as a person that wants more good in this world, than bad. But we don't live in a world with that viewpoint, we live in a world that will give billions to save megacorps and let the small medium businesses die. So, this is the world we live in, and until the focus changes from supporting the megacorps , megabanks, etc... then the world will only get worse. IMO. [sm=applause.gif] great post! I enjoyed the way you explained how removed most "corporations" are from the worker bee's. It is easier to be soulless and heartless, when you are far removed from the little peons at the bottom.

submittous -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/21/2011 8:00:16 PM)
Solving the budget crisis is pretty straightforward if that was the goal.... it isn't the goal of congress but here's how... Reduce military spending by half, take income tax rates back to the 60's until debt is paid down, take the cap at 125k on SS off but cap the benefits to what they are now, reduce corporate welfare like oil subsidies by half, take all tax breaks for exporting jobs away from corporations (this would probably require making tax evasion over a hyundred thousand dollars by individuals or corporations a mandatory ten year felony), end the war on drugs (the drugs won), let drug offenders out of prisons, Medicare for everyone with full rights for the system to negotiate with drug companies and make all hospitals non profits..... in fact take the profit motive out of health care by law..... there are more things but that'd right there pretty much take care of it over a decade as long as you can stop the bought and paid for congress from giving more trillions to Wall Street. I suppose you could speed things up by taking back all the money they already gave to Wall Street but that'd probably be the hardest fight.

Musicmystery -> RE: So what's your plan? (6/22/2011 11:15:14 AM)
quote: You know I agree with subfever, if you isolate his viewpoint to large corporations/orgs. They really are completely without soul, they really are run purely from the profit motive, they have to because the leader(s) is/are transient and completely replaceable. As in the only goal that is permanent is profit. The exceptions to that rule are those companies that grew up from small to large under the same group of founders, but even then sometimes they are just as bad. As opposed to small or even medium corporations, where most of the time, the owners, and decision makers are local, or semi-local, those businesses do take other factors into account beyond profit motive, at least most of the time. Ah, but that's the key word, though, isn't it--IF you isolate his viewpoint. He's using it, however, as "evidence" that the monetary system is the causal factor. And in your more limited sweep, I can agree with much of what you say, and Marini too. Not so much the assumption of inherent ill-will perhaps...a large corporation separates people, removes decision makers from front line people, and that has consequences. Group behavior is not a collection of the people in it, and since that's not readily apparent, the group individuals figure others in the group are to blame, when the problem is actually systemic. Peter Senge's "The Fifth Discipline" is a great discussion about how this happens, without ill-intent, as an unintended consequence. Recognizing this is the key to solving it.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875