My first poll for the NZ public [Archive] - Page 8

mashman

11th June 2016, 09:55

I have 10 marbles , all the marbles on the planet ,,,,I lend them to you at 10% interest ..... you must give me 11 marbles back ....

Here's the answer to your riddle - which as you present looks superficially like a Catch 22, and for the purposes of my Answer - I'll assume that only you and I exist and I'll solve it with no extra Marbles created:

If we extend the Metaphor to the Banking system (as it exists) then the Banks create the 11th Marble in recognition of the increased net wealth

So you need a third party i.e. the banks, to create the 11th marble? But there's only 10 marbles on the planet. The banks can't create anything other than the perception of an 11th marble. Quite simply, you took on a bad loan TDL, and even worse... you did so in the hope that some bank would save you in the future, despite you saying that you would return the 11th marble weithout the need for any third party. You knew you were never going to pay it back, but took the loan anyway? So you're a liar and a cheat.

Akzle

11th June 2016, 11:18

She understood it enough to be able to answer the question that you and TDL can't. Want me to ask my 10yr old or perhaps we'll make it a fair fight and I'll ask my 8 yr old?

i could ask my neighbours 4 year old. He eats crayons. Prefers the red ones.
I dont know what he does with the blue ones but they disappear too.
Pretty sure he comprehends that 10=10.

Brian d marge

11th June 2016, 13:11

Jin

11th June 2016, 13:31

You are comparing marbles to the financial system. Thats a good indication you are confused and gullible.

If you want I can point you in the right direction to objective explanations of fractional reserve banking. And you claim to understand the price system? Please. Heres a hint. Interest is a key component of the price system.

Anyway the question still remains. You claim to understand resources in a (relatively) free market are allocated and distributed under the price system. If you remove the price system how are resources then allocated?

Ocean1

11th June 2016, 13:39

But I can create/provide something to the equivalent value of 1 coin from nothing.

Your example only holds true if you ignore that part.

Either you don't fully understand or the more likely reason - you are deliberately misrepresenting it to bolster your argument

The reason this particular group of lunatics are desperate to believe that money is pulled from some fairy bankers arsehole and doesn't actually represent anything worthwhile is that admiting that wealth can actually be manufactured means that they are indeed personally responsible for their own prosperity.

And if they only believe hard enough then their lack of success is someone else's fault.

Pathetic, I know, but that's the reason for all of the bizarre tantrums and irrelevant answers to simple questions.

Brian d marge

11th June 2016, 13:43

Brian d marge

11th June 2016, 13:47

The reason this particular group of lunatics are desperate to believe that money is pulled from some fairy bankers arsehole and doesn't actually represent anything worthwhile is that admiting that wealth can actually be manufactured means that they are indeed personally responsible for their own prosperity.

And if they only believe hard enough then their lack of success is someone else's fault.

Pathetic, I know, but that's the reason for all of the bizarre tantrums and irrelevant answers to simple questions.
I have all the trappings of a modern society
Brand new car , bikes house etc

Is that success???

And still what amazes me is u still can't grasp where currency ..not money comes from

It's was even shown on sharp 7 for the masses surely at that point the penny would have dropped

I'm kinda guessing it didn't....

sent for a divine source

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 13:48

Apples and Oranges again? :killingme

Still with the beating of the reds under the bed drum eh. Awwwwww pet lamb.

Communism to RBE in a few Easy Steps:

(note - yes I'm using Wikipedia, but since I know you will ignore it, there is no point in using anything more authoritative.)

And I'll be doing this in reverse (as its easier to spot that way)

Step 1: Communism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)

And our first clue:

communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal") is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state.[5][6]

NOW - where does that ring a bell...

Step 2: Marxism & Leninism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism#Economic)

And our second clue:

Marx explained that in a society immediately after the revolution, distribution must be based on the contribution of the individual, whereas in the upper stage of communism the from each according to his ability, to each according to his need concept would be applied

NOW - I'm sure I've heard something like that somewhere...

Step 3: Each According to his Needs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_needs)

Our third clue:

The principle refers to free access and distribution of goods, capital and services.[4] In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist system will produce; the idea is that, with the full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.

NOW - this is really sounding familiar

Could it Be? (http://www.now-nz.com/Home/NOW)

We NOW have a free workforce and free resources.

Step 4: Sounding more and more like an RBE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy)

Our fourth Clue:

Post-scarcity is a theoretical economy in which most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely

NOW - note how that article ties in with Marxism, and it ties in with...

The Zeitgeist Movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Zeitgeist_Movement)

Our final Clue.

advocates a transformation of society and its economic system to a non monetary system based on resource allocation and environmentalism.

All of these things have a common thread (apart from the fact they won't work without something akin to Star Trek's replicator technology and a major societal shift) - With each one being an Evolution of the other - Its more like comparing Oranges and Mandarins, its also why it's communism Mk2.0

Edit: I'm going to throw a bone here and say that if we did create something like a Replicator - where there was no loss of opportunity between replicating an Eye Filet or Sirloin, a Hayabusa or a Harley - then at that point an RBE would potentially be viable, there would probably need to be a couple of centuries of Cultural and societal shifts before it could work, but it would be Viable.

3D printers could at a Micro scale be a start to achieving a partial RBE, but the technology would have to mature quite a bit.

It wouldn't be the Silver Bullet to all of Humanities issues, there would still be corruption and other such issues and successful people would still be successful, Envious people would still be envious.

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 13:52

So you need a third party i.e. the banks, to create the 11th marble? But there's only 10 marbles on the planet. The banks can't create anything other than the perception of an 11th marble. Quite simply, you took on a bad loan TDL, and even worse... you did so in the hope that some bank would save you in the future, despite you saying that you would return the 11th marble weithout the need for any third party. You knew you were never going to pay it back, but took the loan anyway? So you're a liar and a cheat.

I love the out of Context Quote Mining and the part where you conveniently choose not to quote the actual answer the riddle - Tsk Tsk, I genuinely didn't think you would stoop that low.

Did I take on a Bad loan? I was able to pay it back, with interest, using my Skills and Agency. Sure - its a Gamble - but life is a Gamble.

There was no 3rd Party, I provided services directly to Brian and charged him for them. I merely extended the metaphor to show that when Banks create money (something you are so often fond of telling us) it is because something of value has been created, its also why German Inflation is a bad thing - if you just increase the money supply without creating things of value, you just devalue the currency.

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 13:54

i could ask my neighbours 4 year old. He eats crayons. Prefers the red ones.
I dont know what he does with the blue ones but they disappear too.
Pretty sure he comprehends that 10=10.

Thats nice - they are going to shit the bed when they try and get their head around concepts like Pi, e and i.

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 13:56

No im just stating fact
So u now are trying to give me labour or a sweetie to repay that 11th marble
That's called debt

Not Give, You are the one that required services I am able to provide, and using those skills and agency I was able to pay my Debt.

This is the absolute basics of our economy
When ya finally click ..you will be able to see the bullshyt those on TV spout
Good luck

sent for a divine source

I don't watch TV, and yes I understand the basics of our economy - it's why I was able to answer your supposed impossible riddle with Money Velocity and The generation of Wealth.

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 13:58

She understood it enough to be able to answer the question that you and TDL can't. Want me to ask my 10yr old or perhaps we'll make it a fair fight and I'll ask my 8 yr old?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-09-28/lifestyle/sns-201305140000--tms--bgrahamctnym-a20130607-20130607_1_god-billy-graham-parkway-bible

Its funny how similar the Tenants of Faith sound.

Ocean1

11th June 2016, 14:06

I have all the trappings of a modern society
Brand new car , bikes house etc

Is that success???

Don't care. But I'm not the one pretending whatever I've got is down to someone else.

And still what amazes me is u still can't grasp where currency ..not money comes from

It's was even shown on sharp 7 for the masses surely at that point the penny would have dropped

I'm kinda guessing it didn't....

So, in your head the only way to create money is via debt. Just so many marbles in the world, wasn't that the story?

Only, I can make more marbles. Which is why I can increase my net worth with not a jot of debt in sight.

Now, I think it's safe to say that I'm not the one that needs some fiscal revision. In fact I'd say your much self vaunted understanding of such matters is utter shit.

Only fuckwits believe they're not responsible for their own outcomes. Go you.

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 14:06

The reason this particular group of lunatics are desperate to believe that money is pulled from some fairy bankers arsehole and doesn't actually represent anything worthwhile is that admiting that wealth can actually be manufactured means that they are indeed personally responsible for their own prosperity.

And if they only believe hard enough then their lack of success is someone else's fault.

Pathetic, I know, but that's the reason for all of the bizarre tantrums and irrelevant answers to simple questions.

I know - I just enjoyed this dalliance because once poked hard enough - All Zealots start to sound the same.

Which is a pity, because I only re-posted in this thread because of the RBE experts in Wellington (that presumably the Faithful will be attending) and I was interested if they would have better answers than Mashman.

Akzle

11th June 2016, 14:23

Only, I can make more marbles. Which is why I can increase my net worth with not a jot of debt in sight.

you print marbles?

that shit's illegal. i'm telling jews.

Akzle

11th June 2016, 14:27

Thats nice - they are going to shit the bed when they try and get their head around concepts like Pi, e and i.

nono. you.

you will shit the bed. if you ever manage to grasp this.

(i hope you get there one day, i wagered mashy that you're not stupid, just unenlightened, and could learn. i'd hate to have to pay the cunt)

Brian d marge

11th June 2016, 14:28

Not Give, You are the one that required services I am able to provide, and using those skills and agency I was able to pay my Debt.

I don't watch TV, and yes I understand the basics of our economy - it's why I was able to answer your supposed impossible riddle with Money Velocity and The generation of Wealth.
You don't
Ya you don't even know what money velocity is

Just how ..my good man..does moving a piece of paper from one tin to the other

Produce .. make reproduce. Appear another bit of paper

Suggest ...YouTube videos on economics 101

sent for a divine source

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 14:28

nono. you.

you will shit the bed. if you ever manage to grasp this.

(i hope you get there one day, i wagered mashy that you're not stupid, just unenlightened, and could learn. i'd hate to have to pay the cunt)

Grasped it, realised it's BS. Mashy, Pay the guy.

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 14:30

You don't
Ya you don't even know what money velocity is

Just how ..my good man..does moving a piece of paper from one tin to the other

Produce .. make reproduce. Appear another bit of paper

Suggest ...YouTube videos on economics 101

sent for a divine source

It would help if you weren't confusing Money Velocity with the Generation of Wealth - Suggest studying Economics 101 (like I did) instead of Youtube.

Brian d marge

11th June 2016, 14:30

Don't care. But I'm not the one pretending whatever I've got is down to someone else.

So, in your head the only way to create money is via debt. Just so many marbles in the world, wasn't that the story?

Only, I can make more marbles. Which is why I can increase my net worth with not a jot of debt in sight.

Now, I think it's safe to say that I'm not the one that needs some fiscal revision. In fact I'd say your much self vaunted understanding of such matters is utter shit.

Only fuckwits believe they're not responsible for their own outcomes. Go you.
Bloody ell. ..you may be cracking and understanding

Yes money is debt

Prove me wrong ...if u r dissatisfied with this answer

sent for a divine source

Akzle

11th June 2016, 15:16

Grasped it,

no. you really haven't.

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/percyjacksonfanfiction/images/a/ab/Jesus_facepalm.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/630?cb=20130722072140

Ocean1

11th June 2016, 16:44

Prove me wrong ...if u r dissatisfied with this answer

Yes money is Interchangeable with assets.

Prove me wrong ...

Done.........

mashman

11th June 2016, 17:02

Communism to RBE in a few Easy Steps:

(note - yes I'm using Wikipedia, but since I know you will ignore it, there is no point in using anything more authoritative.)

And I'll be doing this in reverse (as its easier to spot that way)

Step 1: Communism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)

And our first clue:

NOW - where does that ring a bell...

Step 2: Marxism & Leninism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism#Economic)

And our second clue:

NOW - I'm sure I've heard something like that somewhere...

Step 3: Each According to his Needs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_needs)

Our third clue:

NOW - this is really sounding familiar

Could it Be? (http://www.now-nz.com/Home/NOW)

Step 4: Sounding more and more like an RBE (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy)

Our fourth Clue:

NOW - note how that article ties in with Marxism, and it ties in with...

The Zeitgeist Movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Zeitgeist_Movement)

Our final Clue.

All of these things have a common thread (apart from the fact they won't work without something akin to Star Trek's replicator technology and a major societal shift) - With each one being an Evolution of the other - Its more like comparing Oranges and Mandarins, its also why it's communism Mk2.0

Edit: I'm going to throw a bone here and say that if we did create something like a Replicator - where there was no loss of opportunity between replicating an Eye Filet or Sirloin, a Hayabusa or a Harley - then at that point an RBE would potentially be viable, there would probably need to be a couple of centuries of Cultural and societal shifts before it could work, but it would be Viable.

3D printers could at a Micro scale be a start to achieving a partial RBE, but the technology would have to mature quite a bit.

It wouldn't be the Silver Bullet to all of Humanities issues, there would still be corruption and other such issues and successful people would still be successful, Envious people would still be envious.

So what you're saying is, and quite emphatically, is that you haven't got a clue what RBE is... despite being told otherwise by one who does understand RBE :killingme... but by all means, carry on being wronger than a wrong thing.

Jin

11th June 2016, 17:06

Yes please do explain ....

Economics is very simple ....tis why I understand how it works

And who , why and how

But I'm interested in your take on it

sent for a divine source
I didnt say economics i said fractional reserve banking. Two very different things. Economics has lots of different theories and is not simple at all. Fractional reserve banking is simple. Except for you it seems who is trying to equate it to marbles.

I think its perfectly reasonable to ask how resources will be allocated under a rbe. You are saying we should get rid of money and prices. So you need to at least explain what replaces it. You think resources can be placed anywhere so how does that happen?

mashman

11th June 2016, 17:06

I love the out of Context Quote Mining and the part where you conveniently choose not to quote the actual answer the riddle - Tsk Tsk, I genuinely didn't think you would stoop that low.

Did I take on a Bad loan? I was able to pay it back, with interest, using my Skills and Agency. Sure - its a Gamble - but life is a Gamble.

There was no 3rd Party, I provided services directly to Brian and charged him for them. I merely extended the metaphor to show that when Banks create money (something you are so often fond of telling us) it is because something of value has been created, its also why German Inflation is a bad thing - if you just increase the money supply without creating things of value, you just devalue the currency.

Sorry... don't you like your own tactics being used against you? Kinda makes you more than just a hypocrite.

Yup. Bad loan as you could never repay the marble you said you would.

Where the services accepted or did ghe want the marble? See, coz the way I read it, he wanted the marble... in fact he went to great lengths in order to state that he wanted the marble. Instead you tried to snakeoil yourself out of paying the debt that was owed. You're a liar and a cheat ... Edity: and a cocksucker

mashman

11th June 2016, 17:07

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-09-28/lifestyle/sns-201305140000--tms--bgrahamctnym-a20130607-20130607_1_god-billy-graham-parkway-bible

Its funny how similar the Tenants of Faith sound.

You still didn't answer the question, again. Too busy trying to weasel your way out of it coz you got your arse handed to you by a 13 yr old.

mashman

11th June 2016, 17:11

Bloody ell. ..you may be cracking and understanding

Yes money is debt

Prove me wrong ...if u r dissatisfied with this answer

sent for a divine source

Did you accept his counterfeit marbles? Or does he still owe you?

Jin

11th June 2016, 17:11

The reason this particular group of lunatics are desperate to believe that money is pulled from some fairy bankers arsehole and doesn't actually represent anything worthwhile is that admiting that wealth can actually be manufactured means that they are indeed personally responsible for their own prosperity.

And if they only believe hard enough then their lack of success is someone else's fault.

Pathetic, I know, but that's the reason for all of the bizarre tantrums and irrelevant answers to simple questions.
I find bleeding heart liberals, communists and this new breed of rbe fans are usually well meaning with the best of intentions and try to give them the benefit of the doubt. They want equality and fairness. Even lenin and pol pot were well meaning individuals but as they say the path to hell is paved with gold.

Ocean1

11th June 2016, 17:12

Did you accept his counterfeit marbles? Or does he still owe you?

He's in the same boat as you, he's lost the fucking lot.

Ocean1

11th June 2016, 17:13

they say the path to hell is paved with gold.

Marbles, apparently.

mashman

11th June 2016, 17:14

I think its perfectly reasonable to ask how resources will be allocated under a rbe. You are saying we should get rid of money and prices. So you need to at least explain what replaces it. You think resources can be placed anywhere so how does that happen?

You still didn't answer the question put to you that my 13 yr old answered without blinking an eye... but I know why you, nor TDL for that matter, will answer that question :yes:

Jin

11th June 2016, 17:16

mashman

11th June 2016, 17:17

He's in the same boat as you, he's lost the fucking lot.

Funny. I'm 45, retired at 44, and have a mortgage small enough to manage. He still works. Seems like I have absolutely everything and have lost absolutely nothing. I must be much more successful than any of you :wari:

mashman

11th June 2016, 17:23

Says a lot when these guys rail against the corrupt monetary system and prices yet are unable to say what would replace it. Come on guys just tell us either you dont want to say, you dont know or are still trying to figure it out. Which is it?

I'll ask again then:

Figure it out for yourself ... it ain't hard. As a starter for ya ya lazy fuck, do you think any group of people should receive better resources than another?

Like I said, my 13yr old didn't hesitate, as the answer to that question will define how I answer what you need to know.

Ocean1

11th June 2016, 17:34

Funny. I'm 45, retired at 44, and have a mortgage small enough to manage. He still works. Seems like I have absolutely everything and have lost absolutely nothing. I must be much more successful than any of you :wari:

Well yeah. Except for the raving lunacy thing. That's probably not something anyone else would define as success.

But if that's your thing then by all means go for it. Just wipe your chin a bit first, eh? It's sorta gross.

mashman

11th June 2016, 17:46

Well yeah. Except for the raving lunacy thing. That's probably not something anyone else would define as success.

But if that's your thing then by all means go for it. Just wipe your chin a bit first, eh? It's sorta gross.

Really? By definition I'm classed as a philanthropist :laugh:

Tricky to avoid when you have as few front teeth as I do. You're just gonna have to get over it, or at the very least take an extra pace backwards.

Woodman

11th June 2016, 17:48

Figure it out for yourself :facepalm:... it ain't hard. As a starter for ya ya lazy fuck, do you think any group of people should receive better resources than another?

Define "resource".

mashman

11th June 2016, 17:54

I find bleeding heart liberals, communists and this new breed of rbe fans are usually well meaning with the best of intentions and try to give them the benefit of the doubt. They want equality and fairness. Even lenin and pol pot were well meaning individuals but as they say the path to hell is paved with gold.

No, I'm after equity, so, wrong again dickhead.

mashman

11th June 2016, 17:57

Define "resource".

human, animal, vegetable, mineral in their various states.

Woodman

11th June 2016, 18:02

human, animal, vegetable, mineral in their various states.

If one group of people are prepared to pay more dollars for a better vegetable, then yes.

Brian d marge

11th June 2016, 18:12

Done.........
I'll give u three goats for your house

And ur answer ... so can... if money is interchangeable with assets

Can I but a can of beer using my or my wife's assets ...

I think not and assets aren't fungible

I e ya can't cut it up into equal valued bits ... ie 10 dollars is 10 x 1 dollar

Try doing that will a Picasso painting

..so no... as per

You have failed again in your attempt

Try again .....

sent for a divine source

Jin

11th June 2016, 18:19

I'll ask again then:

Like I said, my 13yr old didn't hesitate, as the answer to that question will define how I answer what you need to know.
I don't know if any group should receive better resources. It depends on the need of the group. People decide for themselves what they want and vote with their money. It's not for me to judge. That is a fundamental basis for believing in freedom.

And my opinion is irrelevant. The fact is under a free market and price system those who pay the most get more. You want to remove that system. So again, what do you replace it with?

mashman

11th June 2016, 18:22

If one group of people are prepared to pay more dollars for a better vegetable, then yes.

RBE. No money = no paying for resources.

Jin and TDL want to prove that ECP is still actually a problem. Hence the reason that they are unable to answer the question... coz the moment they do, then they're solving the ECP. Tis why I'm laughing my arse off at them, coz they've constrained themselves, and the entire globe, by a dogma that's 100 years old and not applicable in this day and age. Ironically learned by rote, they're unable to let it go as they didn't critically think their way to proving that ECP was ever actually a problem.

Stubborn doesn't quite cover it, neither does ignorance... so please take your pick from any of the following as they'll barely describe just how stupid such a position is...

stubborn

having or showing dogged determination not to change one's attitude or position on something, especially in spite of good reasons to do so.
"you're a silly, stubborn old woman"
synonyms: obstinate, stubborn as a mule, mulish, headstrong, wilful, strong-willed, self-willed, pig-headed, bull-headed, obdurate, awkward, difficult, contrary, perverse, recalcitrant, refractory; firm, adamant, resolute, dogged, persistent, pertinacious, inflexible, iron-willed, uncompromising, uncooperative, unaccommodating, intractable, unbending, unyielding, unmalleable, unadaptable;
rock-ribbed;
informalstiff-necked;
informalbolshie, bloody-minded;
informalbalky;
archaiccontumacious, froward
"you're too stubborn to admit it"

mashman

11th June 2016, 18:32

I don't know if any group should receive better resources. It depends on the need of the group. People decide for themselves what they want and vote with their money. It's not for me to judge. That is a fundamental basis for believing in freedom.

And my opinion is irrelevant. The fact is under a free market and price system those who pay the most get more. You want to remove that system. So again, what do you replace it with?

You replace it with exactly what we have, except you make it all free. That's the fundamental basis of freedom... believing in it is for children, not grown ups. Money does not give freedom where it limits choice i.e. budget constraint. If people choose to do fuck all, then they choose to do fuck all. That's freedom. So you go ahead and believe that you're promoting freedom, coz you ain't, and not even close, because you don't understand what freedom is as you want it limited by budget.

Jin

11th June 2016, 18:42

Brian d marge

11th June 2016, 18:42

I didnt say economics i said fractional reserve banking. Two very different things. Economics has lots of different theories and is not simple at all. Fractional reserve banking is simple. Except for you it seems who is trying to equate it to marbles.

I think its perfectly reasonable to ask how resources will be allocated under a rbe. You are saying we should get rid of money and prices. So you need to at least explain what replaces it. You think resources can be placed anywhere so how does that happen?
No
Economics is fractional
Both are extremely simple not complicated at all

On an interesting note it was in Judea when the priests started issuing scripts against the silver that we had fractional banking ..which ultimately ended up in 33 ad with the collapse of the Roman economy..leading to Tiberius using his personal fortune as stimulus .. possibly one of the first cases of quantitative easing from memory so don't quote 😃

Any way back to question
Under a diversified local economy the community decides what is required
U do this on a daily basis ..within your family ...then off to the farmers market or missus Jones next door for the supplies
We do this all the time
Imho
2 really good systems are the Ubuntu party from South Africa..and ultimately the laws of Moses ...don't go all religious on me it was what the oldies practiced back at the dawn of time when I was a lad , both allow the purchase of ur Tv from China .. However one uses money the other has the option not to....

Imho ..and where I differ from mashie ...money has its place ..as a medium of measurement

The charging of interest is where i call foul ....

Inflation, deflation m1 m2 are all weasel words used by people exalting the myth that the Babylonian, venician system is the only way ....

And the sheep who know no better are blinded by these supposedly complicated complexities and follow blindly along.......

sent for a divine source

Jin

11th June 2016, 18:50

Jin

11th June 2016, 18:51

Duplicate posted

Brian d marge

11th June 2016, 18:52

It would help if you weren't confusing Money Velocity with the Generation of Wealth - Suggest studying Economics 101 (like I did) instead of Youtube.
Money velocity was ur term go back and read ur own post

I later said that ..how does moving one marble from one tin to another .. velocity.. increase the supply

It doesn't

Neither does giving me an asset in lieu of the owed 11 th marble ...

As I still have 10 marbles and now ur house because of the debt incurred... I.e the interest on the loan of the original 10 marbles ...the fictional 11th marble

Nice try ...try again when ever your ready

sent for a divine source

Brian d marge

11th June 2016, 18:54

you print marbles?

that shit's illegal. i'm telling jews.
Rockerfellas ain't Jews .... neither is me missus and both control the money supply...... much to my distain

sent for a divine source

Woodman

11th June 2016, 18:56

Ok you make it all free. I get that. I just trying to understand how. Is there a plan to make sure everyone pitches in to produce all the resources? And on what basis are they allocated? Or do you just hope it will work and let someone else figure it out?

It would need to be policed somehow. Also what if you put in way more effort than others? human nature would soon stop you doing that when you see others doing sweet fa and getting rewarded the same.

mashman

11th June 2016, 19:01

Ok you make it all free. I get that. I just trying to understand how. Is there a plan to make sure everyone pitches in to produce all the resources? And on what basis are they allocated? Or do you just hope it will work and let someone else figure it out?

Imho ..and where I differ from mashie ...money has its place ..as a medium of measurement

With that in mind, I'm stunned that a capitalist could understand so much about how and why RBE will work. As a concept, I call it our EOD (Every Other Day).

Under a diversified local economy the community decides what is required
U do this on a daily basis ..within your family ...then off to the farmers market or missus Jones next door for the supplies
We do this all the time

The hard part is realising that everything we need already exists and that because money creates scarcity the resources that exist cannot be "consumed". It's not that the resources don't exist in order to do things, because they clearly do, and it's not like there aren't needs that people need met (working or not). Choice is how resources will be allocated. Choice will also determine what resources are produced. That choice will be made on purpose and what is to be produced will be decided using direct democracy i.e. we all get to vote on what should be produced. How that list will be compiled will likely involve a discussion with industry in regards to what it needs for the future etc... The reason for this is that the planet is finite and we want to avoid the resource scarcity of the past and at least try to keep the place a little tidier.

That's A way to do it. There are other mechanisms to achieve the same thing.

mashman

11th June 2016, 19:05

Rockerfellas ain't Jews .... neither is me missus and both control the money supply...... much to my distain

sent for a divine source

Lowercase j = blind scared old white muthafuckas imho.

Brian d marge

11th June 2016, 19:07

There was no 3rd Party, I provided services directly to Brian and charged him for them. I merely extended the metaphor to show that when Banks create money (something you are so often fond of telling us) it is because something of value has been created, its also why German Inflation is a bad thing - if you just increase the money supply without creating things of value, you just devalue the currency.

By providing a service u just moved money no additional money was created ..I now have 7 and u 3 marbles or whatever medium u would like to use ...barley is a classic

So... if I go to the bank and buy a house for 50. K why is is I pay back almost 3 x the amount

Am I buying 3 houses? Are 2 things of equal value to my original house price magically appearing into the economy

Are the builders who built the house and the material suppliers getting the extra money ....no they were all paid in the original house price

No ... money is debt.. a measure of negative energy . By default.

Good luck ... ocean will be along soon with his entropic misinterpretation

All good ....

sent for a divine source

Ocean1

11th June 2016, 19:20

I e ya can't cut it up into equal valued bits ... ie 10 dollars is 10 x 1 dollar

Which is why we make money in different denominations.

So you can buy as much or as little as you like.

Not just wrong but stupid with it.

Brian d marge

11th June 2016, 19:22

Which is why we make money in different denominations.

So you can buy as much or as little as you like.

Not just wrong but stupid with it.
Look up the word fungible

Capt no understand

sent for a divine source

Ocean1

11th June 2016, 19:23

ocean will be along soon with his entropic misinterpretation

Negative entropy. Quantity thereof.

And it's a better definition than any you've ever dreamed up.

Brian d marge

11th June 2016, 19:35

Negative entropy. Quantity thereof.

And it's a better definition than any you've ever dreamed up.
Says u who has demonstrated his lack of knowledge of entropy

And did I use the term negative entropy...or are u making things up again

sent for a divine source

Brian d marge

11th June 2016, 19:44

Wrong. Economics is about predicting human behaviour. It has nothing to do with money.

You dismiss it as simple. Yet you fail to understand that humans are driven by self interest. Or maybe you dismiss that because under rbe we all hold hands and work together for the common good. Again. Is there a plan? Or blind hope someone else will figure it out?
Origin: 1585–95; (< Middle French economique) < Latin oeconomicus < Greek oikonomikós relating to household management, equivalent to oikonóm(os) steward (oîko(s) house + nómos manager) + -ikos -ic

Wtf
Yes it's related after all it's a man made structure

But the transfer of wealth has nowt to do with predicting human behavior
It may may the transfer more efficient or lucrative

Nice try

sent for a divine source

Jin

11th June 2016, 19:56

It would need to be policed somehow. Also what if you put in way more effort than others? human nature would soon stop you doing that when you see others doing sweet fa and getting rewarded the same.
Exactly right. Incentives matter. With no incentive most will refuse to do anything or the bare minimum. Then the guys in charge of rbe will have to resort to force in order to make people produce things.

With that in mind, I'm stunned that a capitalist could understand so much about how and why RBE will work. As a concept, I call it our EOD (Every Other Day).

The hard part is realising that everything we need already exists and that because money creates scarcity the resources that exist cannot be "consumed". It's not that the resources don't exist in order to do things, because they clearly do, and it's not like there aren't needs that people need met (working or not). Choice is how resources will be allocated. Choice will also determine what resources are produced. That choice will be made on purpose and what is to be produced will be decided using direct democracy i.e. we all get to vote on what should be produced. How that list will be compiled will likely involve a discussion with industry in regards to what it needs for the future etc... The reason for this is that the planet is finite and we want to avoid the resource scarcity of the past and at least try to keep the place a little tidier.

That's A way to do it. There are other mechanisms to achieve the same thing.
Id say the hard part is you figuring out this is all bs. Do you include motorcycles as a resource? Honda Yamaha BMW make bikes because they want money thats why they do it. What kind of cars were produced by communist ussr? Can you understand the baker bakes his bread out of his pure self interest but serves the public interest? Adam Smith?

Dont bother im out. Cant tolerate this retardedness any longer.
http://gifou.com/sites/default/files/gif/20140903raccoon.gif

Ocean1

11th June 2016, 19:56

Says u who has demonstrated his lack of knowledge of entropy

And did I use the term negative entropy...or are u making things up again

sent for a divine source

From someone who believes wealth can only come from debt I'd count your perceptions of my knowledge of absolutely anything as completely irrelevant to any real-world evaluation.

And no, I did. And if you'd actually checked you'd have found that I'm far from the first to use physical laws to define economic phenomena.
http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781441993649

https://www.amazon.com/Entropy-Law-Economic-Process/dp/0674281640/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1465632238&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Georgescu-Roegen+The+Entropy+Law+and+the+Economic+Process

Now fuck off and educate yourself, you're embarrassing.

Akzle

11th June 2016, 20:10

mashman

11th June 2016, 20:32

Id say the hard part is you figuring out this is all bs. Do you include motorcycles as a resource? Honda Yamaha BMW make bikes because they want money thats why they do it. What kind of cars were produced by communist ussr? Can you understand the baker bakes his bread out of his pure self interest but serves the public interest? Adam Smith?

Dont bother im out. Cant tolerate this retardedness any longer.

I understand all that you have said given that I was a damned good capitalist for 37 years. You have half an understanding of the discussion. I have the whole understanding, because I understand both the financial economy and RBE. Therefore, you calling bs is simply because too dumb to understand RBE. It's not even hard to understand. Stop scaring yourself with the reds under the bed fear porn, coz that's all you're doing, reinforcing your own fears.

You're a retard? You should have stated that up front and I would have spared you the humiliation of exposing just how dumb you are. Mebees you can get some pills? Hey, mebees the scientists that RBE produces will care enough to make a pill for ya, and ya won't have to pay for the development etc... coz they'll be making the pills to help people, not make money. As such, anyone waiting on any of those really expensive drugs that exist but are simply too expensive for a country or individual to afford, will get them for free and won't be hamstrung because you don't give a shit. Grow the fuck up son.

mashman

11th June 2016, 20:34

It would need to be policed somehow. Also what if you put in way more effort than others? human nature would soon stop you doing that when you see others doing sweet fa and getting rewarded the same.

Why would it need to be policed?

So you're denigrating charity and voluntary workers then? Huh, I didn't have you pegged as a stupid lazy fuck... hey ho.

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 21:22

So what you're saying is, and quite emphatically, is that you haven't got a clue what RBE is... despite being told otherwise by one who does understand RBE :killingme... but by all means, carry on being wronger than a wrong thing.

Right Right.

(despite your own literature having some almost verbatim ideas)

Also, the KKK aren't Racist, cause they said so (http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/virginia-kkk-leader-were-not-racist-were)

Also, Catholics aren't Homophobic, cause they said so (http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/perths-catholic-archbishop-says-antisame-gay-marriage-is-not-homophobic/news-story/d8bbdf8767fa9b4f4be6095348f39660)

Again, it's funny how often Zealots sound the same.

mashman

11th June 2016, 21:26

Right Right.

(despite your own literature having some almost verbatim ideas)

Also, the KKK aren't Racist, cause they said so (http://crooksandliars.com/2014/04/virginia-kkk-leader-were-not-racist-were)

Also, Catholics aren't Homophobic, cause they said so (http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/perths-catholic-archbishop-says-antisame-gay-marriage-is-not-homophobic/news-story/d8bbdf8767fa9b4f4be6095348f39660)

Again, it's funny how often Zealots sound the same.

What literature?

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 21:29

Sorry... don't you like your own tactics being used against you? Kinda makes you more than just a hypocrite.

I quote you in full and if you answer a question, I generally don't edit out the answer to make it seem like you didn't answer - but nice try 2/10.

Yup. Bad loan as you could never repay the marble you said you would.

but I did - you keep missing that part, yah know, the part about Agency etc. It's kinda important.

Where the services accepted or did ghe want the marble? See, coz the way I read it, he wanted the marble... in fact he went to great lengths in order to state that he wanted the marble.

You can't always get what you waaaaaaaant - The Rolling Stones

In the example - Money = Marbles, Yes? In which case, I traded my Time and Skills for the Marble, and then used the Marble to pay the debt - His net wealth has increased by the value of 1 Marble.

If we extend the Metaphor to an actual bank, at this point the bank would mint more currency to account for the increase in wealth.

Instead you tried to snakeoil yourself out of paying the debt that was owed.

Yes, I'm such a bad person. Using my Skills and Agency to get things I want, How silly of me... Afterall I'm sure that personal enterprise is punishable by death under Commu- I mean an RBE

You're a liar and a cheat ...

Well, you can take the Englishman out of England....

Edity: and a cocksucker

Seriously - Is it some requirement to be a Conspiracy theorist that you are a repressed Homosexual? I've got no problems if you like the Man-Sausage, more power too you.

Or is it to be a Conspiracy theorist you just have to be good at Swallowing without question?

Wait, I think I might have something there....

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 21:30

What literature?

DING DING DING!

Called it.

note - yes I'm using Wikipedia, but since I know you will ignore it, there is no point in using anything more authoritative.

Predictable to a T.

mashman

11th June 2016, 21:32

DING DING DING!

Called it.

Predictable to a T.

Seriously, what literature?

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 21:33

You still didn't answer the question, again. Too busy trying to weasel your way out of it coz you got your arse handed to you by a 13 yr old.

I did answer the question:

Those that use their agency to acquire said resources get first dibs.

So, the Miners who go down the mine - they get first dibs on the minerals
The forestry worker who cuts down a tree - they get first dibs on the wood.

But seeing as we are talking about being owned by Children - my 18 month old has realised that if she wants to play with a toy in one part of the room (that she can't move) and she wants to play with a different toy in another part of the room, then she has to choose - she understands the basic concept of Scarcity and loss of oppertunity - so How about that, getting your arse handed to you by a Toddler?

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 21:34

No, I'm after equity, so, wrong again dickhead.

Equity of Oppertunity or Equity of Outcome?

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 21:36

Seriously, what literature?

The bits where the ideas expressed in the Website that Emblazons your signature are almost word for word ideas expressed by communist thinkers.

mashman

11th June 2016, 21:39

I quote you in full and if you answer a question, I generally don't edit out the answer to make it seem like you didn't answer - but nice try 2/10.

What can I say, you're a pro.

but I did - you keep missing that part, yah know, the part about Agency etc. It's kinda important.

It wasn't a part of the rules that were laid out by the lender. Hence you kept missing the point about the 11th marble n debt n stuff.

You can't always get what you waaaaaaaant - The Rolling Stones

But if you try sometimes, well you might find, that you get what ya need. Typical you'd only go half way. You lied and cheated.

Yes, I'm such a bad person. Using my Skills and Agency to get things I want, How silly of me... Afterall I'm sure that personal enterprise is punishable by death under Commu- I mean an RBE

All wrong, including the bit about you being bad.

Well, you can take the Englishman out of England....

You're english?

Seriously - Is it some requirement to be a Conspiracy theorist that you are a repressed Homosexual? I've got no problems if you like the Man-Sausage, more power too you.

Or is it to be a Conspiracy theorist you just have to be good at Swallowing without question?

Wait, I think I might have something there....

Not yet you don't... but we'll meet someday and I'll ensure that you get everything you deserve, honey.

mashman

11th June 2016, 21:40

Equity of Oppertunity or Equity of Outcome?

I don't need to make the distinction. I leave that to lesser minds.

mashman

11th June 2016, 21:44

The bits where the ideas expressed in the Website that Emblazons your signature are almost word for word ideas expressed by communist thinkers.

The Parable of The Pub. I must be really smart then because I've transcended communist thinking. chur bro.

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 21:49

I don't need to make the distinction. I leave that to lesser minds.

Marxism 101.

And for the record - more could be done to achieve Equity of Opportunity - only today in fact I was discussing with a Teacher friend of mine about Teaching - and he cited a study that showed the biggest factor on a Childs' academic performance was how much their parents made during the school year.

I'll even stand with you on that and say that's wrong, and we could and should do better.

But by trying to enforce equity of outcome as a solution (which is by proxy, whether you admit it or see it, what you are doing) - This I cannot abide by, because it takes away an individuals choice.

mashman

11th June 2016, 21:52

I did answer the question:

Those that use their agency to acquire said resources get first dibs.

So, the Miners who go down the mine - they get first dibs on the minerals
The forestry worker who cuts down a tree - they get first dibs on the wood.

But seeing as we are talking about being owned by Children - my 18 month old has realised that if she wants to play with a toy in one part of the room (that she can't move) and she wants to play with a different toy in another part of the room, then she has to choose - she understands the basic concept of Scarcity and loss of oppertunity - so How about that, getting your arse handed to you by a Toddler?

You didn't. I get to state what constitutes an acceptable answer, because I Am the one who understands RBE, and you don't. You've had the 13yr old give you an answer as an example... yet you've 11th marbled that too.

So when farmers decide that they can work 2 hours a day by limiting the amount of produce they produce, you'll be happy with dying? You really don't think your examples through very well... or does your toddler provide your ideas for you too.

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 21:53

What can I say, you're a pro.

I don't get paid for this - Like all the Conspiracy threads, I'm still waiting on my Cheque from Tel-Aviv, the NWO, The Rockerfellers, Big Pharma, The airline industry etc.

Till then, I'm just an incredibly gifted amateur.

It wasn't a part of the rules that were laid out by the lender. Hence you kept missing the point about the 11th marble n debt n stuff.

Yes, we can all make scenarios with rules that don't resemble reality - just like you haven't posted an Answer to my Steak problem.

But if you try sometimes, well you might find, that you get what ya need. Typical you'd only go half way. You lied and cheated.

Of course - Because I'm not interested in getting just what I need, Like most humans - I'm interested in getting what I want.

All wrong, including the bit about you being bad.

Well yes, that IS the point of Sarcasm....

You're english?

Born and Bred in the Souf east

Not yet you don't... but we'll meet someday and I'll ensure that you get everything you deserve, honey.

Well Golly, with Sweet talk like that, who could resist! Does your Wife know you talk like that to Strangers on the Internet? The Scandal!

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 21:56

You didn't. I get to state what constitutes an acceptable answer, because I Am the one who understands RBE, and you don't. You've had the 13yr old give you an answer as an example... yet you've 11th marbled that too.

So what you are saying is that you get to shift the Goal Posts when you don't like it?

Got yah.

So when farmers decide that they can work 2 hours a day by limiting the amount of produce they produce, you'll be happy with dying?

Which is exactly what will happen in an RBE - I'm glad you are NOW seeing the problem with your Faith.

You really don't think your examples through very well... or does your toddler provide your ideas for you too.

Au Contrair - I thought it through perfectly, and you walked straight into it.

That's twice now you've been outsmarted by a Toddler.

mashman

11th June 2016, 21:58

Marxism 101.

And for the record - more could be done to achieve Equity of Opportunity - only today in fact I was discussing with a Teacher friend of mine about Teaching - and he cited a study that showed the biggest factor on a Childs' academic performance was how much their parents made during the school year.

I'll even stand with you on that and say that's wrong, and we could and should do better.

But by trying to enforce equity of outcome as a solution (which is by proxy, whether you admit it or see it, what you are doing) - This I cannot abide by, because it takes away an individuals choice.

Enforce equity? You're gonna have to explain why equity is going to be enforced? Ironically enough, competition is enforced by the capitalist system, consequences be damned. But no, RBE will not require force for there to be equity.

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 22:02

Enforce equity? You're gonna have to explain why equity is going to be enforced?

Wait to tics, see below

Ironically enough, competition is enforced by the capitalist system, consequences be damned.

People have the choice to compete and to what degree they want to Compete - and you know what Competition breeds? Excellence.

Also works very well for Nature too, Evolution by means of Natural selection, survival of the fittest.

But no, RBE will not require force for there to be equity.

It will take away my personal choice (unless you can answer the Riddle of Steel, I mean Steak, the Riddle of Steak) - and it can only do that by Force.

mashman

11th June 2016, 22:04

Yes, we can all make scenarios with rules that don't resemble reality - just like you haven't posted an Answer to my Steak problem.

I answered your steak question rather thoroughly... even provided an example of the lack of scarcity you were referring to. It was real life, not a made up scenario.

Of course - Because I'm not interested in getting just what I need, Like most humans - I'm interested in getting what I want.

Most humans? bwaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Brian d marge

11th June 2016, 22:06

From someone who believes wealth can only come from debt I'd count your perceptions of my knowledge of absolutely anything as completely irrelevant to any real-world evaluation.

And no, I did. And if you'd actually checked you'd have found that I'm far from the first to use physical laws to define economic phenomena.
http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781441993649

https://www.amazon.com/Entropy-Law-Economic-Process/dp/0674281640/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1465632238&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Georgescu-Roegen+The+Entropy+Law+and+the+Economic+Process

Now fuck off and educate yourself, you're embarrassing.
Not as embarrassing as be wrong 3x and at such a simplistic level too

And i still see you are trotting out that same old web site we proved wrong ... how many years ago

Do you want me to go over the same old ground again ..I can ..

Or would u just like to use throw away lines to hide ur ignorance

Again

sent for a divine source

mashman

11th June 2016, 22:09

So what you are saying is that you get to shift the Goal Posts when you don't like it?

Got yah.

Got me? Damn, if only I had have explained why.

Which is exactly what will happen in an RBE - I'm glad you are NOW seeing the problem with your Faith.

No it won't. :killingme@faith.

Au Contrair - I thought it through perfectly, and you walked straight into it.

That's twice now you've been outsmarted by a Toddler.

Quite obviously you didn't.

mashman

11th June 2016, 22:16

People have the choice to compete and to what degree they want to Compete - and you know what Competition breeds? Excellence.

No they don't... and I've had conversations with the commerce commission in regards to legislation that forces people to compete. It's not a choice to not compete, coz those competing get pissy that they can't compete. Tragically ironic, but that's the way it works boy.

It will take away my personal choice (unless you can answer the Riddle of Steel, I mean Steak, the Riddle of Steak) - and it can only do that by Force.

I answered the steak question. There is no steak scarcity given that supermarkets are throwing them out before they go off and some country's are legislating that that shouldn't be allowed. That steaks won't need to be thrown out under RBE, given that people can walk into the supermarket and simply pick them up instead of dumpster diving for the same steak later. So the financial economy is forcing supermarkets to change their behaviour.

Katman

11th June 2016, 22:17

....and you know what Competition breeds? Excellence.

Yeah, just ask Lance Armstrong.

Ocean1

11th June 2016, 22:35

Not as embarrassing as be wrong 3x and at such a simplistic level too

And i still see you are trotting out that same old web site we proved wrong ... how many years ago

Do you want me to go over the same old ground again ..I can ..

Or would u just like to use throw away lines to hide ur ignorance

Again

sent for a divine source

I've never posted either of those links before.

I can find and post more explaining economics in terms of physical laws if you want.

Or you could just fuck off and sit in the corner with the pointy hat for a while.

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 22:37

No they don't... and I've had conversations with the commerce commission in regards to legislation that forces people to compete. It's not a choice to not compete, coz those competing get pissy that they can't compete. Tragically ironic, but that's the way it works boy.

Of course - whats the best way to Compete? To remove the Competition!

I answered the steak question. There is no steak scarcity given that supermarkets are throwing them out before they go off and some country's are legislating that that shouldn't be allowed. That steaks won't need to be thrown out under RBE, given that people can walk into the supermarket and simply pick them up instead of dumpster diving for the same steak later. So the financial economy is forcing supermarkets to change their behaviour.

Except that wasn't the question - hence why you haven't answered it.

And TBH if you don't understand this by now, then what is the point?

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 22:47

Yeah, just ask Lance Armstrong.

Interesting Choice - Did he not Excel in the Sport? Even at a time when everyone was cheating (so by extension, it was a Pseudo-level playing field)

mashman

11th June 2016, 22:50

Of course - whats the best way to Compete? To remove the Competition!

The best way to compete is to share every single piece of information that's available as that levels the field for the competition and as an outcome we get the best (mebees top 3) that the industry can provide instead of 10 variants all claiming to be the best, but that none actually are. That's called collaboration and competition is merely a side effect, not the driver. The driver is getting the best bang for buck for those who'll consume the resources produced. Simple really. Competition for profit is such a half arsed solution and I'm embarrassed to think that I actually used to believe otherwise. I'm glad I thought about it.

Except that wasn't the question - hence why you haven't answered it.

And TBH if you don't understand this by now, then what is the point?

It was about the scarcity of steak wasn't it. I showed you that steak isn't scarce. If it wasn't about steak scarcity then please rephrase what you were trying to convey.

Ironic given your lack of ability to understand what RBE is let alone how it would work wouldn't you say?

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 22:55

The best way to compete is to share every single piece of information that's available as that levels the field for the competition and as an outcome we get the best (mebees top 3) that the industry can provide instead of 10 variants all claiming to be the best, but that none actually are. That's called collaboration and competition is merely a side effect, not the driver. The driver is getting the best bang for buck for those who'll consume the resources produced. Simple really. Competition for profit is such a half arsed solution and I'm embarrassed to think that I actually used to believe otherwise. I'm glad I thought about it.

Sure - Sharing information is good - but what drives the Competition? What compels someone to make sacrifices in order to Achieve greatness? Profit is one hell of a Motivator in that respect.

It was about the scarcity of steak wasn't it. I showed you that steak isn't scarce. If it wasn't about steak scarcity then please rephrase what you were trying to convey.

Ironic given your lack of ability to understand what RBE is let alone how it would work wouldn't you say?

Ironic, but for other reasons - It wasn't about the Scarcity of Steak per se. If you understood economics Like you claim to then you would have spotted that. It's that same lack of understanding of Economics that you have demonstrated as to why an RBE will fail.

The 2 are related.

Katman

11th June 2016, 23:00

Sure - Sharing information is good - but what drives the Competition? What compels someone to make sacrifices in order to Achieve greatness? Profit is one hell of a Motivator in that respect.

Like I said, ask Lance Armstrong.

mashman

11th June 2016, 23:02

Ironic, but for other reasons - It wasn't about the Scarcity of Steak per se. If you understood economics Like you claim to then you would have spotted that. It's that same lack of understanding of Economics that you have demonstrated as to why an RBE will fail.

The 2 are related.

Ok, consider this me asking for clarification yet again.

Brian d marge

11th June 2016, 23:06

I've never posted either of those links before.

I can find and post more explaining economics in terms of physical laws if you want.

Or you could just fuck off and sit in the corner with the pointy hat for a while.
Yes u have
do a search on kb I think in stupid world thread
And neo classic economic theory is completely at odds with entropy.
Shall I go there????
But not understanding either u won't know that
Adam Smith tried the same argument..he called it the hidden hand .... but

And it's a but bigger than a faggots arse in pentonville prison

If you can or do understand neo classic economics ..

You would KNOW where and how money was created

But u have demonstrated you depth of knowledge

So I doubt u have an understanding of either entropy or neo classical economics

Would like to join me at the back of the class with the pointy hat ....???

Or shall I highlight ur lack of knowledge some more???

sent for a divine source

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 23:15

Ok, consider this me asking for clarification yet again.

Okay - You have X number of People that one a Specific cut of Steak. You have Y number of specific Cuts of that Steak.

X is Greater than Y.

Current system is that Price rises until X=Y, People are free to choose to pay a higher price in order to secure what they want. Those that decide either the Price is too high or can't afford the higher price then get to choose their next best alternative. If people find they want that Cut, but currently can't afford it, they can try to use their Agency, Skills and abilities to get to a point where they can afford that cut.

I.e. I go to a restaurant, I see an Eye Fillet Steak (yum), but its price is $60, I see a Sirloin on the Menu (Yum, but not as much Yum as an Eye Fillet) for $40 - I am now able to choose to pay the higher price or determine that the difference isn't worth $20

How does an RBE handle this situation without killing an additional Cow?

If you say we give them a different Cut of Steak (that would be the Undesirable Steak that the Supermarkets throw out), then Personal Choice is removed - and I win the argument (because this has been my Critique all along).

And even in that scenario - you still have to describe how you decide who gets the specific cut of Steak first and who gets a different cut. Likely your answer will be that some form of Administration decides based on some factor or another which is exactly what happened with Communism

Oh and FYI, just because a Supermarket throws out Produce, it doesn't mean it isn't Scarce - Scarcity refers to the fact that a resource has a Finite Measure.

Katman

11th June 2016, 23:18

Okay - You have X number of People that one a Specific cut of Steak. You have Y number of specific Cuts of that Steak.

X is Greater than Y.

Current system is that Price rises until X=Y, People are free to choose to pay a higher price in order to secure what they want. Those that decide either the Price is too high or can't afford the higher price then get to choose their next best alternative. If people find they want that Cut, but currently can't afford it, they can try to use their Agency, Skills and abilities to get to a point where they can afford that cut.

I.e. I go to a restaurant, I see an Eye Fillet Steak (yum), but its price is $60, I see a Sirloin on the Menu (Yum, but not as much Yum as an Eye Fillet) for $40 - I am now able to choose to pay the higher price or determine that the difference isn't worth $20

How does an RBE handle this situation without killing an additional Cow?

If you say we give them a different Cut of Steak (that would be the Undesirable Steak that the Supermarkets throw out), then Personal Choice is removed - and I win the argument (because this has been my Critique all along).

And even in that scenario - you still have to describe how you decide who gets the specific cut of Steak first and who gets a different cut. Likely your answer will be that some form of Administration decides based on some factor or another which is exactly what happened with Communism

Oh and FYI, just because a Supermarket throws out Produce, it doesn't mean it isn't Scarce - Scarcity refers to the fact that a resource has a Finite Measure.

You're in love with Autism, aren't you?

Ocean1

11th June 2016, 23:27

Yes u have
do a search on kb I think in stupid world thread

It's your claim, you do a fucking search, I'm sick of your vacuous bullshit.

Woodman

11th June 2016, 23:28

ok. so. joe P darkie sees CEOs and lawerjew types (those who do SFA and get paid fuckloads)... and decides not to go fishing today?

You make no sense.........

TheDemonLord

11th June 2016, 23:29

You're in love with Autism, aren't you?

Translation from Katflap to English:

'Wow that is a logical and internally consistent argument which I cannot refute.'

Katman

11th June 2016, 23:30

Translation from Katflap to English:

'Wow that is a logical and internally consistent argument which I cannot refute.'

Are you Autistic too?

:sherlock:

mashman

11th June 2016, 23:34

Okay - You have X number of People that one a Specific cut of Steak. You have Y number of specific Cuts of that Steak.

X is Greater than Y.

Current system is that Price rises until X=Y, People are free to choose to pay a higher price in order to secure what they want. Those that decide either the Price is too high or can't afford the higher price then get to choose their next best alternative. If people find they want that Cut, but currently can't afford it, they can try to use their Agency, Skills and abilities to get to a point where they can afford that cut.

I.e. I go to a restaurant, I see an Eye Fillet Steak (yum), but its price is $60, I see a Sirloin on the Menu (Yum, but not as much Yum as an Eye Fillet) for $40 - I am now able to choose to pay the higher price or determine that the difference isn't worth $20

How does an RBE handle this situation without killing an additional Cow?

You shoulda stopped there as you don't understand RBE

Thanks.

First come first served. For those who don't get the cuts they want, tough shit. Exactly the same as your restaurant example. If there's no steak, there's no steak no matter how much money you have.

Woodman

11th June 2016, 23:35

Why would it need to be policed?

So you're denigrating charity and voluntary workers then? Huh, I didn't have you pegged as a stupid lazy fuck... hey ho.

Because lazy fucks...

So you think the working population would put up with those that did sweet fa?

mashman

11th June 2016, 23:43

Because lazy fucks...

So you think the working population would put up with those that did sweet fa?

So you want force to be used to stop people from getting things that you don't think they've "earned"?

They do at the moment. Perhaps they'll be smart enough to understand that the money they give to feed, cloth etc... the "lazy fucks" isn't going to other more essential activities... and then they'll realise that not having money will allow the "lazy fucks" to get what they were going to get anyway, as well as, not instead of like in the current financial economy, that they will also get the essential services as there is no budget constraint to prevent those essential services from being implemented. In other words, win win.

Then again, you'd need the "lazy fuck" thinkers to understand that they're actually gonna gain from removing money. Logic, reason and common sense. Although they may just remain pious cunts and bite their noses off to spite their own faces. Simple choice really.

Katman

11th June 2016, 23:44

Because lazy fucks...

So you think the working population would put up with those that did sweet fa?

Well the way I see it is that there are no handouts in the RBE system.

An individual who didn't contribute would very quickly be ostricised to the point that they were forced to either conform to the idea of combined conscience or starve.

(I may be wrong - I'm not an RBE scholar).

mashman

11th June 2016, 23:53

Well the way I see it is that there are no handouts in the RBE system.

An individual who didn't contribute would very quickly be ostricised to the point that they were forced to either conform to the idea of combined conscience or starve.

(I may be wrong - I'm not an RBE scholar).

Aye, no need for handouts as everything's free.

Not necessarily true. Yup "freeloaders" will be easier to spot, but they'll also be able to travel wherever they like and therefore being ostracised won't have the impact desired. Fortunately the education system and surrounding social system of an RBE will have instilled better values in the younger members of society.

Simply accept that some people won't work. In fact consider that 10/20 years down the track automation will be such that there'll barely be any manual jobs left. The financial economy wants to solve that with a UBI. You know, Communism.

(not wrong, just a lack of thought in regards to how easy it will be to do nothing and not get caught lol)

Brian d marge

11th June 2016, 23:54

It's your claim, you do a fucking search, I'm sick of your vacuous bullshit.

Vacuous as in without substance .....

Originally Posted by Ocean1 http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=1130803970#post1130803970) What limits resource availability is the production of resources. Work. Effort. Negative entropy. Unless someone produces it it don't exist. Money is simply the unit of measuring negative entropy, as valued by the majority of society. 17th December 2014, 16:19 post number 4592 of stupid world

now would you like to continue and bluster and blow some more.....?

hint..... cut and paste only works when you know what you are talking about .........

Katman

12th June 2016, 00:00

Interesting Choice - Did he not Excel in the Sport? Even at a time when everyone was cheating (so by extension, it was a Pseudo-level playing field)

Have you not managed to figure out yet that while competition may well result in excellence it can just as easily result in corruption?

Brian d marge

12th June 2016, 00:16

Thanks.

First come first served. For those who don't get the cuts they want, tough shit. Exactly the same as your restaurant example. If there's no steak, there's no steak no matter how much money you have.

Did I not say in a previous post that under both systems one cow someone will miss out,??

Though when using scarcity and money ... one giving up the steak has little choice ..unless they get more money than the other . Me me me

In the other system one chooses to give up me steak ... for you you you

Now one wonders which one is the better system

sent for a divine source

Akzle

12th June 2016, 07:46

Because lazy fucks...

So you think the working population would put up with those that did sweet fa?

because the current system would never take off all the working population and give it to those who do sweet fuc//

o. Wait on...

Ocean1

12th June 2016, 09:37

Negative entropy. And it's a better definition than any you've ever dreamed up.

Says u who has demonstrated his lack of knowledge of entropy

And did I use the term negative entropy...or are u making things up again

And no, I did. And if you'd actually checked you'd have found that I'm far from the first to use physical laws to define economic phenomena.
http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781441993649

https://www.amazon.com/Entropy-Law-Economic-Process/dp/0674281640/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1465632238&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=Georgescu-Roegen+The+Entropy+Law+and+the+Economic+Process

And i still see you are trotting out that same old web site we proved wrong ... how many years

I've never posted either of those links before.

Yes u have
do a search on kb I think in stupid world thread

It's your claim, you do a fucking search, I'm sick of your vacuous bullshit.

Originally Posted by Ocean1 http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=1130803970#post1130803970) What limits resource availability is the production of resources. Work. Effort. Negative entropy. Unless someone produces it it don't exist. Money is simply the unit of measuring negative entropy, as valued by the majority of society. 17th December 2014, 16:19 post number 4592 of stupid world

now would you like to continue and bluster and blow some more.....?

hint..... cut and paste only works when you know what you are talking about .........
So it does.

So where the fuck are those links you claim I’ve posted before?

Actually, don’t bother, you’ve just demonstrated you’re not actually capable of following your own instructions let alone conduct any sort of coherent discourse.

Woodman

12th June 2016, 09:39

because the current system would never take off all the working population and give it to those who do sweet fuc//

o. Wait on...

Yeah but the money/tax system seperates us out from that. With mashmans system that will be reversed people that will seem to live the high life will be the ones who choose to live like that because they do fuck all. The work/reward system would be all ass about face.:weird:

Ocean1

12th June 2016, 10:09

So you want force to be used to stop people from getting things that you don't think they've "earned"?

I rather suspect that like most people he'd like force used to stop other people getting things HE's earned.

In spite of which, like most people he probably gives about a third of HIS earnings to other people.

mashman

12th June 2016, 10:35

Did I not say in a previous post that under both systems one cow someone will miss out,??

Though when using scarcity and money ... one giving up the steak has little choice ..unless they get more money than the other . Me me me

In the other system one chooses to give up me steak ... for you you you

Now one wonders which one is the better system

sent for a divine source

Indeedy you did, repeatedly, and with great clarity. Option 3... if it were I that had a steak... I'd have it cut in half and share it with someone who otherwise wouldn't have gotten any. There's usually more than enough so long as you're not a greedy arsehole i.e. no you, no me, just us.

mashman

12th June 2016, 10:38

I rather suspect that like most people he'd like force used to stop other people getting things HE's earned.

In spite of which, like most people he probably gives about a third of HIS earnings to other people.

Sounds like Communism to me.

Ocean1

12th June 2016, 10:44

Sounds like Communism to me.

No, no, communism is where someone else takes everything you've earned and gives it to everyone else.

At least, bad as it is that's what it says on the packet.

In practice communism takes everything everyone earns and gives it to nobody.

mashman

12th June 2016, 10:50

Yeah but the money/tax system seperates us out from that. With mashmans system that will be reversed people that will seem to live the high life will be the ones who choose to live like that because they do fuck all. The work/reward system would be all ass about face.:weird:

Not quite correct. The reward will have changed. If we don't work, yes I include me coming out of retirement, then none of us get anything because no one will produce anything. I'd love to know how people not working will be able to live much more of a high life than they already do? What are you going to lose? or is it just the principle of the thing and to hell with the consequences of what that system produces as outcomes? ya know, why would you prefer to cut your, and everyone else in the country's, nose off to spite your, our, face? I have an insult prepared and I want to use it ;)

mashman

12th June 2016, 10:56

No, no, communism is where someone else takes everything you've earned and gives it to everyone else.

At least, bad as it is that's what it says on the packet.

In practice communism takes everything everyone earns and gives it to nobody.

Sounds like the taxation system. Yup, Communism.

I understand Communism fine thanks. Gunpoint never suited, so I went for RBE instead which gives rise to open source economics and completely free markets. Something I know you'd like to see, but you want it to work using money, and by the sounds of things guns too :blah:

Woodman

12th June 2016, 11:10

Not quite correct. The reward will have changed. If we don't work, yes I include me coming out of retirement, then none of us get anything because no one will produce anything. I'd love to know how people not working will be able to live much more of a high life than they already do? What are you going to lose? or is it just the principle of the thing and to hell with the consequences of what that system produces as outcomes? ya know, why would you prefer to cut your, and everyone else in the country's, nose off to spite your, our, face? I have an insult prepared and I want to use it ;)

What I was meaning was that in your system everything is free whether you work (put in an effort) or not (put in no effort). At least in the one we have now if you do fuck all you generally get fuck all. Human nature being what it is, if you see someone sunning themselves on the beach and holidaying all the time while you sluice sewerage at the ponds for 10 hours a day then your work ethic is probarbly not going to be that good. Like I say the work/reward system is ass backwards. There needs to be a consequence for lazy fuckers.

mashman

12th June 2016, 11:34

What I was meaning was that in your system everything is free whether you work (put in an effort) or not (put in no effort). At least in the one we have now if you do fuck all you generally get fuck all. Human nature being what it is, if you see someone sunning themselves on the beach and holidaying all the time while you sluice sewerage at the ponds for 10 hours a day then your work ethic is probarbly not going to be that good. Like I say the work/reward system is ass backwards. There needs to be a consequence for lazy fuckers.

Oh I get what you mean, as the capitalist pig in me is still strong... and yes, I have thought of certain ways to curtail "bludging". Human nature? So I'm not human then? I know that there are people doing very well out of doing fuck all. I lived in among the "lazy" for 6 years, ironically after living in a millionaire household for 7 years, and they do not do fuck all for the most part, not the adults anyway. I could have quite easily adopted the practices that they were willing to share and contributed to their market. They were easy, no one would know etc... yet I didn't. Human nature? Given that those I lived among did holiday etc... and given that there were also others in the street who worked legally, there was a remarkable lack of us and them. Human nature? Nah, a lack of understanding and a deep seated need to tell others what they are and aren't allowed to have.

Like I said earlier. Give the "lazy" hat they want, coz that will allow the rest of us, who want "better" things for society, to focus on that instead of wasting resources (inc money) on policing those "we" deem unworthy of having stuff, that they'll get by hook or crook anyway, based on perceived contribution. There is more than enough to go around, and the "lazy" (adults) quite often aren't. A bitter pill to swallow perhaps, but not swallowing it is fucking our future.

Ocean1

12th June 2016, 12:41

Sounds like the taxation system. Yup, Communism.

I understand Communism fine thanks. Gunpoint never suited, so I went for RBE instead which gives rise to open source economics and completely free markets. Something I know you'd like to see, but you want it to work using money, and by the sounds of things guns too :blah:

Taxation is communism, now?

Well certainly voting yourself more of the public purse than you contributed is pretty close.

Probably as close as anyone wants to come who's actually produced more than they've used.

And no, a free market doesn't include anyone that isn't buying or selling. Not even if they have a funny hat and a big gun.

PS: I reckon you can learn a lot about open source economics from watching some of NZ's team sports.

Brian d marge

12th June 2016, 12:56

So it does.

So where the fuck are those links you claim I’ve posted before?

Actually, don’t bother, you’ve just demonstrated you’re not actually capable of following your own instructions let alone conduct any sort of coherent discourse.

Originally Posted by Ocean1 http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=1130803970#post1130803970) What limits resource availability is the production of resources. Work. Effort. Negative entropy. Unless someone produces it it don't exist. Money is simply the unit of measuring negative entropy, as valued by the majority of society. 17th December 2014, 16:19 post number 4592 of stupid world

this one

its colored crayons time .... As I said I had never used the words neg entropy ... YOU had ..off I went and did a quick search and there ya go .....

So now we have established you're Blind and stupid ... Scared, and your sexual relationship with ya mom are the only ones left to positively determine .

Now as for entropy and the links. Please at least read the fking things before u post em. ... Mr Roegen had to invent a 4th law ... to explain the use of entropy and the use of entropy was from from an even earlier discussion on General systems theory was originally proposed by biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy in 1928 if I remember correctly.

anyway SCIENCE DONT WORK LIKE THAT ...... SO Roegen was using entropy as an analogy an analogy to explain the movement of the hidden hand generating economic velocity but as You honestly have NO CLUE what you're talking about .... but at least ya posting links now , thats a giant leap that must have been distressing

but hey feel free to bluster and generate web traffic if it makes u feel better

hey ho

mashman

12th June 2016, 12:57

Taxation is communism, now?

Well certainly voting yourself more of the public purse than you contributed is pretty close.

Probably as close as anyone wants to come who's actually produced more than they've used.

And no, a free market doesn't include anyone that isn't buying or selling. Not even if they have a funny hat and a big gun.

PS: I reckon you can learn a lot about open source economics from watching some of NZ's team sports.

Has there ever been a tax rate of 100%?

A free market is without rule or regulation. Ergo, it includes everyone and excludes no one. Else it ain't a free market.

PS: quite possibly... well, the ones that aren't paid ;).

Ocean1

12th June 2016, 13:12

Originally Posted by Ocean1 http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=1130803970#post1130803970) What limits resource availability is the production of resources. Work. Effort. Negative entropy. Unless someone produces it it don't exist. Money is simply the unit of measuring negative entropy, as valued by the majority of society. 17th December 2014, 16:19 post number 4592 of stupid world

this one

Yes. That's not actually either of the links I posted.

Is it?

It's a post I made years ago discussing the same thing.

A comment which, knowing fuck all about economic entropy you violently disagreed with.

So now you've had two opportunities to learn about it, and have completely fucked up both of them.

Now fuck off, I've wasted enough time on you.

Ocean1

12th June 2016, 13:24

Has there ever been a tax rate of 100%?

A free market is without rule or regulation. Ergo, it includes everyone and excludes no one. Else it ain't a free market.

PS: quite possibly... well, the ones that aren't paid ;).

Only in communist economies.

Got a reference for that definition of a free market? Only, it's more or less the exact opposite to everyone else's: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/free-market

No, the opposite, if anything. But I don't think pay is actually relevant, it's just that typical Kiwi high performance units tend to pull resources from a wider range of sources and entities, and they generate product few other groups manage, regardless of budget.

NZ's sailing industry is a classic example. The competition elements and the manufacturing elements.

Brian d marge

12th June 2016, 13:36

Yes. That's not actually either of the links I posted.

Is it?

It's a post I made years ago discussing the same thing.

A comment which, knowing fuck all about economic entropy you violently disagreed with.

So now you've had two opportunities to learn about it, and have completely fucked up both of them.

Now fuck off, I've wasted enough time on you.

youre trolling right?

Shall I walk you through it ? I can even color the difficult bits

go on let me walk you through it , .... Not that I enjoy making people look stupid but in your case, I have time ( time thats not wasted )

unlike his lordship , wasting time on us peasants ... yes sir thank you sir , doffs his hat in deference......

mashman

12th June 2016, 14:06

Only in communist economies.

Got a reference for that definition of a free market? Only, it's more or less the exact opposite to everyone else's: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/free-market

No, the opposite, if anything. But I don't think pay is actually relevant, it's just that typical Kiwi high performance units tend to pull resources from a wider range of sources and entities, and they generate product few other groups manage, regardless of budget.

NZ's sailing industry is a classic example. The competition elements and the manufacturing elements.

Is France communist then?

Oh irony. Shit naming convention to hide what it actually is eh. Ok, I'll call yours a self regulated market from now on, and mine can be a pure market.

:killingme@elements. Elements does no the same thing make... but I get your point.

Ocean1

12th June 2016, 14:26

Is France communist then?

Oh irony. Shit naming convention to hide what it actually is eh. Ok, I'll call yours a self regulated market from now on, and mine can be a pure market.

:killingme@elements. Elements does no the same thing make... but I get your point.

If they tax their people 100% then yes. Obviously. That's what defines communism: state control of all resources. In fact most people probably equate level of personal and corporate tax with the degree of government communist traits.

Why not call it what it is: a market free from outside interference, that's what it is, and that's why convention calls it a free market. The meaning doesn't change just 'cause you don't like it.

Elements of the industry are exactly what they are though, so again why not call then what they are?

And unless you've worked with the industry at an international level then you probably don't get the point. Which is that it's an example of how a market that is too small to work under classic, accepted employment models can be made to work very successfully by instead simply rewarding individual contributors according to the value of their particular contribution.

mashman

12th June 2016, 14:41

If they tax their people 100% then yes. Obviously. That's what defines communism: state control of all resources.

Why not call it what it is: a market free from outside interference, that's what it is, and that's why convention calls it a free market. The meaning doesn't change just 'cause you don't like it.

Elements of the industry are exactly what they are though, so again why not call then what they are?

And unless you've worked with the industry at an international level then you probably don't get the point. Which is that it's an example of how a market that is too small to work under classic, accepted employment models can be made to work very successfully by instead simply rewarding individual contributors according to the value of their particular contribution.

heh... it only applies to the really rich in France. The state owns all resources though.

Yeah, but you still want some controls in place don't you? I'm merely looking for terms that make the distinction in lieu of the free market only referring to free from govt interference. Also, I've seen "self regulated" used by economists making it clearer what that Free actually means... hence it's not my term.

I agree, elements are what they are... but they're only elements, not the whole. Which is why I said that I get your point. Virtually every market system contains elements of other market systems... even in pure or self regulated markets.

Yeah, I get how it's supposed to work.

Ocean1

12th June 2016, 15:43

heh... it only applies to the really rich in France. The state owns all resources though.

Yeah, but you still want some controls in place don't you? I'm merely looking for terms that make the distinction in lieu of the free market only referring to free from govt interference. Also, I've seen "self regulated" used by economists making it clearer what that Free actually means... hence it's not my term.

I agree, elements are what they are... but they're only elements, not the whole. Which is why I said that I get your point. Virtually every market system contains elements of other market systems... even in pure or self regulated markets.

Yeah, I get how it's supposed to work.

Hmmm, according to this: https://www.easycalculation.com/tax/france.php my tax in France would be slightly less than it is here. And that's including social security, which somehow is effectively still mine, should I need it. And if they own all resources then how come I can buy a house there?

Yes. I don't want people selling shit that's not theirs, that was obtained illegally or that's dangerous. All functions of governance. Outside of that, if you're not the buyer or the seller you get to fuck off. In which case markets are, in fact self regulating in terms of price whereas no other sort of market is.

Well actually the boating production element of the industry here IS the whole boat building industry. I was simply pointing out that it's successful here in a way that can't / doesn't work elsewhere. So changing that would likely fuch the whole industry good and proper.

And the competitive element is the boat racing industry, which also works here in a way that doesn't overseas. In fact rather a lot of overseas racing technology IS NZ technology, which they wouldn't have if NZ had bothered patenting it. We don't bother simply because the way you succeed in that type of competition is not to protect your technology but to always be developing better technology.

A model you're only ever going to beat by either being more innovative or by applying 10 times the budget, and only then very briefly.

mashman

12th June 2016, 19:05

Hmmm, according to this: https://www.easycalculation.com/tax/france.php my tax in France would be slightly less than it is here. And that's including social security, which somehow is effectively still mine, should I need it. And if they own all resources then how come I can buy a house there?

Yes. I don't want people selling shit that's not theirs, that was obtained illegally or that's dangerous. All functions of governance. Outside of that, if you're not the buyer or the seller you get to fuck off. In which case markets are, in fact self regulating in terms of price whereas no other sort of market is.

A model you're only ever going to beat by either being more innovative or by applying 10 times the budget, and only then very briefly.

Fuck off then. Au revoir. It was reported that several thousand households were taxed over 100% a couple of years ago. You buy the lease, not the house. Any govt can take what you class as your property from you without batting an eyelid should they choose. In other words, you own nothing... in fact you go to the govt justice department to settle disputes over asset "ownership". Who are they to decide if they are not the owner?

Ironic that so many are scared of RBE because they believe that force will be used to keep people to rule... especially when they want regulations to enforce who should get what :laugh:

10 times the budget eh? RBE makes the budget limitless. Consider the model beaten!

husaberg

12th June 2016, 19:11

Fuck off then. Au revoir. It was reported that several thousand households were taxed over 100% a couple of years ago. You buy the lease, not the house. Any govt can take what you class as your property from you without batting an eyelid should they choose. In other words, you own nothing... in fact you go to the govt justice department to settle disputes over asset "ownership". Who are they to decide if they are not the owner?

Ironic that so many are scared of RBE because they believe that force will be used to keep people to rule... especially when they want regulations to enforce who should get what :laugh:

10 times the budget eh? RBE makes the budget limitless. Consider the model beaten!
You might want to investigate who why and for how long and how many they were taxed so highly.

More than 8,000 French households' tax bills topped 100 percent of their income in 2012, according to a French newspaper report.
"In 2011, 5,221 households had a tax rate of more than 100 percent on their revenues, Some 6,203 households had a rate of more than 85 percent and 6,343 house holds a rate of more than 75 percent," the newspaper said but households could take advantage of a "tax shield" introduced by Sarkozy to cap an individual's overall taxation at 50 percent of their income.
Last year, for the first time in 25 years, Les Echos reported, that cap was removed which "substantially increased [the tax rates'] impact."
Citing data from France's finance ministry, the business newspaper Les Echos reported on Friday that in addition to those taxed at over 100 percent last year, almost 12,000 households paid taxes worth more than 75 percent of their 2011 income and that a further 9,910 households were taxed at more than 85 percent of their income. (France has 25,253,000 households)
The paper said this was due to a one-off levy imposed on the 2011 incomes of households with assets of more than 1.3 million euros ($1.67 million). The surcharge was introduced by socialist President Francois Hollande in an attempt to offset the cost of a rebate scheme and taxation cap introduced by former President Nikolas Sarkozy, the paper added.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100749491

Ocean1

12th June 2016, 19:22

Fuck off then. Au revoir. It was reported that several thousand households were taxed over 100% a couple of years ago. You buy the lease, not the house.

What report?

And there's no such thing as a freehold house in France?

Any govt can take what you class as your property from you without batting an eyelid should they choose. In other words, you own nothing... in fact you go to the govt justice department to settle disputes over asset "ownership". Who are they to decide if they are not the owner?

According to what law can they assume ownership of my shit?

And the justice department can rule against the established law now, can it?

Sounds like more bullshit to me.

10 times the budget eh? RBE makes the budget limitless. Consider the model beaten!

Yeah? Try telling any industry that an economy without money makes for a limitless budget. :lol:

An RBE makes the budget zero, fool.

mashman

12th June 2016, 19:32

What report?

And there's no such thing as a freehold house in France?

Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income: paper (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-tax-idUSBRE94H0AX20130518)

According to what law can they assume ownership of my shit?

And the justice department can rule against the established law now, can it?

Sounds like more bullshit to me.

I've posted it before elsewhere, and tbh can't be fucked finding it again.

Who but the owner dictates who owns what?

If you only had a brain (in a wizzy of oz stylee)

Yeah? Try telling any industry that an economy without money makes for a limitless budget. :lol:

An RBE makes the budget zero, fool.

In the same way there's no such thing as 0% or 100%, yes.

If you only had a brain (in a wizzy of oz stylee)

Ocean1

12th June 2016, 19:54

Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income: paper (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-tax-idUSBRE94H0AX20130518)

"a one-off levy last year on 2011 incomes for households with assets of more than 1.3 million euros" :laugh:

I've posted it before elsewhere, and tbh can't be fucked finding it again.

Don't bother, it probably represents about as much relevance as the +100% tax thing.

Who but the owner dictates who owns what?

The law. But you go rant some more about thieving justice departments, it must be very therapeutic.

In the same way there's no such thing as 0% or 100%, yes.

No, no I'm afraid "no money" does indeed mean "no budget". Fuck all to do with %.

And you don't hardly need a brain to figure that.... oh wait...

PS: And there's no such thing as a freehold house in France?

mashman

12th June 2016, 20:01

"a one-off levy last year on 2011 incomes for households with assets of more than 1.3 million euros" :laugh:

Aha... communism.

The law. But you go rant some more about thieving justice departments, it must be very therapeutic.

Not really, just explaining who the real owners of stuff are... and it ain't us whether you like it or not.

No, no I'm afraid "no money" does indeed mean "no budget". Fuck all to do with %.

And you don't hardly need a brain to figure that.... oh wait...

PS: And there's no such thing as a freehold house in France?

If you say so.

P.S. Doesn't matter what you call it, it's all state owned.

Ocean1

12th June 2016, 20:10

Aha... communism.

Not really, just explaining who the real owners of stuff are... and it ain't us whether you like it or not.

If you say so.

P.S. Doesn't matter what you call it, it's all state owned.

Well, socialism.

Again, the owners aren't who the law says they are?

And you've proved this all before but now can't be fucked?

Right.

TheDemonLord

12th June 2016, 22:07

Thanks.

First come first served. For those who don't get the cuts they want, tough shit. Exactly the same as your restaurant example. If there's no steak, there's no steak no matter how much money you have.

http://www.allrussias.com/images/civiliz1.gif

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/BO39QNakB9c/maxresdefault.jpg

So, If I choose to work (and not stand around in Line) then I miss out on things that I want. If I don't work, I get to stand around inline for things I want - really selling me on the Utopian Dream.

Thus providing even less incentive for me to work....

Also I'm reminded of Stories (don't have the source) of African Warlords using people to stand in line when Free Aid is handed out, stockpiling it, and then either selling it, or using it as leverage to get people to do there bidding. I'm also reminded Spivs during Rationing in WW2.

As I said - non monetary corruption can be a dangerous and fickle beast.

TheDemonLord

12th June 2016, 22:12

Have you not managed to figure out yet that while competition may well result in excellence it can just as easily result in corruption?

What happens when you get excellence AND corruption?

Does it, by virtue of coming from a Corrupt source, Diminish it's excellence?

I mean this in a non sporting manner - suppose that there was a human acheivement - First Manned mission to Mars (hypothetically) - and it all went perfectly, and it transpires that the company that did something pretty critical won the contract by Corruption.

Where does your moral compass point? Mine, if the results are good, then end justified the means - and I'm happy. What does your outlook say?

mashman

12th June 2016, 22:25

Well, socialism.

Again, the owners aren't who the law says they are?

Much better description, glad you brought it up so I can slip out of TDL mode.

No. Not if laws can be ignored or overridden... which they most definitely can.

mashman

12th June 2016, 22:27

So, If I choose to work (and not stand around in Line) then I miss out on things that I want. If I don't work, I get to stand around inline for things I want - really selling me on the Utopian Dream.

Thus providing even less incentive for me to work....

Also I'm reminded of Stories (don't have the source) of African Warlords using people to stand in line when Free Aid is handed out, stockpiling it, and then either selling it, or using it as leverage to get people to do there bidding. I'm also reminded Spivs during Rationing in WW2.

As I said - non monetary corruption can be a dangerous and fickle beast.

Nope. You've still absolutely no understanding of RBE. By all means become a bludger then... I doubt your skills, and attitude, will be missed.

TheDemonLord

12th June 2016, 22:36

Nope. You've still absolutely no understanding of RBE. By all means become a bludger then... I doubt your skills, and attitude, will be missed.

You said the method of resource allocation where there isn't enough supply to meet demand is First come, First Serve - And I'm saying Fuck that.

Also - if my skills weren't missed - then why are skilled IT worked in such shortage in NZ?

Check Yo' self before you Wreck Yo' self.

mashman

12th June 2016, 22:42

You said the method of resource allocation where there isn't enough supply to meet demand is First come, First Serve - And I'm saying Fuck that.

Also - if my skills weren't missed - then why are skilled IT worked in such shortage in NZ?

The current method is first come first served for the same thing.

Shit logistics.

Lazy thinkin fuckin moron. You've obviously need to be spoonfed. No more... ignore list time!

TheDemonLord

12th June 2016, 22:48

No more... ignore list time!

http://data.whicdn.com/images/6285521/large.jpg

Victory.

Jin

19th July 2016, 18:07

I was watching Hayeks road to serfdom and thought it represented these rbe nutjobs perfectly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QD75lUm51s

mashman

19th July 2016, 18:24

I was watching Hayeks road to serfdom and thought it represented these rbe nutjobs perfectly

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, coz you know what RBE is... :killingme. Mind you, the vid did describe modern day quite well... and you vote to be led by someone don't you? :rofl: :crybaby: :rofl:. My thanks.

Brian d marge

19th July 2016, 19:03

I was watching Hayeks road to serfdom and thought it represented these rbe nutjobs perfectly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QD75lUm51s
I have the book ..it's a tough read

sent for a divine source

Voltaire

19th July 2016, 19:20

What happens when you get excellence AND corruption?

Does it, by virtue of coming from a Corrupt source, Diminish it's excellence?

I mean this in a non sporting manner - suppose that there was a human acheivement - First Manned mission to Mars (hypothetically) - and it all went perfectly, and it transpires that the company that did something pretty critical won the contract by Corruption.

Where does your moral compass point? Mine, if the results are good, then end justified the means - and I'm happy. What does your outlook say?

I suppose for that plan to work you have to be the one who writes the history.

George Bush" the coalition of the willing ( aka us and the Brit poodles) get rid of Saddam, everyone loves us and all my cronies make some cash...what can possibly go wrong ..win win no"

Worked for dubya dubya 2 as the Victors wrote the history.

Brian d marge

19th July 2016, 19:22

I suppose for that plan to work you have to be the one who writes the history.

George Bush" the coalition of the willing ( aka us and the Brit poodles) get rid of Saddam, everyone loves us and all my cronies make some cash...what can possibly go wrong ..win win no"

Worked for dubya dubya 2 as the Victors wrote the history.
Hahaha that's true up until the Internet age ...and then it gets....kb'ed

In venician politics third place plays 1 and 2 off against each other
US being 1 that leaves britain and Israel 2 and three and since the venician power base is London.......
If Israel is to become a world power it would have to a. Beef up its army or b. Shrink the people it suppresses...
And I think Russia knows this
Imho

sent for a divine source

Jin

19th July 2016, 20:42

I have the book ..it's a tough read

sent for a divine source
You should have another go. Will change your life and thinking.

Akzle

19th July 2016, 20:59

Will change your life and thinking.

yet couldn't trigger either in you...

mashman

19th July 2016, 21:28

yet couldn't trigger either in you...

bwaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa

bogan

19th July 2016, 23:49

I was watching Hayeks road to serfdom and thought it represented these rbe nutjobs perfectly

To be fair, they're not all nutjobs. The guy who originally coined the term for the second time is actually pretty onto it; The Venus Project bloke. He understands the realities, but is also optimistic about creating a better one from within. It's the raving loons like mashy who change what their version of an RBE means simply to sound good, that sort of shit is what gives it a bad name. Seriously, the parallels with moronic politicians like trump just saying what they think masses want to hear, while concealing all the logic and reasoning to dispute it, are fucking hilarious (I managed to get mashy to talk about it once, I completely eviscerated his uneducated naivity, so now he gets all shitty and repeats the 'but you don't understand' line and never discusses and specifics). At least these dumb fucks are getting nowhere so it's the good kind of hilarious, unlike trumpy who funny and scary all at the same time.

mashman

20th July 2016, 09:48

To be fair, they're not all nutjobs. The guy who originally coined the term for the second time is actually pretty onto it; The Venus Project bloke. He understands the realities, but is also optimistic about creating a better one from within. It's the raving loons like mashy who change what their version of an RBE means simply to sound good, that sort of shit is what gives it a bad name. Seriously, the parallels with moronic politicians like trump just saying what they think masses want to hear, while concealing all the logic and reasoning to dispute it, are fucking hilarious (I managed to get mashy to talk about it once, I completely eviscerated his uneducated naivity, so now he gets all shitty and repeats the 'but you don't understand' line and never discusses and specifics). At least these dumb fucks are getting nowhere so it's the good kind of hilarious, unlike trumpy who funny and scary all at the same time.

When did we talk about it?... and I'll happily wear loon if the alternative is some other label that you guys wear.

See, when someone says to me, 'but you don't understand', I generally accept that I don't. I thought that's how things worked. I guess not.

Hey bogan, perhaps you can spare me some of the pain of my life and tell me, how am I going to feel tomorrow and what am I going to be wrong about? forewarned is forearmed like.

Jin

20th July 2016, 09:59

To be fair, they're not all nutjobs. The guy who originally coined the term for the second time is actually pretty onto it; The Venus Project bloke. He understands the realities, but is also optimistic about creating a better one from within. It's the raving loons like mashy who change what their version of an RBE means simply to sound good, that sort of shit is what gives it a bad name. Seriously, the parallels with moronic politicians like trump just saying what they think masses want to hear, while concealing all the logic and reasoning to dispute it, are fucking hilarious (I managed to get mashy to talk about it once, I completely eviscerated his uneducated naivity, so now he gets all shitty and repeats the 'but you don't understand' line and never discusses and specifics). At least these dumb fucks are getting nowhere so it's the good kind of hilarious, unlike trumpy who funny and scary all at the same time.
I would class Jacque Fresco as one of the nutjobs. A well meaning nutjob. But still a nutjob. The bottom line for these guys is that they consider the problem is money and there are enough resources. They just need the right people/planners to get the resources to the right place without money getting in the way.

What they fail to realise is that by taking away money individuals have no individual choice or say in what they want or get. They have to do what they are told and get what they are given. For the greater good.

Katman

20th July 2016, 10:00

....I completely eviscerated his uneducated naivity.....

:killingme

<img src="http://melissastacy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/little_twilight_dreaming_by_kp_shadowsquirrel-d4b0bx81.jpg"/>

mashman

20th July 2016, 10:10

I would class Jacque Fresco as one of the nutjobs. A well meaning nutjob. But still a nutjob. The bottom line for these guys is that they consider the problem is money and there are enough resources. They just need the right people/planners to get the resources to the right place without money getting in the way.

What they fail to realise is that by taking away money individuals have no individual choice or say in what they want or get. They have to do what they are told and get what they are given. For the greater good.

How does taking money away remove individual choice? In RBE everyone is a volunteer. They do what they like.

https://slm-assets3.secondlife.com/assets/12695752/view_large/greater_good_hot_fuzz.jpg?1446630159

The greater good is just a side effect of things being better under RBE. It's not a design feature.

So. Tell me again about what you know in regards to what RBE is?

mashman

20th July 2016, 10:14

:killingme

must spread etc...

Interesting representation of a bogan thought. I get, Rote Learned.

TheDemonLord

20th July 2016, 11:44

I would class Jacque Fresco as one of the nutjobs. A well meaning nutjob. But still a nutjob. The bottom line for these guys is that they consider the problem is money and there are enough resources. They just need the right people/planners to get the resources to the right place without money getting in the way.

What they fail to realise is that by taking away money individuals have no individual choice or say in what they want or get. They have to do what they are told and get what they are given. For the greater good.

Money is more a symptom of the problem, I personally think an RBE, with the right technology would be viable and preferable - but you would need something Star Trek's Replicator technology in order to make it work. There might still be some need for a monetary or meritocracy based system to govern resources that cannot be replicated (such as Land etc.) but that would still be a better place than where we are currently.

However whilst there is a cost of oppertunity for any given resource, an RBE is doomed to fail and end up in a totalitarian dictatorship that will end up resembling communism.

bogan

20th July 2016, 15:10

When did we talk about it?... and I'll happily wear loon if the alternative is some other label that you guys wear.

See, when someone says to me, 'but you don't understand', I generally accept that I don't. I thought that's how things worked. I guess not.

Hey bogan, perhaps you can spare me some of the pain of my life and tell me, how am I going to feel tomorrow and what am I going to be wrong about? forewarned is forearmed like.

Was a while back now, you got confused by the concept of inflation, ownership, voting, etc...

When someone says to me, I'd like to discuss these ideas some more, I do. That's how shared understanding works.

Nah, you wouldn't understand anyway :bleh:

I would class Jacque Fresco as one of the nutjobs. A well meaning nutjob. But still a nutjob. The bottom line for these guys is that they consider the problem is money and there are enough resources. They just need the right people/planners to get the resources to the right place without money getting in the way.

What they fail to realise is that by taking away money individuals have no individual choice or say in what they want or get. They have to do what they are told and get what they are given. For the greater good.

I do not think that description fits Fresco so well, perhaps it once did, but his leanings towards a voluntary technocracy with TVP suggest he is aware of those problems. It's the difference between forced removal of money and ladas for everyone, and simply having enough cash to share your ferrari...

Ocean1

20th July 2016, 17:50

I do not think that description fits Fresco so well, perhaps it once did, but his leanings towards a voluntary technocracy with TVP suggest he is aware of those problems. It's the difference between forced removal of money and ladas for everyone, and simply having enough cash to share your ferrari...

Yep, pretty much. But the cargo cult adherents look at anyone with enough cash to be able to share as undeserving rich pricks, and they insist that they deserve every bit as much without the charity bit.

Quite where they get this notion is anyone's guess, but I'm pickin it's 'cause any meritocratic system leaves them embarrassingly exposed as having produced nothing anyone else much wants.

mashman

20th July 2016, 17:53

Was a while back now, you got confused by the concept of inflation, ownership, voting, etc...

When someone says to me, I'd like to discuss these ideas some more, I do. That's how shared understanding works.

Nah, you wouldn't understand anyway :bleh:

So we didn't actually talk about it? You read what I'd typed and decided..... Lervely.

mashman

20th July 2016, 17:59

Yep, pretty much. But the cargo cult adherents look at anyone with enough cash to be able to share as undeserving rich pricks, and they insist that they deserve every bit as much without the charity bit.

Quite where they get this notion is anyone's guess, but I'm pickin it's 'cause any meritocratic system leaves them embarrassingly exposed as having produced nothing anyone else much wants.

Meritocracy. A game of division for children. "Look at me, look at me, I'm much more awesome than someone else coz my thing is nicer than theirs and my mates say so, so cough up, give me more than them" :killingme.

You son, are a child.

TheDemonLord

20th July 2016, 18:05

Meritocracy. A game of division for children. "Look at me, look at me, I'm much more awesome than someone else coz my thing is nicer than theirs and my mates say so, so cough up, give me more than them" :killingme.

You son, are a child.

So next time you need say an 8mm spanner, a hammer will do just as fine.

Ocean1

20th July 2016, 18:08

Meritocracy. A game of division for children. "Look at me, look at me, I'm much more awesome than someone else coz my thing is nicer than theirs and my mates say so, so cough up, give me more than them" :killingme.

You son, are a child.

No, I have whatever I do because people freely paid me what they thought my services were worth.

Just like everyone else.

And while I can grow up whenever I like, you will always be a fuckwit.

mashman

20th July 2016, 18:32

No, I have whatever I do because people freely paid me what they thought my services were worth.

Just like everyone else.

And while I can grow up whenever I like, you will always be a fuckwit.

Yeah, I get how far you're willing to go in regards to your analysis of how you believe economics works.

:killingme

I'm sure you can, and I'll endeavour to continue to be my brand of fuckwit wherever I go :wari:

Ocean1

20th July 2016, 19:01

Yeah, I get how far you're willing to go in regards to your analysis of how you believe economics works.

:killingme

I'm sure you can, and I'll endeavour to continue to be my brand of fuckwit wherever I go :wari:

That's neither analysis or belief, that's fact. You can see it working yourself: non-fuckwits everywhere, thriving by the simple expediency of doing something someone else wants done. You've possibly even been involved yourself in some minor way, accidentally like.

Only, that can't possibly be right, can it? It completely fucks up your cargo cult theory, dunnit?

So you go right ahead and insist that money is pulled out of a fairy banker's arse, nothing to do with value bought and sold, I'm sure the firm belief that you're worth as much as the next man is terribly therapeutic.

Brian d marge

20th July 2016, 19:22

That's neither analysis or belief, that's fact. You can see it working yourself: non-fuckwits everywhere, thriving by the simple expediency of doing something someone else wants done. You've possibly even been involved yourself in some minor way, accidentally like.

Only, that can't possibly be right, can it? It completely fucks up your cargo cult theory, dunnit?

So you go right ahead and insist that money is pulled out of a fairy banker's arse, nothing to do with value bought and sold, I'm sure the firm belief that you're worth as much as the next man is terribly therapeutic.
Far canal ..... you've just bought a majority stake in the anglo-bengalee Disinterested loan and life assurance company

And here is my contribution towards your sterling efforts for the good of mankind

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160720/c2656b64b19a2d7b3e1ee9169ef360a5.jpg

sent for a divine source

mashman

20th July 2016, 19:30

That's neither analysis or belief, that's fact. You can see it working yourself: non-fuckwits everywhere, thriving by the simple expediency of doing something someone else wants done. You've possibly even been involved yourself in some minor way, accidentally like.

Only, that can't possibly be right, can it? It completely fucks up your cargo cult theory, dunnit?

So you go right ahead and insist that money is pulled out of a fairy banker's arse, nothing to do with value bought and sold, I'm sure the firm belief that you're worth as much as the next man is terribly therapeutic.

I see it working in a way that resembles what you're talking about. Yup. Whew. I have indeed bumped into it all accidental like too. There's other stuff too, but hey.

Not even remotely. I'm not claiming to know what everyone thinks. I'm curious to find out what they think though... and it barely resembles what you're talking about. But yeah, they're just really angry people.

Well it certainly doesn't grow on trees and doesn't exist outside of human beings, and it's created by bankers, and I'm sure there's a couple of bankers who are fairy's, although using gay instead of fairy might have shown a little more class. Not therapeutic really, as I have no meritocratic need to fill.

Ocean1

20th July 2016, 19:42

Far canal ..... you've just bought a majority stake in the anglo-bengalee Disinterested loan and life assurance company

And here is my contribution towards your sterling efforts for the good of mankind

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160720/c2656b64b19a2d7b3e1ee9169ef360a5.jpg

sent for a divine source

No thanks dude, you've got nothing I want.

You've got nothing anyone wants.

You've got nothing.

Now go run around in some more wee circles, eh? the sky will be falling shortly.

Brian d marge

20th July 2016, 19:58

No thanks dude, you've got nothing I want.

You've got nothing anyone wants.

You've got nothing.

Now go run around in some more wee circles, eh? the sky will be falling shortly.
A clue

You might find them useful

sent for a divine source

bogan

21st July 2016, 01:16

So we didn't actually talk about it? You read what I'd typed and decided..... Lervely.

Type about it then. But to be fair, when you hypothetically threaten to murder me for my shoes or my beers, doesn't really make a good case for talking about it in person.

There was a little more back and forth discourse as well, you tried to discuss it, your logic was found severely lacking, and you've been in full head-in-sand mode ever since. It was something about the conflict between resource ownership and usership you didn't quite have set out... which is kind of a glaring hole to be having in a resource allocation system :laugh:

mashman

21st July 2016, 09:11

Type about it then. But to be fair, when you hypothetically threaten to murder me for my shoes or my beers, doesn't really make a good case for talking about it in person.

There was a little more back and forth discourse as well, you tried to discuss it, your logic was found severely lacking, and you've been in full head-in-sand mode ever since. It was something about the conflict between resource ownership and usership you didn't quite have set out... which is kind of a glaring hole to be having in a resource allocation system :laugh:

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Like I said... your discernment/understanding is non-existent.

bogan

21st July 2016, 09:17

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Like I said... your discernment/understanding is non-existent.

Thanks for proving my point. The point being (since I beleive in explaining things, and understanding things) that you now refuse to discuss your idea of an 'rbe' because it is so flawed you're scared of those flaws coming to light. Face it mashy, we both know there's no barrier to your system except your own inability to effectively contribute to it. That's why you're not being the change you wish to see, that's why you have to talk all this bullshit to try and get others to do the hard work for you. That's why you're just another politician.

mashman

21st July 2016, 09:32

Thanks for proving my point. The point being (since I beleive in explaining things, and understanding things) that you now refuse to discuss your idea of an 'rbe' because it is so flawed you're scared of those flaws coming to light. Face it mashy, we both know there's no barrier to your system except your own inability to effectively contribute to it. That's why you're not being the change you wish to see, that's why you have to talk all this bullshit to try and get others to do the hard work for you. That's why you're just another politician.

I refuse to discuss much further with you. Shame you can't figure that out... but hey, I ain't surprised that you can't given that you can't even take responsibility for your own lack of understanding. But by all means keep on blaming the guy who has explained it successfully to close to 100 people by NOW. They get it. You don't. That evidence alone would have my rethinking my position... but not the great bogan, he knows what you're thinking better than you do and you better just accept it coz he says so :rofl: :crybaby: :rofl:.

I sincerely wish you the best of luck on your journey towards understanding RBE.

bogan

21st July 2016, 09:40

I refuse to discuss much further with you. Shame you can't figure that out... but hey, I ain't surprised that you can't given that you can't even take responsibility for your own lack of understanding. But by all means keep on blaming the guy who has explained it successfully to close to 100 people by NOW. They get it. You don't. That evidence alone would have my rethinking my position... but not the great bogan, he knows what you're thinking better than you do and you better just accept it coz he says so :rofl: :crybaby: :rofl:.

I sincerely wish you the best of luck on your journey towards understanding RBE.

I've not only figured that out, I've been explaining why that is too.

I do not lack understanding, so what responsibility is there to take?

You've explained it to me and I understood as well, the difference is I disagree an provide logical reasons why it will not work; that is why you must come up with this "he doesn't understand" cop-out to maintain your self-delusion.

I'm not saying just accept it, I'm saying just discuss it. Simple points like Ownership vs Usership, that should be a one sentence summary; yet you spend 100x that avoiding it... Like I said, just another useless politican (they 'explain' things to millions btw).

mashman

21st July 2016, 09:57

I've not only figured that out, I've been explaining why that is too.

I do not lack understanding, so what responsibility is there to take?

You've explained it to me and I understood as well, the difference is I disagree an provide logical reasons why it will not work; that is why you must come up with this "he doesn't understand" cop-out to maintain your self-delusion.

I'm not saying just accept it, I'm saying just discuss it. Simple points like Ownership vs Usership, that should be a one sentence summary; yet you spend 100x that avoiding it... Like I said, just another useless politican (they 'explain' things to millions btw).

Yet you still blame me for your lack of understanding despite the fact that the vast majority of people I've spoken with understand exactly what I mean. All fact baby.

Like I said, good luck.

bogan

21st July 2016, 09:59

Yet you still blame me for your lack of understanding despite the fact that the vast majority of people I've spoken with understand exactly what I mean. All fact baby.

Like I said, good luck.

Why do you keep asserting that I do not understand?

mashman

21st July 2016, 10:05

Why do you keep asserting that I do not understand?

despite the fact that the vast majority of people I've spoken with understand exactly what I mean

No reason.

bogan

21st July 2016, 10:06

No reason.

So, how do you know they understood, and that I don't?

mashman

21st July 2016, 10:09

So, how do you know they understood, and that I don't?

Because they relayed back to me the sorts of things that that would mean to their life and the lives of others. In other words, they started to figure it out for themselves. In fact I'd go as far as to say, they started to figure out everything that I could never tell them.

bogan

21st July 2016, 10:14

Because they relayed back to me the sorts of things that that would mean to their life and the lives of others. In other words, they started to figure it out for themselves. In fact I'd go as far as to say, they started to figure out everything that I could never tell them.

I've done the same. I've figured out that this can only work if it emerges from and supersedes the financial system, it will never overthrow it. What this means for the lives of others, is it would be a bad thing for it to be forcibly implemented. What this means for my life is that it is a good thing to personally pursue, and that it is very well suited for those who want to be the change they wish to see. I've also figured out how to answer the Ownership vs Usership question.

So again, why do you keep asserting that I do not understand?

Katman

21st July 2016, 10:27

What this means for the lives of others, is it would be a bad thing for it to be forcibly implemented.

Where has anyone ever suggested that it should be forcibly implemented?

mashman

21st July 2016, 10:54

I've done the same. I've figured out that this can only work if it emerges from and supersedes the financial system, it will never overthrow it. What this means for the lives of others, is it would be a bad thing for it to be forcibly implemented. What this means for my life is that it is a good thing to personally pursue, and that it is very well suited for those who want to be the change they wish to see. I've also figured out how to answer the Ownership vs Usership question.

So again, why do you keep asserting that I do not understand?

Congratulations.

Coz if you understood, you wouldn't say things like

I think a society made up predominantly of people who do fuck all would be quite detrimental to that society, not from a lack of work output but flow on effects of laziness like stupidity, and moral decay.

Jin

21st July 2016, 11:36

How does taking money away remove individual choice? In RBE everyone is a volunteer. They do what they like.

https://slm-assets3.secondlife.com/assets/12695752/view_large/greater_good_hot_fuzz.jpg?1446630159

The greater good is just a side effect of things being better under RBE. It's not a design feature.

So. Tell me again about what you know in regards to what RBE is?
Removing money removes choice because for individuals and in the market place. In a RBE i bet there would be only one motorcycle manufacturer because more than one would be a waste of resource and inefficient. And only one kind of motorcycle because more than one would be costly and inefficient. So individuals would have less choice. And it wouldnt just be for motorcycles. It would be for everything.

And not everyone would want to volunteer. I bet most of the posters on here would volunteer to be motorcycle racers, testers etc. Not many would volunteer to be the mechanics or the one who spends a lifetime in the rubber factory making the tyres.

As a result the "planners" would have no choice but to resort to force and assign tasks and jobs to individuals to ensure the system can work. Thats why socialist/communist systems always without fail result in brutal suppression and removal of individual human rights. I see a RBE being no different because it relies on individuals acting for the greater good rather than their own self interest. That may sound nice but it goes against human nature.

Remember Adam Smith and the example of the baker. The baker is amoral, selfish and only cares for himself thats why he bakes bread to solely to make money. That was his insight how personal self interest serves the public interest. Yamaha are the same. They could give a toss about anything except profits. As a result we get an amazing array of bikes to choose from that get better and better.

Money is more a symptom of the problem, I personally think an RBE, with the right technology would be viable and preferable - but you would need something Star Trek's Replicator technology in order to make it work. There might still be some need for a monetary or meritocracy based system to govern resources that cannot be replicated (such as Land etc.) but that would still be a better place than where we are currently.

However whilst there is a cost of oppertunity for any given resource, an RBE is doomed to fail and end up in a totalitarian dictatorship that will end up resembling communism.
The problem of RBE is that they want to remove money and more importantly prices. Prices are just signals and transmitters of information between buyers and sellers/producers/manufacters etc. Yet RBEers think they dont need prices they can figure out themselves where resources are needed. Nice idea but wouldnt work. Prices are never a problem. RBE would just end up like any other socialist failure like cuba or venezuela. Under RBE we wouldnt even have pencils.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ERbC7JyCfU

TheDemonLord

21st July 2016, 12:54

The problem of RBE is that they want to remove money and more importantly prices. Prices are just signals and transmitters of information between buyers and sellers/producers/manufacters etc. Yet RBEers think they dont need prices they can figure out themselves where resources are needed. Nice idea but wouldnt work. Prices are never a problem. RBE would just end up like any other socialist failure like cuba or venezuela. Under RBE we wouldnt even have pencils.

Not quite right - Prices reflect the cost of opportunity for any given resource:

Take wood for example - it can be used as fuel, to build a house, to make furniture etc. Using wood to fuel a fire means I can't use it to build a house - If I own a house but am cold, then I would use the wood as firewood, If I'm homeless - I might use it to build a house. When I buy wood, I am compensating the seller for all the things he can no-longer do because he doesn't have that resource.

Now, imagine a system with no cost of opportunity - ie if I decide to use the wood for a fire, I can also use that wood to build a house. Currently impossible, unless I go and chop down a tree (but don't tell Mashman - he'll just tell you that you can magic more wood from somewhere else)

However if one had something akin to a Star Trek replicator (that turns energy into any form of matter) - then there is no cost of opportunity (okay, there is a cost of energy, but should such technology exist - we'd probably have gotten to a point where energy was close to limitless).

Katman

21st July 2016, 13:11

Currently impossible, unless I go and chop down a tree (but don't tell Mashman - he'll just tell you that you can magic more wood from somewhere else)

Impossible you say?

Couldn't you just plant more trees?

TheDemonLord

21st July 2016, 13:23

Impossible you say?

Impossible refers to burning a piece of wood, then using that same piece of wood to do something else

Wouldn't you just plant more trees?

Well, I'm all for sustainable logging - the issue is that we can cut down trees far quicker than it takes for a tree to be planted, grow to maturity, ready to be harvested.

If there was no cost for wood then demand would outstrip supply, which would then mean that in order to balance supply and demand - you would need a member of the Politburo to dictate which government projects as part of the 5 year plan would be allocated the wood as a resource.

Thus, Consumer choice is removed.

It's exactly what happens in every Communist System. Also - Hilariously on the NZ RBE website:

http://rbe.org.nz/faq/

The bit where it talks about an RBE vs Communism is hilarious it even concedes that the 2 systems are very similar (but don't tell Mashman - He'll have a heart attack, complain you don't understand and then block you for Heresy)

Traditional communism is aligned with ‘class struggle’, whereas a RBE is inclusive and is beneficial for everyone. Communism is often associated with being frugal and a lack of good quality products and food. Today we are able to produce an abundance of goods which are easily accessible to people.

The hilarity is because it misses the reason WHY we are able to produce in abundance. And it isn't a technological issue, afterall there are modern communist countries (Cough, North Korea Cough) that have a very high level of technology (compared to say a 3rd world country) but aren't producing goods and services in abundance.

Ocean1

21st July 2016, 13:30

Impossible you say?

Couldn't you just plant more trees?

Instead of what? Only, there's probably more important things to do.

How do we know they're more important? 'Cause people pay more for them to be done than they do planting trees.

That's pay, as in money. Without money you don't know what everyone else thinks is the correct answer to your question. That may make it the single most powerful tool for democracy.

Ocean1

21st July 2016, 13:34

Traditional communism is aligned with ‘class struggle’, whereas a RBE is inclusive and is beneficial for everyone. Communism is often associated with being frugal and a lack of good quality products and food. Today we are able to produce an abundance of goods which are easily accessible to people.

Yes, that "we" would be those states most closely following free market principles.

It's sure as fuck not any communist state, and it sure as fuck wouldn't ever be any RBE based "economy".

Which begs the question: Why change a winning formula?

mashman

21st July 2016, 15:00

Removing money removes choice because for individuals and in the market place. In a RBE i bet there would be only one motorcycle manufacturer because more than one would be a waste of resource and inefficient. And only one kind of motorcycle because more than one would be costly and inefficient. So individuals would have less choice. And it wouldnt just be for motorcycles. It would be for everything.

And not everyone would want to volunteer. I bet most of the posters on here would volunteer to be motorcycle racers, testers etc. Not many would volunteer to be the mechanics or the one who spends a lifetime in the rubber factory making the tyres.

As a result the "planners" would have no choice but to resort to force and assign tasks and jobs to individuals to ensure the system can work. Thats why socialist/communist systems always without fail result in brutal suppression and removal of individual human rights. I see a RBE being no different because it relies on individuals acting for the greater good rather than their own self interest. That may sound nice but it goes against human nature.

Remember Adam Smith and the example of the baker. The baker is amoral, selfish and only cares for himself thats why he bakes bread to solely to make money. That was his insight how personal self interest serves the public interest. Yamaha are the same. They could give a toss about anything except profits. As a result we get an amazing array of bikes to choose from that get better and better.

How does it remove choice when all you can ever have is that which the market produces?... and the fact that there'd be no money and therefore no constraint on acquiring what has been produced? Sounds like more choice for more people to me. What's wrong with 1 manufacturer? Especially if they have every motorcycle that was ever devised on catalog and all of the bits n pieces required to produce any component off of any one of those machines? What's wrong with that as an incentive? It's more efficient and you get exactly what you want. Things aren't as black and white as you've taught yourself... there are some rather beautiful shades, more than 50, of grey that RBE can unleash. So no, not less choice at all... just yer usual kneejerk reaction to something that you've never really considered, but that there are more than 2 variants of.

True, not everyone would want to volunteer. However, if they want to live in an RBE and understand RBE, then they will look for something that they can do to be of assistance whether they want to or not... else risk going back to a financial economy which offers no benefits over RBE.

How can you force a volunteer workforce to do something that they don't want to do? Human nature lulz. Of course RBE requires individuals to act on their own interest. Coz if they didn't, they wouldn't be RBE advocates now would they? Why do you morons instantly think hippy when people talk about sharing?

Adam Smith. From 300 years ago? That Adam Smith? So therefore all bakers only bake for money :killingme

Brian d marge

21st July 2016, 15:32

Oh Adam and ur hidden hand ...one wonders whose hand and where it was hidden

sent for a divine source

TheDemonLord

21st July 2016, 15:40

How does it remove choice when all you can ever have is that which the market produces?... and the fact that there'd be no money and therefore no constraint on acquiring what has been produced? Sounds like more choice for more people to me. What's wrong with 1 manufacturer? Especially if they have every motorcycle that was ever devised on catalog and all of the bits n pieces required to produce any component off of any one of those machines? What's wrong with that as an incentive? It's more efficient and you get exactly what you want.

This completely misses the reason why a company chooses to invest time and resources in developing a new Bike - it's so that people will buy it, as opposed to their competition. Just like the Blackbird, Just like the Hayabusa, Just like the H2.

No reason to compete = no competition.
No competition = no excellence.
No Excellence = no motivation to strive for excellence.
No motivation to strive for excellence = no choice.

Things aren't as black and white as you've taught yourself... there are some rather beautiful shades, more than 50, of grey that RBE can unleash.

Never was a truer word spoken An RBE will be resplendent in drabs of grey. No color, no flair, no style, no excellence. Drag. Boring. Grey.

Why do you morons instantly think hippy when people talk about sharing?

Cause it's Hippies that talk about Sharing maybe? And it's also Hippies that are disconnecting from reality as to why their Utopia is a pipe dream. Furthermore it's Hippies that assume just because they are nice and kind and want to share, that everyone in turn is kind, nice and want to share.

Katman

21st July 2016, 16:06

Furthermore it's Hippies that assume just because they are nice and kind and want to share, that everyone in turn is kind, nice and want to share.

Well I'd rather be nice and kind and want to share than be a money hungry motherfucker like that Ocean1 prick.

Ocean1

21st July 2016, 16:15

Well I'd rather be nice and kind and want to share than be a money hungry motherfucker like that Ocean1 prick.

Go you.

Unfortunately, you're a fuckwit, and therefore unlikely to actually have anything anyone else wants you to share.

TheDemonLord

21st July 2016, 16:16

Well I'd rather be nice and kind and want to share than be a money hungry motherfucker like that Ocean1 prick.

So, you will be repairing Motorcycles for free then?

Katman

21st July 2016, 16:24

So, you will be repairing Motorcycles for free then?

If we had an RBE I'd happily repair motorcycles for free.

TheDemonLord

21st July 2016, 16:26

If we had an RBE I'd happily repair motorcycles for free.

So you'd only be nice and kind in an RBE?

Katman

21st July 2016, 16:33

So you'd only be nice and kind in an RBE?

I'm nice and kind all of the time.

I have to eat as well though.

bogan

21st July 2016, 16:36

Congratulations.

Coz if you understood, you wouldn't say things like

Is it just me or is the source missing from that quote... tsk, tsk, that's not good form; I mean, what's the bet I wasn't even commenting on your form of an 'RBE' when I wrote it? Or even wrote it?

The quote however, is entirely accurate. I don't see how it is relevant though, clearly a workable rbe would not be made up of people who predominantly do fuck all.

How does it remove choice when all you can ever have is that which the market produces?... and the fact that there'd be no money and therefore no constraint on acquiring what has been produced?

Apart from production, for which there is no incentive.

This completely misses the reason why a company chooses to invest time and resources in developing a new Bike - it's so that people will buy it, as opposed to their competition. Just like the Blackbird, Just like the Hayabusa, Just like the H2.

No reason to compete = no competition.
No competition = no excellence.
No Excellence = no motivation to strive for excellence.
No motivation to strive for excellence = no choice.

That's next level shit, a non-emergent rbe would be destroyed by a simple production/consumption imbalance. Use replicators etc to tip those scales and then you might have problems about the lack of innovation; but there will always be innovators who do it for it's own sake. All in all, I think adoption of an rbe is like a triangle scalar approach between technology, ability, and inclusion. It could work now for like 5% who are good cunts. Throw in replicators, ensure population is educated, and those 5% could carry along another 80%...

TheDemonLord

21st July 2016, 16:57

I'm nice and kind all of the time.

I have to eat as well though.

But there are plenty of Hippies who barter for their services, don't work in the traditional sense and are kind and nice.

So my original question - if you want to be nice and kind and not a slave to capitalism - given that it is an option now (as demonstrated by certain parts of society) - why aren't you doing it now?

Unless of course, you like the things that charging a reasonable price for your services provides, in which case - that would make you a tad hypocritical.

Ocean1

21st July 2016, 16:59

That's next level shit, a non-emergent rbe would be destroyed by a simple production/consumption imbalance. Use replicators etc to tip those scales and then you might have problems about the lack of innovation; but there will always be innovators who do it for it's own sake. All in all, I think adoption of an rbe is like a triangle scalar approach between technology, ability, and inclusion. It could work now for like 5% who are good cunts. Throw in replicators, ensure population is educated, and those 5% could carry along another 80%...

In a relatively free society you can use whatever you like, it'll be that same 5% supporting a bunch of the rest.

The quantity "a bunch" is a result dependent on the variable "free".

Plenty of instructive examples where "free" = not, and "a bunch" = fuck all.

mashman

21st July 2016, 17:05

Is it just me or is the source missing from that quote... tsk, tsk, that's not good form; I mean, what's the bet I wasn't even commenting on your form of an 'RBE' when I wrote it? Or even wrote it?

The quote however, is entirely accurate. I don't see how it is relevant though, clearly a workable rbe would not be made up of people who predominantly do fuck all.

Apart from production, for which there is no incentive.

Correct, it is a generic statement by which you stand behind. Clearly a workable RBE only needs enough people to make it work. That enough need not be the majority.

There are many reasons for production. Money is one of them. Money is also something that makes the production of technically possible and highly useful stuff, financially impossible. Until the price of the resources required comes down that is :killingme.

TheDemonLord

21st July 2016, 17:05

That's next level shit, a non-emergent rbe would be destroyed by a simple production/consumption imbalance. Use replicators etc to tip those scales and then you might have problems about the lack of innovation; but there will always be innovators who do it for it's own sake. All in all, I think adoption of an rbe is like a triangle scalar approach between technology, ability, and inclusion. It could work now for like 5% who are good cunts. Throw in replicators, ensure population is educated, and those 5% could carry along another 80%...

Innovation for the sake of it does produce some interesting and occassionally brilliant work, Linux comes to mind. The issue is though without market forces, it becomes hard to determine the Brilliant from the Bullshit. Also - you wouldn't get the Arms race effect in an RBE.

That all said - if (going back to Star Trek) there was the driving force of Humanity vs The Klingons/Romulans/Borg/Dominion - then that would probably drive innovation (in the way that sadly wars have been responsible for some of the greatest technological leaps - if only we were so inventive without the desire to kill)

TheDemonLord

21st July 2016, 17:11

Money is also something that makes the production of technically possible and highly useful stuff, financially impossible. Until the price of the resources required comes down that is :killingme.

Entirely missing the point of Why a resource might be priced so high....

bogan

21st July 2016, 17:31

In a relatively free society you can use whatever you like, it'll be that same 5% supporting a bunch of the rest.

The quantity "a bunch" is a result dependent on the variable "free".

Plenty of instructive examples where "free" = not, and "a bunch" = fuck all.

Nah I don't think we're there yet, certainly not in terms of work output.

Correct, it is a generic statement by which you stand behind. Clearly a workable RBE only needs enough people to make it work. That enough need not be the majority.

There are many reasons for production. Money is one of them. Money is also something that makes the production of technically possible and highly useful stuff, financially impossible. Until the price of the resources required comes down that is :killingme.

So it's a generic statement which is not applicable to my understanding of your system. You misunderstand the quote (of which source you will not reveal), it is not talking about how workable it is, but the long term effects of laziness and moral decay.

Why do you keep bringing up money? consumption is governed by the produced goods available to be consumed. One tree can only build so much, one worker can only work so many hours... Were it a simple matter to increase either of these efficiencies, the financial system provides motivation for that improvement to happen,a s well as the base job to happen in the first place, yours provides neither of those things.

Innovation for the sake of it does produce some interesting and occassionally brilliant work, Linux comes to mind. The issue is though without market forces, it becomes hard to determine the Brilliant from the Bullshit. Also - you wouldn't get the Arms race effect in an RBE.

That all said - if (going back to Star Trek) there was the driving force of Humanity vs The Klingons/Romulans/Borg/Dominion - then that would probably drive innovation (in the way that sadly wars have been responsible for some of the greatest technological leaps - if only we were so inventive without the desire to kill)

Yeh market forces do cut down on the bullshit products that are not fit for purpose etc; but is that an issue without the market? Online reviews are pretty good, and the motivation to produce cheap and nasty shit just to make a buck would dissapear also.

Someone should just dress up in a borg costume, roll up to whitehouse, say prepare your anus's, we'll be back in ten years...

Voltaire

21st July 2016, 17:57

Didn't they try RBE for thousands of years and clearly people wanted better and here we are.

My Fathers generation came from a family of 9 working on a subsistence farm in rural Ireland and they all but one left the place.

The lure of a better life is strong as you see on the news....er MSM most nights

Woodman

21st July 2016, 19:17

Well I'd rather be nice and kind and want to share than be a money hungry motherfucker like that Ocean1 prick.

Well there is no point having a business if it doesn't make money. And anyway he pays tax and tax is sharing.

mashman

21st July 2016, 19:29

So it's a generic statement which is not applicable to my understanding of your system. You misunderstand the quote (of which source you will not reveal), it is not talking about how workable it is, but the long term effects of laziness and moral decay.

Why do you keep bringing up money?

Consumption is governed by the produced goods available to be consumed. One tree can only build so much, one worker can only work so many hours... Were it a simple matter to increase either of these efficiencies, the financial system provides motivation for that improvement to happen,a s well as the base job to happen in the first place, yours provides neither of those things.

I know. I don't see us becoming lazy or immoral because money is out of the picture. My understanding is different.

Coz RBE. Duh.

Really? Oh gosh darn, that's what I missed. But then I'd have to believe that people were lazy and immoral at the core... like Smith's baker :rolleyes:

bogan

21st July 2016, 19:36

I know. I don't see us becoming lazy or immoral because money is out of the picture. My understanding is different.

Coz RBE. Duh.

Really? Oh gosh darn, that's what I missed. But then I'd have to believe that people were lazy and immoral at the core... like Smith's baker :rolleyes:

Your opinion on the understanding is different; don't go confusing the mechanics of how it works (or doesn't) which is the understanding, with your opinion on the chances of it working (or not) which is a subjective evaluation.

rbe doesn't use money though, so why do you bring it up when trying to describe how it works?

Again, that's an opinion, not integral to the understanding of the mechanics behind it. What are the mechanics behind it now, what is it about the mechanism of it that I don't understand? Because what I do understand, is there are no barriers to being the change you wish to see, but those you put in front of yourself; I wonder if you understand that though...

mashman

21st July 2016, 19:58

Your opinion on the understanding is different; don't go confusing the mechanics of how it works (or doesn't) which is the understanding, with your opinion on the chances of it working (or not) which is a subjective evaluation.

rbe doesn't use money though, so why do you bring it up when trying to describe how it works?

Again, that's an opinion, not integral to the understanding of the mechanics behind it. What are the mechanics behind it now, what is it about the mechanism of it that I don't understand? Because what I do understand, is there are no barriers to being the change you wish to see, but those you put in front of yourself; I wonder if you understand that though...

No. It's a finding that I've found from talking to people about it.

I've figured out that this can only work if it emerges from and supersedes the financial system, it will never overthrow it.

Mechanics of what?

bogan

21st July 2016, 20:02

No. It's a finding that I've found from talking to people about it.

Mechanics of what?

It's an opinion, a finding would require a number of test cases. Talking to a number of people about their opinions on a subject is called an opinion survey. Not choosing said people at random is called survey bias.

Your rbe system. Will there be voting? Will there be criteria on who can join? Limit on how many goods a person can claim? These are the mechanics of it, and there are many more. If you can't even answer those question, then you don't have an rbe idea that is even subject to being understandable, all it would be is a loose concept.

mashman

21st July 2016, 21:49

It's an opinion, a finding would require a number of test cases. Talking to a number of people about their opinions on a subject is called an opinion survey. Not choosing said people at random is called survey bias.

Your rbe system. Will there be voting? Will there be criteria on who can join? Limit on how many goods a person can claim? These are the mechanics of it, and there are many more. If you can't even answer those question, then you don't have an rbe idea that is even subject to being understandable, all it would be is a loose concept.

There were a number of them and the discussion went beyond the question of the OP poll. But sure, call it a survey of opinions if it helps you sleep.

I can, and have, answered those questions. I choose not to on this occasion.

bogan

21st July 2016, 21:59

There were a number of them and the discussion went beyond the question of the OP poll. But sure, call it a survey of opinions if it helps you sleep.

I can, and have, answered those questions. I choose not to on this occasion.

Well it is a survey of opinions, so it only makes sense to call it that. It certainly isn't an authoritative finding based in reality.

Is that because you've already given a number of different, and contradictory answers to those questions? Your reluctance to discuss that which you promote as being the far better option seems quite illogical, why do you turn away from sharing such an understanding?

Jin

21st July 2016, 22:34

Not quite right - Prices reflect the cost of opportunity for any given resource:

Take wood for example - it can be used as fuel, to build a house, to make furniture etc. Using wood to fuel a fire means I can't use it to build a house - If I own a house but am cold, then I would use the wood as firewood, If I'm homeless - I might use it to build a house. When I buy wood, I am compensating the seller for all the things he can no-longer do because he doesn't have that resource.

Now, imagine a system with no cost of opportunity - ie if I decide to use the wood for a fire, I can also use that wood to build a house. Currently impossible, unless I go and chop down a tree (but don't tell Mashman - he'll just tell you that you can magic more wood from somewhere else)

However if one had something akin to a Star Trek replicator (that turns energy into any form of matter) - then there is no cost of opportunity (okay, there is a cost of energy, but should such technology exist - we'd probably have gotten to a point where energy was close to limitless).
Assuming a perfectly competitive market sure. But the key point is that among competing alternatives what someone is prepared pay reflects the need for a resource. If builders want the wood more than someone who wants to burn it then they will pay more. The higher profit on the wood sends the signal more wood is needed. Thats how resources are allocated efficiently.

And prices would still be useful if wood could be magically created. For one thing burning wood creates pollution and a pollutant tax would be useful. The price at which it is set would allow for either alternatives to be found and equilibrium. Without the cost being imposed you couldnt find equilibrium between how much pollution people are prepared to put up with and how much they will pay for it. In a RBE it would be a case of all or nothing. A free for all of burning wood and pollution or it just being banned.

The point i was making about prices in a market system is that it allows voluntary transactions and exchanges to take place. No one engages in a transaction unless they think they will be better off. When i buy coffee its because i want the coffee more than the $5. And the coffee shop wants the $5 more than the coffee. There is an opportunity cost involved but to focus on that is missing the beauty of free trade.

How does it remove choice when all you can ever have is that which the market produces?... and the fact that there'd be no money and therefore no constraint on acquiring what has been produced? Sounds like more choice for more people to me. What's wrong with 1 manufacturer? Especially if they have every motorcycle that was ever devised on catalog and all of the bits n pieces required to produce any component off of any one of those machines? What's wrong with that as an incentive? It's more efficient and you get exactly what you want. Things aren't as black and white as you've taught yourself... there are some rather beautiful shades, more than 50, of grey that RBE can unleash. So no, not less choice at all... just yer usual kneejerk reaction to something that you've never really considered, but that there are more than 2 variants of.

True, not everyone would want to volunteer. However, if they want to live in an RBE and understand RBE, then they will look for something that they can do to be of assistance whether they want to or not... else risk going back to a financial economy which offers no benefits over RBE.

How can you force a volunteer workforce to do something that they don't want to do? Human nature lulz. Of course RBE requires individuals to act on their own interest. Coz if they didn't, they wouldn't be RBE advocates now would they? Why do you morons instantly think hippy when people talk about sharing?

Adam Smith. From 300 years ago? That Adam Smith? So therefore all bakers only bake for money :killingme
RBE removes choice because with no prices there would be no way of knowing what people want. The market provides what people want. Everyone gets to vote for what they want. If everyone buys/votes for iphones we get iphones. If we stop voting for iphones apple goes bust and we wont get anymore iphones. Thats the way the market works and allows efficient allocation of resources. In a RBE with no prices there is no way of knowing who wants what. Unless votes were taken but that would be extremely inefficient. Would everyone going to have to vote for every single thing they need in their life? I think its a nice idea but totally impractical in a world of limited resources. Where you have limited resources there must be a mechanism to allow for the most efficient allocation of those resources. Thats whats missing from the RBE theory.

mashman

21st July 2016, 22:36

Well it is a survey of opinions, so it only makes sense to call it that. It certainly isn't an authoritative finding based in reality.

Is that because you've already given a number of different, and contradictory answers to those questions? Your reluctance to discuss that which you promote as being the far better option seems quite illogical, why do you turn away from sharing such an understanding?

Ok.

There is no one answer. TVP, TZM, ICS, FWC etc... kinda make that point all too clearly. Anyhoo, thanks for reminding me that I'd mentioned that I'd not engage much further earlier.

bogan

21st July 2016, 22:47

Ok.

There is no one answer. TVP, TZM, ICS, FWC etc... kinda make that point all too clearly. Anyhoo, thanks for reminding me that I'd mentioned that I'd not engage much further earlier.

Which only goes to show how far away it is from becoming a reality. Which in turn, only goes to show that the current financial system is not a road block. So what are the road blocks? why hasn't it come about yet?

Or, alternate theory it is coming about, the financial system is what is bringing it here. Think about it, how much personal resources do we each have today, compared to 10, 20 years ago... You may look at it and simpyl say, "I want more" (the attitude that will be the downfall of any rbe implemented any time soon), whereas us more positive folk look at it and say, we're actually pretty well off.

mashman

21st July 2016, 23:09

RBE removes choice because with no prices there would be no way of knowing what people want. The market provides what people want. Everyone gets to vote for what they want. If everyone buys/votes for iphones we get iphones. If we stop voting for iphones apple goes bust and we wont get anymore iphones. Thats the way the market works and allows efficient allocation of resources. In a RBE with no prices there is no way of knowing who wants what. Unless votes were taken but that would be extremely inefficient. Would everyone going to have to vote for every single thing they need in their life? I think its a nice idea but totally impractical in a world of limited resources. Where you have limited resources there must be a mechanism to allow for the most efficient allocation of those resources. Thats whats missing from the RBE theory.

You don't see the dichotomy of phones that are destined for the junk heap v's a planet of limited resources?

We already have an efficient allocation of resources. It's called counting. The country needs 50,000 tins of peas per year. The country needs approx X number of doctors, X number of teachers, X number of builders, X number of electricians, X tonnes of wood, X litres of fuel etc... to meet demand. I heard that businesses are really good at that sort of stuff and produce reports that count litres and people as units and not a $ in sight. How would we ever cope.

That we've had what, 6 maybe 7 iphones in as many years always makes me laugh when it's seen as a triumph of resource allocation. What is wrong with having the best features of each phone on a single device with a battery that has the best lifespan available?

mashman

21st July 2016, 23:13

Which only goes to show how far away it is from becoming a reality. Which in turn, only goes to show that the current financial system is not a road block. So what are the road blocks? why hasn't it come about yet?

Or, alternate theory it is coming about, the financial system is what is bringing it here. Think about it, how much personal resources do we each have today, compared to 10, 20 years ago... You may look at it and simpyl say, "I want more" (the attitude that will be the downfall of any rbe implemented any time soon), whereas us more positive folk look at it and say, we're actually pretty well off.

Yeah, sure.

Yeah, sure.

bogan

21st July 2016, 23:21

Yeah, sure.

Yeah, sure.

Well they're both coherent theories, you should try to understand them sometime :laugh:

TheDemonLord

22nd July 2016, 07:12

And prices would still be useful if wood could be magically created. For one thing burning wood creates pollution and a pollutant tax would be useful. The price at which it is set would allow for either alternatives to be found and equilibrium. Without the cost being imposed you couldnt find equilibrium between how much pollution people are prepared to put up with and how much they will pay for it. In a RBE it would be a case of all or nothing. A free for all of burning wood and pollution or it just being banned.

If we had the ability to turn energy into matter, I don't think Pollution would be a concern tbh.

The point i was making about prices in a market system is that it allows voluntary transactions and exchanges to take place. No one engages in a transaction unless they think they will be better off. When i buy coffee its because i want the coffee more than the $5. And the coffee shop wants the $5 more than the coffee. There is an opportunity cost involved but to focus on that is missing the beauty of free trade.

I agree with this in regards to our current system, but should we have the ability to turn energy into matter, such transactions would become meaningless.

TheDemonLord

22nd July 2016, 07:20

Yeh market forces do cut down on the bullshit products that are not fit for purpose etc; but is that an issue without the market? Online reviews are pretty good, and the motivation to produce cheap and nasty shit just to make a buck would dissapear also.

Well, there are always people that will invent for the sake of inventing, they however tend to be of the eccentric persuasion. Market Forces however can help shape and drive inspiration - probably my favorite example would be James Dyson - by seeing what is the current method and seeing it's difficiencies, and seeing the oppertunity to either:

a) profit
b) decrease consumer TCO
c) save time

this can then drive inspiration and innovation. Sure the last option will exist in an RBE, but if no one is spending all their time at work, what incentive is there to save time?

As for the cheap and nasty products - I actually disagree - I think we will see MORE of them in an RBE - afterall there is no barrier to throw an item away and get a new one and there is no incentive to spend the extra time to make a superior product (ie no ability to sell at a higher price point, to put a premium on quality) - plus with everyone being able to have anything, there will be an increase pressure on the manufacturer to meet demand: quality will suffer.

Someone should just dress up in a borg costume, roll up to whitehouse, say prepare your anus's, we'll be back in ten years...

Don't they do that every year for ComicCon?

TheDemonLord

22nd July 2016, 07:21

bogan

22nd July 2016, 08:44

Well, there are always people that will invent for the sake of inventing, they however tend to be of the eccentric persuasion. Market Forces however can help shape and drive inspiration - probably my favorite example would be James Dyson - by seeing what is the current method and seeing it's difficiencies, and seeing the oppertunity to either:

a) profit
b) decrease consumer TCO
c) save time

this can then drive inspiration and innovation. Sure the last option will exist in an RBE, but if no one is spending all their time at work, what incentive is there to save time?

As for the cheap and nasty products - I actually disagree - I think we will see MORE of them in an RBE - afterall there is no barrier to throw an item away and get a new one and there is no incentive to spend the extra time to make a superior product (ie no ability to sell at a higher price point, to put a premium on quality) - plus with everyone being able to have anything, there will be an increase pressure on the manufacturer to meet demand: quality will suffer.

Don't they do that every year for ComicCon?

Is that market forces or consumer feedback though? I spend a lot of time on the kickstarter tech section these days, most of those cunts just want to make a good product and listen to feedback to do that.

On the other hand, an RBE would slow down the revision cycles of consumer products, intel's tick-tock (now PAO or whatever) will turn to a 'when I'm good and fucking ready', coupled with a change in consumer attitudes (I think we can agree this is also required) to not caring about the model number so much as the functionality. Perhaps of additional concern is people outsourcing customisation of their shit instead, less efficient than mass production. There can't be an increase in pressure, as there would be no consequence for the manufacturer if they didn't; that also supposes production would not be plentiful, which is another identified prerequisite to an rbe. Large scale production shortfalls will lead to a 'market' crash like we've never seen before with an rbe.

Yeh, but I'd let some of them costume clad hotties in for a bit of light pegging...

I'd just like to point out this wonderful example of Circular Logic:

An RBE will work (paraphrased)

Coz RBE. Duh.

10/10

Additionally (and also paraphrased): "you don't understand it cos you don't agree with me, so I can dismiss your opinion based on it's lack of understanding" then "fuck this shit is awesome, everyone agrees with it" :facepalm:

mashman

22nd July 2016, 09:11

Well they're both coherent theories, you should try to understand them sometime :laugh:

I do understand them. Have also posted along those very lines. :killingme

bogan

22nd July 2016, 16:12

I do understand them. Have also posted along those very lines. :killingme

Good, so to summarise, rbe can mean any one of a thousand different things. Money is no barrier towards it, and in fact facilitates our progress down this path. It hasn't come about yet because it simply won't work with today's people and technology. Supporting progress through the financial system is therefor the most efficient way to get to utopia. #goteammoney #/thread

mashman

22nd July 2016, 17:40

Good, so to summarise, rbe can mean any one of a thousand different things. Money is no barrier towards it, and in fact facilitates our progress down this path. It hasn't come about yet because it simply won't work with today's people and technology. Supporting progress through the financial system is therefor the most efficient way to get to utopia. #goteammoney #/thread

Any one of a thousand things, so long as money isn't involved. You can't use money to do many things that an RBE can. Hence the need for RBE. Money is the barrier preventing those things from happening and an RBE existing. That RBE will come from the financial economy means nought more than it was there before RBE and therefore it is inevitable that that's the order things will happen. Other than that, the financial system is facilitating more damage than good. But hey, your understanding is just as cool.

bogan

22nd July 2016, 17:45

Any one of a thousand things, so long as money isn't involved. You can't use money to do many things that an RBE can. Hence the need for RBE. Money is the barrier preventing those things from happening and an RBE existing. That RBE will come from the financial economy means nought more than it was there before RBE and therefore it is inevitable that that's the order things will happen. Other than that, the financial system is facilitating more damage than good. But hey, your understanding is just as cool.

Wrong, money certainly can be involved; it's what gets us there.

You can use money to do every single thing an RBE can, name one thing it prevents.

Wrong again, the progress society makes, using money, is what gets us to the point an rbe could become feasible.

If the financial system was facilitating more damage than good, why are we so astronomically better off than before we had it?

mashman

22nd July 2016, 19:13

Wrong, money certainly can be involved; it's what gets us there.

You can use money to do every single thing an RBE can, name one thing it prevents.

Wrong again, the progress society makes, using money, is what gets us to the point an rbe could become feasible.

If the financial system was facilitating more damage than good, why are we so astronomically better off than before we had it?

No it isn't. People do.

It prevents some people from getting food.

No. that's people again.

Astronomically better off than before we had it? :killingme :crybaby: :killingme... advancement is because money exists, else we'd have never advanced technologically otherwise bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Nice positive attitude right there. Coupled with:

It hasn't come about yet because it simply won't work with today's people and technology

Beaut bro :crybaby:

bogan

22nd July 2016, 19:24

No it isn't. People do.

It prevents some people from getting food.

No. that's people again.

Astronomically better off than before we had it? :killingme :crybaby: :killingme... advancement is because money exists, else we'd have never advanced technologically otherwise bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Nice positive attitude right there. Coupled with:

Beaut bro :crybaby:

People and money, money being the benchmark we can use to figure out when we are there.

No, that one is people as well, you can't claim all bad things are caused by money, and all good things are caused by people (that's just pure confirmation bias); either they are inextricably linked, or you choose one or the other. Moving forward, as money facilitates rbe type shift, more people have access to more resources, including food.

Are we astronomically better off before we had it or not? I said nothing about it being the sole cause; you need to work on your understanding. Not to mention that misses my point, were money bad, places that didn't adopt it would be better off, yet history shows the reverse is true.

Ok then, why else hasn't it come about? People know about it, the financial system is not a barrier to it, there are thousands of different versions; none have stuck, or even been implemented as far as I can tell. Why not? What other theories are there? The common theme across those thousand version is a dependence on production/consumption ration being positive, this has never been shown to be achievable with today's people and technology; hence why my statement is a reasonable one.

mashman

22nd July 2016, 19:39

People and money, money being the benchmark we can use to figure out when we are there.

No, that one is people as well, you can't claim all bad things are caused by money, and all good things are caused by people (that's just pure confirmation bias); either they are inextricably linked, or you choose one or the other. Moving forward, as money facilitates rbe type shift, more people have access to more resources, including food.

Are we astronomically better off before we had it or not? I said nothing about it being the sole cause; you need to work on your understanding. Not to mention that misses my point, were money bad, places that didn't adopt it would be better off, yet history shows the reverse is true.

Ok then, why else hasn't it come about? People know about it, the financial system is not a barrier to it, there are thousands of different versions; none have stuck, or even been implemented as far as I can tell. Why not? What other theories are there? The common theme across those thousand version is a dependence on production/consumption ration being positive, this has never been shown to be achievable with today's people and technology; hence why my statement is a reasonable one.

Nope. Just people.

I didn't claim anything of the sought. But if that's as far as your understanding is letting you go, meh.

But you're claiming that we wouldn't be so well off had we not had money. Erm...

I'm not saying it's the sole cause either. It's on top of the list by a long way though.

Most people I ask about it have never heard of RBE. So no, people don't know about it. Your statement was, as I expected. Vacuous.

bogan

22nd July 2016, 20:37

Nope. Just people.

I didn't claim anything of the sought. But if that's as far as your understanding is letting you go, meh.

But you're claiming that we wouldn't be so well off had we not had money. Erm...

I'm not saying it's the sole cause either. It's on top of the list by a long way though.

Most people I ask about it have never heard of RBE. So no, people don't know about it. Your statement was, as I expected. Vacuous.

We can use money for the bench mark by its irrelevancy. You can see it with some people already today, just get whatever they want, because their money supply allows it. As we grow in technology and productivity, more people can join this group; until even the dolists have no unfulfilled wants. So yes, it absolutely is money as well. More so than people in fact, how are people going to accurately tell you they are ready?

Well you claimed production is brought by only people, and that a lack of resources is by money; thus categorising the people doing good, and money being bad. When the reality is they are inextricably linked.

I am, what part are you having difficulty with? Moeny makes us better off, or worse off (according to you), so it is only logical to find a group in each category and compare the result; money-less groups were left behind, and chose to adopt the economy to become better off, nobody has gone back the other way. Progress.

What about money stops an rbe? you keep telling us you've got a hundred people to understand what an rbe is, that's ample for a startup group. Why has nothing got off the ground due to your 'efforts', why has nothing got off the ground anywhere else due to the hundreds of thousands of other 'rbe' proponent's efforts? You do not need a whole country's population to implement one, not is it even desireable to have; we've agreed on that in the past. If it is such a good thing, why are those proposing it not living it? That simple question puts lie to all the conjecture about it being people doing good, and money doing bad.

mashman

22nd July 2016, 21:27

We can use money for the bench mark by its irrelevancy. You can see it with some people already today, just get whatever they want, because their money supply allows it. As we grow in technology and productivity, more people can join this group; until even the dolists have no unfulfilled wants. So yes, it absolutely is money as well. More so than people in fact, how are people going to accurately tell you they are ready?

Well you claimed production is brought by only people, and that a lack of resources is by money; thus categorising the people doing good, and money being bad. When the reality is they are inextricably linked.

I am, what part are you having difficulty with? Moeny makes us better off, or worse off (according to you), so it is only logical to find a group in each category and compare the result; money-less groups were left behind, and chose to adopt the economy to become better off, nobody has gone back the other way. Progress.

What about money stops an rbe? you keep telling us you've got a hundred people to understand what an rbe is, that's ample for a startup group. Why has nothing got off the ground due to your 'efforts', why has nothing got off the ground anywhere else due to the hundreds of thousands of other 'rbe' proponent's efforts? You do not need a whole country's population to implement one, not is it even desireable to have; we've agreed on that in the past. If it is such a good thing, why are those proposing it not living it? That simple question puts lie to all the conjecture about it being people doing good, and money doing bad.

Certainly one way to do it.

I was referring to stuff getting done and not getting done. Like, cancer drugs availability to budget despite the fact that the drugs are in a warehouse ready to go where they're needed... so long as they can afford it. That's entirely a money problem. And it isn't the only problem by a long way.

Left behind? Ok :facepalm:

They're not all people I know. They're just people I bump into. Friends of friends. Bloke down t pub etc... and I've not started anything to get off the ground yet. But they seem to understand that when they are offered RBE as a choice, they'll vote for it. As for not living it currently.... jobs and needing money n stuff to set that sort of thing up. Hell, TVP have had long enough to build a city. Have they? Or haven't they got enough money? I'm sure you'll agree that they have some expertise after all, so why haven't they built it?

bogan

22nd July 2016, 21:36

Certainly one way to do it.

I was referring to stuff getting done and not getting done. Like, cancer drugs availability to budget despite the fact that the drugs are in a warehouse ready to go where they're needed... so long as they can afford it. That's entirely a money problem. And it isn't the only problem by a long way.

Left behind? Ok :facepalm:

They're not all people I know. They're just people I bump into. Friends of friends. Bloke down t pub etc... and I've not started anything to get off the ground yet. But they seem to understand that when they are offered RBE as a choice, they'll vote for it. As for not living it currently.... jobs and needing money n stuff to set that sort of thing up. Hell, TVP have had long enough to build a city. Have they? Or haven't they got enough money? I'm sure you'll agree that they have some expertise after all, so why haven't they built it?

That's production/consumption as well, albeit one step removed, production has to include development. Software is another example of this.

Well, are they still with us? no? then they were left behind; not difficult to understand.

Vote for it? what is that shit, it's not going to be voted in, we've been over that; you can't force people to be in an rbe. There's no need for massive investment, that's just a road block you are putting in your own way; it should also be a red flag since the sustainability criteria is production/conumption, if this is positive (and it needs to be) it would make money from an outside perspective. No city from TVP, as I said, the technology and the people are not ready, people proposing a way to remove reliance on money should not start their system by relying on money, wouldn't you think? :laugh:

mashman

22nd July 2016, 22:03

That's production/consumption as well, albeit one step removed, production has to include development. Software is another example of this.

Well, are they still with us? no? then they were left behind; not difficult to understand.

Vote for it? what is that shit, it's not going to be voted in, we've been over that; you can't force people to be in an rbe. There's no need for massive investment, that's just a road block you are putting in your own way; it should also be a red flag since the sustainability criteria is production/conumption, if this is positive (and it needs to be) it would make money from an outside perspective. No city from TVP, as I said, the technology and the people are not ready, people proposing a way to remove reliance on money should not start their system by relying on money, wouldn't you think? :laugh:

More an allocation problem.

:killingme

bwaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa... Where to start. How do you know when people are ready? Ask them to vote for it so that they can get what they want. Democracy. That thing you keep crowing about. Uber :facepalm:

New favourite: TVP don't have the technology or people to build their city. Yeah, that's the problem. You've nailed it on the head there. Jacques Fresco, a well respected designer, isn't ready to build a city that he claimed could be built with the technology that was available in the 60's. :killingme No, I wouldn't think that TVP aren't ready. I'd think that they've identified the thing that's stopping them from building the city. But cheers for teh lulz and noo fave.

bogan

22nd July 2016, 22:12

More an allocation problem.

:killingme

bwaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa... Where to start. How do you know when people are ready? Ask them to vote for it so that they can get what they want. Democracy. That thing you keep crowing about. Uber :facepalm:

New favourite: TVP don't have the technology or people to build their city. Yeah, that's the problem. You've nailed it on the head there. Jacques Fresco, a well respected designer, isn't ready to build a city that he claimed could be built with the technology that was available in the 60's. :killingme No, I wouldn't think that TVP aren't ready. I'd think that they've identified the thing that's stopping them from building the city. But cheers for teh lulz and noo fave.

Allocation of the current resource, which has been developed by people's production. You can't unlink the development with the goods production, otherwise things won't continue to be developed.

No, they are ready when they show it works. Asking them relys on them having an adequate understanding of all the implications, instead of just being in it for free shit and not working. Democracy works with an economy to keep those who disagree with mass consensus productive. With an rbe, those who disagree with it can easily destroy it from within (that consumption/production balance again).

Build the city? that's not what holds an TVP back. How are you not understanding the consumption/production balance? That's is what the technology and people do not support. You do not need a city to start this stuff. You can't depend on an injection of money to show everyone you don't need money FFS :laugh:

mashman

22nd July 2016, 22:28

Allocation of the current resource, which has been developed by people's production. You can't unlink the development with the goods production, otherwise things won't continue to be developed.

No, they are ready when they show it works. Asking them relys on them having an adequate understanding of all the implications, instead of just being in it for free shit and not working. Democracy works with an economy to keep those who disagree with mass consensus productive. With an rbe, those who disagree with it can easily destroy it from within (that consumption/production balance again).

Build the city? that's not what holds an TVP back. How are you not understanding the consumption/production balance? That's is what the technology and people do not support. You do not need a city to start this stuff. You can't depend on an injection of money to show everyone you don't need money FFS :laugh:

Probably because I didn't unlink them. You did on my behalf, again.

And back to people bashing.

Not A TVP, but the TVP. Jacques has always wanted to build that city. I can see why. I'd want one built too. I was talking about building a city, not using the construction as a symbol. I do love your misunderstandings though.

bogan

22nd July 2016, 22:49

Probably because I didn't unlink them. You did on my behalf, again.

And back to people bashing.

Not A TVP, but the TVP. Jacques has always wanted to build that city. I can see why. I'd want one built too. I was talking about building a city, not using the construction as a symbol. I do love your misunderstandings though.

Great, so they are still linked, and it still requires a lot of production to make a vaccine/software/etc. Money doesn't prevent those things from happening (since they clearly are happening).

People bashing? I'm just being realistic. Democracy works because an economy provides the carrot and the stick. With neither, those who wish to see an rbe fail can do so very easily. With neither, those who are unable to effectively self regulate their production/consumption will be a burden, and with enough, it will fail too. Do you want to see it fail? Is that why you ignore this stuff?

I'd want to build one too, doesn't mean it is integral to an rbe. I'm talking about the rbe's absence; I can understand your desire to change the subject, but such misdirection is not warranted. Why is there no rbe? Don't give me that shit about them not having enough money to build a city, rbe is about pooling resources and self moderating the production/consumption ratio; it's not about getting a flash new city; the materialistic implication that flash new shit is required suggests you've missunderstood the concept entirely.

mashman

22nd July 2016, 23:15

Great, so they are still linked, and it still requires a lot of production to make a vaccine/software/etc. Money doesn't prevent those things from happening (since they clearly are happening).

People bashing? I'm just being realistic. Democracy works because an economy provides the carrot and the stick. With neither, those who wish to see an rbe fail can do so very easily. With neither, those who are unable to effectively self regulate their production/consumption will be a burden, and with enough, it will fail too. Do you want to see it fail? Is that why you ignore this stuff?

I'd want to build one too, doesn't mean it is integral to an rbe. I'm talking about the rbe's absence; I can understand your desire to change the subject, but such misdirection is not warranted. Why is there no rbe? Don't give me that shit about them not having enough money to build a city, rbe is about pooling resources and self moderating the production/consumption ratio; it's not about getting a flash new city; the materialistic implication that flash new shit is required suggests you've missunderstood the concept entirely.

I never said money prevented vaccine/software etc...

http://www.careergeekblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/climb-a-tree.png

I never said it was integral to an RBE. Even said "not using the construction as a symbol" in regards to the why of building one. See, you're making things up again... I said misunderstanding as a way of highlighting that you had misunderstood what I had said for a reason. Again though, they're lulz a plenty.

bogan

22nd July 2016, 23:28

I never said money prevented vaccine/software etc...

http://www.careergeekblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/climb-a-tree.png

I never said it was integral to an RBE. Even said "not using the construction as a symbol" in regards to the why of building one. See, you're making things up again... I said misunderstanding as a way of highlighting that you had misunderstood what I had said for a reason. Again though, they're lulz a plenty.

You said "I was referring to stuff getting done and not getting done. Like, cancer drugs availability to budget despite the fact that the drugs are in a warehouse ready to go where they're needed... so long as they can afford it. That's entirely a money problem.", so money doesn't prevent them from being made, just the final product being distributed. But you can't unlink the two, remember "Probably because I didn't unlink them." which you said. Yet your assertion that money prevents distribution, but not their creation, does un-link the two.

Production/consumption. I've never said people had to do the same shit as effectively, just that they need to produce something, to balance out their consumption. Considering it is a core underpinning of any rbe, you need to be able to understand this stuff mashy.

Right, so startup money is not integral to an rbe either. So why do none exist?

Ocean1

23rd July 2016, 09:31

Right, so startup money is not integral to an rbe either. So why do none exist?

Because it's only lazy cunts that want one, and they're too lazy to make one let alone sustain one.

Woodman

23rd July 2016, 09:42

They're not all people I know. They're just people I bump into. Friends of friends. Bloke down t pub etc...

Um just because they are standing in front of you nodding and smiling, doesn't mean they agree with you. It just means they are too polite to say "fuck off you boring twat"

:laugh:

mashman

23rd July 2016, 12:13

You said "I was referring to stuff getting done and not getting done. Like, cancer drugs availability to budget despite the fact that the drugs are in a warehouse ready to go where they're needed... so long as they can afford it. That's entirely a money problem.", so money doesn't prevent them from being made, just the final product being distributed. But you can't unlink the two, remember "Probably because I didn't unlink them." which you said. Yet your assertion that money prevents distribution, but not their creation, does un-link the two.

Production/consumption. I've never said people had to do the same shit as effectively, just that they need to produce something, to balance out their consumption. Considering it is a core underpinning of any rbe, you need to be able to understand this stuff mashy.

Right, so startup money is not integral to an rbe either. So why do none exist?

No it doesn't. They are still consumed by the person that can afford them.

I understand it fine. You misunderstood the reason for the image being posted... yet you did give us a beautiful story about what I don't understand, again.

Oooooooo, only half point. ICS.