My first poll for the NZ public [Archive]

mashman

16th April 2010, 15:46

Where does a steady-state (no growth) economy fit in your list of options?

I did indeed miss at least 1... omg it's like a house of cards... :)

Your question seems very confused, to me. Are you trying to ask if we can live in a society without the overhead that the financial services sector imposes on the productive sector? That would still need money, or barter, or some means of exchange, which you seem to rule out as well. If you're talking about an economy based purely on goodwill and mutual giving (not exchange) that can work, only up to the Dunbar number. Beyond that, you need some mutually accepted exchange medium (shells, gold, slaves, faith in the US... whatever).

Fair enough, I'm not what you would call an eloquent man and there's little space for me to pose a question like this on a public forum without their being some ambiguity, I'm more than happy to add an explanation if one is really required.

As for Dunbar, he's as mad as I am... has he proven his theory? But, you can have as much trouble with 10 people as there will be with 10,000 people... people are people, we would have to make of it what we can, same as we do today, but without financial constraints.

mashman

16th April 2010, 15:52

Not really the NZ public is it? More like the small percentage of members of a forum that represents a small percentage of NZ motorcyclists. Considering most of us want our toys and know we need to pay for them, you're not going to get an accurate reflection of the *NZ public*.

Hey, if the government can twist things their way using their sample audience, i can use mine :)... I understand what you mean and you make a very valid point. I could post it elsewhere too if I really wanted to... but I reckon this forum is about as good as any medium, street corner or polling booth that's out there guaging public opinion... there's certainly the cross over of personalities and lifestyles...

Oscar

16th April 2010, 16:03

I thought that was only if you waz from Alabamy... learn something new everyday...

He's talking about this one:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3095/2444486481_3c42e51572.jpg

Big Dave

16th April 2010, 16:27

That Germain is germane.

mashman

16th April 2010, 17:52

funny, am I not letting you prove yourself wrong?

No. Why would you think that? oh hang on wait a minute there's funny bloke at the door, ha, the reaper... scuse.

mashman

16th April 2010, 18:08

Where does a steady-state (no growth) economy fit in your list of options?

And unfortunately I missed the most important one: Do you think it warrants further discussion at a government level. That would have been "better" than yes. Bugga eh! but ahhhhindsight, what a wonderful tool to be able to use as an apology for when you've fucked it up. The great ideas that must have been forgotten to placate the people.

JATZ

16th April 2010, 18:26

bogan

16th April 2010, 18:34

mashman

16th April 2010, 19:11

O.K. ya got me......How does this work ?
Does it mean I don't have to go to work anymore 'cause the boss won't pay me,
sweet, I'll go for a ride instead,
hmmm better get some gas.
Ahhh no money, maybe I can barter ?
What goods or services do I have that the servo may wan't ? None
Sorry, I just can't see how this would/could work. If it couldn't work for cavemen (and there was fcuk all of them) hows it gunna work for us ?

There are no simple answers. You will still have to work, until such time as "some form of government" finds that your job is financially related, and then you can go surf, fuck about, help out a mate etc... as long as you do it with "other people in mind". You may also be able to go back to further education, should you decide you wanna be a Doctor, Nurse, Fireman, Policeman etc... learn whatever the fuck you want. It won't cost you anything because there's no money. Call it a social responsibility if you like, but that's your label. I've never liked the phrase as most of us are quite anti-social by nature.

HOWEVER (oh here we go dear, the problems)

The world might not trade anything with us. Which I can't see being a problem, as the only way we'd be allowed to do it anyway is if we all wanted it, the government approved it, then whoever the government reports to approves it and whoever else there may be etc... now with all of the hoops we'd have to jump through to get there, do you really think they'd say, but oh, we're not going to trade with you and we wouldn't instantly walk away? Kinda goes against the whole point really?

I know it's not simple. But if it warrants merit, and there are those out there who feel it can be done, why not discuss it with the government, because the people just aren't interested and the government speaks for the people, so why not bypass the people. I just happen to have thought about it a lot more than most it seems, but indeed a lot less than others.

Does that answer your questions?

mashman

16th April 2010, 19:20

Yeh I agree with JATZ, I'm unsure how it would work, do people just give you shit for free? or do you barter? if the first how do you keep peoples greed in check? if the later, how is it different from money?

I would much prefer to live in a society where everyone just worked hard, and received an equal share back, but i think in any society there are too many leeches who would abuse the system.

following on from my last post... If everyone decides to just take what they want in the first smash and grab, then it's an epic fail for all who have approved it. but if you need a shirt that badly, then I suggest that you just go and get one. Hopefully there will be a shop assistant there that will stop talking to her mates anyway and answer a question for you. Once you've found what you want, put the shit back that you don't want where you got it from and walk out of the door now safe in the knowledge that you have your shirt. Some people will still be desiging and making fashion items.

If we were allowed to do this. The people left in NZ, wouldn't be quibbling over such things. They'd just accept them, it would be a common place attitude. As funny as it sounds, NZ could end up being International Rescue in times of global crisis (lots of doctors, nurses, firemen, police, rescue personel etc...) or even our local one

bogan

16th April 2010, 19:31

social responsibility

Find me a country with that, and chances are people there will have all they need anyway. Don't get me wrong, I wish it were possible, perhaps with some sort of social responsibility eviction clause it'd work.

Big Dave

16th April 2010, 19:32

Have you read Arthur C (let's hope he didn't do it) Clarke's 'The City And The Stars'?

Diaspar is your kinda place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_City_and_the_Stars

puddytat

16th April 2010, 19:36

The green dollar exchange is a good system.
You couldve Mashie, asked wether folk would be pepared to give up a significant part of thier wealth to help the planet..... probably be about 90% of the population would answer catergorically NO.
Funny that .
Also funny is that the people who'd stand to lose the most, are the 10% who control about 90% of the worlds finances.....so Id say yes to your pole as I live only slightly above the official poverty line & I have more freedom & funnily enough more disposible income than most......:scratch:
SO ....id propse that people were tax free up tp say 200 thou a year then tax the fuckers at 80%.
So for most of us there'd be bugger all differance. Weve also got to stop borrowing money to keep us a float.A large part of the cost is currency exchange costs...We should be using our own Retirement fund to bankroll our sustainable development. :yes:
If they dont like it then they can fuck off to some polluted shithole or Banana republic & see really how the rest of the world lives. I work with tourists & they're constantly saying how clear the sky is.You wanna live hear? Then you fucking pay!! for the privilige.
Beware my friends the 'Money Men" are coming & are divvying up our resources & chipping away at our rights. When the shit really hits the fan they'll declare martial law & all our & rights & liberties are gone just like that.:ar15:
TOOL does a great version of Imagine by JLennon which is a mantra for good morals. They also do a great song called Aenima which sums up exactly what we're heading for.....

NighthawkNZ

16th April 2010, 19:57

Your question seems very confused, to me. Are you trying to ask if we can live in a society without the overhead that the financial services sector imposes on the productive sector? That would still need money, or barter, or some means of exchange, which you seem to rule out as well. If you're talking about an economy based purely on goodwill and mutual giving (not exchange) that can work, only up to the Dunbar number. Beyond that, you need some mutually accepted exchange medium (shells, gold, slaves, faith in the US... whatever).

The resource base system has no money, it is based on this is the resources the Earth has available at this time, this is what people require, we share evenly, very simple example, so you need a new pair of shoes, you take your old pair back to be recycled and are given a new pair.

Most likely we will still go to work but not the same way we do now, many of the jobs we have now will be obsolete with no money you don't need an accountant, real estate agents as such, you won't get paid for it in money, this more like your payment to the community which in return you get every thing given to you.

You would be free to study what ever you want, physics, quantum physics, computers, hell dive into regilion ;), travel, invent do things that you have always wanted to do... be free with out the worry and or curse of money and saving for that new car...

People say we won't advance due to lack of competition and drive to succeed,... well that is bullocks... at present due the money or lack of there is less testing done on new products, if you are in the development industry you just do it and develop you don't have to worry how much it cost because it costs nothing... there is no development cost just time... and now time is not money. You can never go over your budget, no worry of keeping under budget no worry of inflation and resale value...

It would eliminate a lot of crime...(no not all but a lot) pretty hard to steel something that you are just given anyway... (reminds me of an eposide of Sponge Bob yes the cartoon... He thought he stole a balloon... but in the end it was free balloon day ... so he didn't really steel it... :lol:

So all of a sudden our police force is cut in half if not smaller as they would be supplus to requirement.

Advertising would change as companies are no longer what we know them as today that control you to being a modern slave to the system (even though many don't even see that), they are now there to actually help you.

Since we are now all on talking terms and sharing each others resources around the world and every one gets there share evenly, miltary involvement is not required, in fact armed forces would no longer be needed. (but during the intial change over there will be hic-ups and issues that need sorting.

Over all the idea is you don't really own anything nobody does, it belongs to the planet it and simply belongs to every one. You are only looking after it while you have it.

The idea also is that technology is being used computers that control the delivery of resources.
As Jacque Fresco says it won't be perfect but t will be better than what we have now...

I can see it actually happening but in my life time I do not know... people are slowly waking up to the lie they have been living in a matrix of lies... :/ The problem is that those in power the few of the that are truly in power are not going to let go, and the will do everything in there power to tighten their grip. Which could mean a war, or a complete collapse of the fiscal monitory system before it happens, but you have to becareful what is offered and what people choose... as the same people that were in power cause all the problems can easily offer and idea (as many prophicies say) that is just as bad if not worse.

Does NZ have the resouces as a local trial for it... probably

JATZ

16th April 2010, 20:43

Mashman: "untill some form of gubmint finds my job "financialy related" and then you can go surf, fuck about, help out a mate etc" I'm just a country boy, what do you mean by that ? My job @ the moment would be quite helpfull to the community, but why would I clear a vets blocked shitter....I don't have any pets. I suppose the vet may have fixed an animal for the guy who made my shoes but thats a pretty big leap of faith.
Actually...... while typing this I was thinking about this hypothesis (fark a big word and I havn't had a drink yet) and it would be great if it did happen, I think I can see how it would work, BUT with all due respect my friend, I think you need to get out more, It's a cold hard world out there and I can't see it happening at all, people have been screwing each other over for thousands of years, it's gunna take longer to un-breed it out of the human race, and besides we only have to hang in here for another 2 years.......2012 remember :sherlock:

Puddytat: It was A Perfect Circle did Imagine :D

Robert Taylor

16th April 2010, 20:47

Some see the idea a pure pie in the sky. But i'm curious. There are 50,000,000 registered people (give or take) around the world that agree that a financial system is not necessary. Sorry if I've left any options out.

What are their names?

george formby

16th April 2010, 20:51

Nah, unless everybody on the planet is given a lobotomy at the same time it won't work. Sounds great but overlooks basic human nature. Those who hold the reins now will be replaced by others who are good at the " new system". A lot of what exists now still has to be paid for, like your house or bike. Rectifying that will cause confrontation. If something which is coveted is in short supply, who would dictate how it is allocated? I'm sure you get my drift.
As much as I despair at the world we are making/destroying I'm realistic enough to realise that it is being made in our image for our short term gain.
When the shit hits the fan, those who are left may be in a position to make this ideal happen. Peace has given us art, war has given us technology.
Gotta love wishful thinking & the sharing of positive ideas though.

rainman

16th April 2010, 21:18

And unfortunately I missed the most important one: Do you think it warrants further discussion at a government level. That would have been "better" than yes.

S'alright, next time just ask me first... :laugh:

Seriously though - I think your central idea is crazy idealistic, but yes, the question of growth absolutely needs to be discussed at government (and local) levels, most urgently. Google "Arithmetic, Population and Energy" by Dr Albert Bartlett (1hr video lecture) to see why I think this.

I would much prefer to live in a society where everyone just worked hard, and received an equal share back, but i think in any society there are too many leeches who would abuse the system.

But the problem here is (ignoring the fact that some are lazy buggers and some are workaholics), not everyone has the same capabilities or needs, and not everyone can produce things of equal value. (And, value as measured is relative). Marx had some apposite things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_accord ing_to_his_need) to say about this, as I recall.

The resource base system has no money, it is based on this is the resources the Earth has available at this time, this is what people require, we share evenly,...

Heard of the Tragedy of the Commons? Garrett Hardin. Explains a fairly fundamental flaw with the "share evenly" part of that view. Also, look around, we do have finite resources today, and we hardly share them equally.

Since we are now all on talking terms and sharing each others resources around the world and every one gets there share evenly, miltary involvement is not required, in fact armed forces would no longer be needed.

Problem is with real humans involved you would need a military to police equal sharing of resources, or they'd get unequal real quick, humans being rather sucky by nature. Actually this has another problem, it would have to be an ideal non-corruptible robot military, ruled by a benevolent non-sucky dictator. (Fortunately for you I have some free time at the moment, so if you get this off the ground I'd be happy to step up.) :)

Over all the idea is you don't really own anything nobody does, it belongs to the planet it and simply belongs to every one. You are only looking after it while you have it.

Ah, Buddhism. Now that I get.

The problem is that those in power the few of the that are truly in power are not going to let go, and the will do everything in there power to tighten their grip.

This is the fundamental problem with capitalism as she is practiced. Money grants power, power gives the capability to attract more money, increasing power. Aka the rich get richer, the rest of us get screwed.

Headbanger

16th April 2010, 21:29

The world could well still suck... but people have reasoned, and rightly so IMHO, that the world would indeed still suck but to MUCH of a lesser degree.

The world rocks, I live like a King in comparison to every single generation that has preceded me.

rainman

16th April 2010, 23:10

As for Dunbar, he's as mad as I am...

Mad? You ain't seen nothing yet (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html).

The world rocks, I live like a King in comparison to every single generation that has preceded me.

In material terms, maybe. But could the whole world live like you do?
And if they could, would you be satisfied to live at your current level of materialism, or would you expect to be proportionally better off?

Headbanger

16th April 2010, 23:20

In material terms, maybe. But could the whole world live like you do?
And if they could, would you be satisfied to live at your current level of materialism, or would you expect to be proportionally better off?

What?

Did you not hear me, Like a King, Fuck everyone else.

Peasants.

But seriously, I ain't talking material goods, I'm talking ample food, clothing, education, healthcare, a roof over my head, a warm bed. The shit people take for granted. You get rid of money aint no fucker going to provide any of that out of goodwill.

Hell, I remember my dear old Mum having to go door knocking to get clothes for us to wear, and those clothes had patches over patches and were still passed down the line, and having a single meal which was eaten all week...the fucker was made to last by adding water ffs.

And we were rich compared to the neighbours......

rainman

16th April 2010, 23:44

Did you not hear me, Like a King, Fuck everyone else.

Peasants.

Are you a libertarian? Libertarians seem to like feudalism.

I fear we, by virtue of certain structural elements in the construction of this brave new world we inhabit, are selecting for sociopathy over any community sense and connection. Apart from this being ethically repugnant, I doubt the experiment will end well.

You get rid of money aint no fucker going to provide any of that out of goodwill

I agree wholeheartedly, outside of the Monkeysphere. You do realise this is an argument against charity and in favour of the welfare state, don't you?

Coldrider

16th April 2010, 23:45

You would first have to be able to decipher the shit from the wisdom... and I fear, only judging by your reponses, that you would have an epic fail on your hands in that respect.good you have worked out the value of your topics, I see you don't get off the couch these days to take a break from watching 'days of our lives'.

Coldrider

16th April 2010, 23:49

Listen, chelloveck, you leave my droogs out of this. :)

WEALTH isn't necessarily measured in money.

Where does a steady-state (no growth) economy fit in your list of options?

Your question seems very confused, to me.
Read the post again, Wealth & money are not the same.
I'm confused to, so I don't take ,mashmans posts seriously.

Grasshopperus

16th April 2010, 23:51

mashman

17th April 2010, 01:16

mashman

17th April 2010, 02:05

Mashman, you're probably a nice enough person in real life but I'm tired of hearing your heresy about abolishing the financial system. No one has had a real good go at you personally so I'm gonna take that flaming-mission upon myself.

You troll fag, your lame arguments make no sense and are completely invalidated by empirical evidence.

Whereas I feel I have enough evidence to suggest that a financial system is worse for humanity than a non financial system and would like to try something different please. something that hasn't been tried yet. What other alternatives do YOU propose?

50,000,000 people have registered their dislike eh? Where have they registered? Please provide evidence of 50,000,000 names and signatures.

Just a quote off the tele the other night. If the government can throw unsubstantiated figures about, then why can't I. But why would they lie? To "convert" crack pots like me. Look I have no illusion that what I'm proposing is preposterous, but my reasons for it being preposterous sound completely different to yours.

Has the system obviously failed us? Sez you writing your ideas on your imported computer and riding your imported motorbike. Alll the jobs you've ever had have relied upon imported (or someone else's) goods; the engines on someone else's fishing boats, the alcohol served at the bars you've "bouncered" at, the products you support at the helpdesk you work for. You have no value unless you're working with other peoples assets.

I appreciate that fact... well enough to respect that there is indeed a global community and the world doesn't end at the end of my street... monkeysphere or no.

Using an abstract idea like money is simply an extension on the barter system. Exchanging goods and services using something ethereal allowed people to move out of subsistence and agratorial living.

I understand why money was used and it's not because it improved peoples lives. It just made valuing things open to market forces... instant fail in my book. But hindsight.

If you're sooooo keen on abolishing the financial system why don't you adopt a utilitarian viewpoint and give all your income to the more needy. That will mean living on the street along with the lowest of the low but that's what you're proposing.

That's what's going to happen anyway if myself or my family of the time don't have enough money to bridge that gap.

You've previously said that you have all the $$ you need and that you're happy enough. Ah, bullshit, you're constantly complaining, you're around 30 years old and you work on a salary; like everyone else, you have unlimited wants and limited means.

I am 40 this year, I work on a salary, I have unlimited wants and my means do dictate what I can and can't have. But I have so much more than "others", that it actually seems unfair to me when I think about it. Why should I have more than someone else? what do they do for me? they cloth me, feed me, provide me with water etc... and what do i do for them, I pay some taxes so that they can get some credits because their employer doesn't pay the enough to live a life that isn't just as well paid on the dole. If that's the case, something needs to change and there's 1 recurring theme.

I think you're just a complaining little noob bitch who hasn't achieved the American dream, have resigned yourself to mediocrity but still live on the edge by posting these repetitive whiny threads.

Meh meh meh-ity meh

On this subject this is only the 2nd thread I think... the rest have been bent to my will :) I'm just offering a potential alternative... you snivelling postule of mouse sputum...

I feel like i live on the edge of danger with every word I write... I could destroy world leaders with a stroke of my pen, stabbing at their uncalculating hearts everytime it hits the paper, forming letters that spell out the doom of mankind if they can't get their fuc....... is that the time... Night.

rainman

17th April 2010, 08:21

Mashman, if this is true how do I count my money, er sorry, WEALTH.

Read the post again, Wealth & money are not the same.

Eh? Wotcha on about?

Pixie

17th April 2010, 09:30

The current system is based on economic growth.
Very soon,growth will be impossible due to resource limits, and the system will collapse.

scumdog

17th April 2010, 09:36

What do the beneficiaries receive in order to be classed as beneficiaries?

Handouts.

Of cash normally

So no cash = no beneficiaries?

Headbanger

17th April 2010, 09:38

The current system is based on economic growth.
Very soon,growth will be impossible due to resource limits, and the system will collapse.

Totally agree.

Collapse is a certainty, The human race is well over due for a "correction" or dieback.

mashman

17th April 2010, 09:42

So no cash = no beneficiaries?

Correct.... in the financial sense

NighthawkNZ

17th April 2010, 09:44

Mashman: "untill some form of gubmint finds my job "financialy related" and then you can go surf, fuck about, help out a mate etc" I'm just a country boy, what do you mean by that ?

No form of government would do it because under a resource based economy the government is not in power as such... the only reason we have a governmnet is so the look after the money WE give them... of course under resource based economy there is no money...

scumdog

17th April 2010, 09:46

Correct.... in the financial sense

So they will still be leeching off others anyway??

So then what is changed?

mashman

17th April 2010, 09:50

So they will still be leeching off others anyway??

So then what is changed?

Yes.

That's the point I guess. Nothing really changes, we just don't have money and the associated crime/desire that it brings etc... I have no doubt there'll be a raft of other issues to deal with...

scumdog

17th April 2010, 10:07

Yes.

That's the point I guess. Nothing really changes, we just don't have money and the associated crime/desire that it brings etc... I have no doubt there'll be a raft of other issues to deal with...

ANYTHING of value brings 'associated crime/desire'....money is just easier to carry than three tons of elephant tusks..

NighthawkNZ

17th April 2010, 10:09

Mashman, if this is true how do I count my money, er sorry, WEALTH.

why does there need to be wealth over other... oh right pure greed... that is a frame of mind...

Where does a steady-state (no growth) economy fit in your list of options?

Your question seems very confused, to me. Are you trying to ask if we can live in a society without the overhead that the financial services sector imposes on the productive sector? That would still need money, or barter, or some means of exchange, which you seem to rule out as well. If you're talking about an economy based purely on goodwill and mutual giving (not exchange) that can work, only up to the Dunbar number. Beyond that, you need some mutually accepted exchange medium (shells, gold, slaves, faith in the US... whatever).

You don't need to have any form of trade or barter, or money in a resourse base economy... the resources on the planet are all of ours not yours, not mine, not the oil tycoons... they belong to every one... so it is a simple matter of sharing them evenly. You have to get out of your head that you want something for an item you no longer require, or that you have to pay for something that you need.

We teach our children to share... yet as adults we don't really share at all, we take, then say if you want some of this give me something in return.

under a resourse base economy you could say there is a form of trade, the resources of the area, any leftovers go to areas that are short on those resources, they supply resources they are higher on to another community and that community does the same to another till you get a community that has what you are after..

The only thing that is stop humans from making the switch or change is greed, and the greed is from the top 10% of the population who are control and manipulating you, as a modern day slave to the system. We all know money is false in the first place. every dollar you have in your pocket is owed 5 or 6 dollars and is actually worthless... If the reserve bank wanted to call all its loans, there would be no money in circulation and there still would be money owed... I society based around debt right from the very begining is set out to fail.

Headbanger

17th April 2010, 10:28

Someone seems to have mistaken people for ants.

It could work, if we were mindless drones.

mashman

17th April 2010, 11:23

ANYTHING of value brings 'associated crime/desire'....money is just easier to carry than three tons of elephant tusks..

ha ha ha... but all a financial system does is promote the value of goods and services. Best place to start would be getting rid of it and associated blah blah.

mashman

17th April 2010, 11:40

Someone seems to have mistaken people for ants.

It could work, if we were mindless drones.

But that's the thing. From our perspective, you are the mindless drones. You need to work for money. If you didn't you'd end up on the streets apparantly, unless your Whanau can look after you.

A resourced based economy example.

We have a problem. Damaged and uncontrollable hair. Cure, shampoo. Shit, which one do I choose. Ah, the one that best suits my hair. Ok there's 10 in the range for me to chose from. Go with the cheapest. Why is it cheaper, who the fuck knows, but i saved a couple of bucks. They all know what they're doing.

We have a problem. Damaged and uncontrollable hair. Cure, shampoo. Shit, which one do I choose. Ah, the one that best suits my hair. Glad I live in a place where i can all but guarentee that the shampoo that's going onto my head is the one that is the absolute best tried and tested for my hair... How do i know this?

Because in that place, companies only make products that are absolutely necessary to make and if a chick wants to look good, then why not. So we're makin the stuff. Companies also have a product comparison meeting. So our 10 shampoo companies will sit around at the end of a table and will pick out the best 3 from the 10 for each category of hair. Why would you do this. Because it's more cost effective in terms of production. You would still have 1000 units on the shelves, but you would have only 3 items to chose from that you KNOW will do the job (why 3, variances), safe in the knowledge that it's tried and tested and even the competition signs it off. The will have all innovated and competed to be the best. but 7 companies have not gone into full production (and wasted valuable resources) because their product did not make the grade. At that point in time the top 3 make their formulas available to the other 9 competitors and we start redevelopment from there, with everyone starting with the same and coming up with the BEST.

Simple when you think about it. Unless of course someone chucks in a wad of millions and a bunch of money grabbing incompetents follow. But the money drones just keep on going

Coldrider

17th April 2010, 11:46

But that's the thing. From our perspective, you are the mindless drones.Your words not mine, why did you not place this statement in the leading thread, shit this makes me laugh.
So basically to live in a non financial system we would be no more than bacteria wriggling around under reflex action.

Coldrider

17th April 2010, 11:56

What is the difficulty in separating money from wealth. Money is purely that, a measurement that can iclude some wealth, via cash, gold precious stones and metal to name some.
Wealth is more of your resources. Yes resources can earn money but is far more open, as money is but one measurement.
Your wealth is your ability to think, physical mobility, well being. Obviously the ability to sweep the the street, be a plumber or a vet is your wealth, and it is not necessarily created equal, hence or the barter and trading mentioned in other posts, which is then trying to tie back to a physical measurement, money not being one of the options.

Coldrider

17th April 2010, 12:00

why does there need to be wealth over other... oh right pure greed... that is a frame of mind...
.Money buys your motorcycle, but how do you measure your enjoyment and state of mind derived from actually riding it.

puddytat

17th April 2010, 13:03

Someone seems to have mistaken people for ants.

It could work, if we were mindless drones.

Well whats the other option....rampant greed leading to collapse? Which is what I think we're heading for. The question I propose is how do we stop it affecting N.Z? How do we stop millions of refugees.....How many people do we want in this country?
I think we're one of very few countries that do have a chance of avoiding the effects because of our isolation....we should be planning for it.
Aussie is already talking seriously about what are they going to do when thier population reaches 35 million which its projected to reach by 2050(?) in a land already struggling to support the population.

I think you're just a complaining little noob bitch who hasn't achieved the American dream, have resigned yourself to mediocrity but still live on the edge by posting these repetitive whiny threads.

Meh meh meh-ity meh

Seems like youre suffering from Status Anxiety.... who the fuck in thier right mind would like to live that shit dream? The land of Hypocrisy that parades as Democracy? The land that promotes "winning" as the ultimate prize? So you make a society that if theyre not one of the chosen few, turn to religion for salvation or are forever unhappy that they're not a winner,but just a Butcher or Baker or Candlestick maker, & so that person who might be a good manager at McDonalds will feel he's a failure 'cause he's not a stock trader or a CEO ....:weep:
Without money you wont be able to buy any of that shit on no deposit ,no interest, no repayments for 3 years etc etc....thereby none of us would have a debt, consequently the country wouldnt be so broke...a good poll would be "Who is not in debt"....

imdying

17th April 2010, 13:31

Remember hippy fucktards, down the road, not across the street.

Headbanger

17th April 2010, 13:48

Well whats the other option....rampant greed leading to collapse? Which is what I think we're heading for. The question I propose is how do we stop it affecting N.Z? How do we stop millions of refugees.....

I'd nominate poor management rather then greed as our downfall, And it will be a time of famine, Pestilence, lawlessness, warfare, oppression and rule by force. Not the cute working together communities envisioned by some.

How do we stop it affecting NZ?

Lmfao.

As if we could.

If your worried it will happen in your lifetime, stock up on some guns, be ready to head bush.

mashman

17th April 2010, 13:53

Remember hippy fucktards, down the road, not across the street.

no detail = post a waste of time :shifty:

mashman

17th April 2010, 14:03

If your worried it will happen in your lifetime, stock up on some guns, be ready to head bush.

I'm worried about a number of things happening in my lifetime... too many of them actually having passed by... Violence on the scale you're talking about is not my first thought... even though it is likely to occur at any given moment. It'll take all of 1 seconds for people to destroy themselves. Once physical "cash" is no longer accepted as legal tender, flick the switch and no more money available to those they chose to have none. And if you're on a "cleansing" mission, it's the most simple, effective way to do it. Build up enough of a dependency, then just take it away. Like you say, best be armed for that time. Or agree on a plan so that we don't all fuck each other over when the time comes. It'll be easy to survive if you're prepared... and "we can help you Get through" to borrow a strap line (we being anyone). Because if you only do your job for money, noone works, fuel does not get delivered, food does not get produced, the electrical supply will stop etc... when it's gone.

I still think it can be done. I still think we have time. It all depends on wether those who need to know, actually find out about what's being proposed instead of worshipping their $$$... gotta keep that economy boiling eh!

Headbanger

17th April 2010, 14:07

Coldrider

17th April 2010, 14:18

Your plan reminds me of the whitey capitalist farmers in Zimbabwe that got chased off the farms. When the locals turned up to distribute the crops amoung themselves ironically none had magicly been sown and grown by themselves.
Starved locals and whitey farmer gets blamed again.

NighthawkNZ

17th April 2010, 14:47

It could work, if we were mindless drones.

Thats just it... we are and thats what the powers that be want you to be and stay like that so that they stay in power... but alas many want to stay this way because they simply don't see it.

Why do you go to work... to earn money pay tax so you can have a limited ammount of freedoms... the tax goes to government who pays of the the bankers with interest, so you can have a what you have today.

Take away the money aspect of it, no pay...

But you pay no tax, no rent, no bills, no banks taking your money, no insurance, no health care bills, no ACC, no petrol bill, no power bill, no money no trade no barter... nothing to buy as you are given what you require... food, shelter, clothes, education, health care, dental care, etc... The only thing money is good for is getting rich which is greed, so you can have power of someone that is no as wealthy as yourself.

No longer require your shoes or heater or the heater is broken, take it back to the recycle area get a new one, the heater is fix and given to the next person that requires, the shoes are recycled in some form.

Its a mind set you have to get out of, of puting a price tag on on something when there is no need to... time is money... take out the money aspect again time is your freedom of life, that everyone on this planet can and should have.

During WWI and WWII, things just got done even when there was no money to cover it... why not continue just doing what needs to be done, we have the technology to help and get it done, just do it. If we truly want to move forward as a society money is holding us back because we simply put a price on something...

Developing new free energy... intodays society costs and don't get developed as quickly as it could be because of not enough Cash.... take the money away...instead of costing billions... it just cost 200 people 200 hours to develop... and they are doing this development because they want to, not because they have to...

There was simple man a fisherman. He caught enough fish for the day for his family the odd time enough to give to friends who under caught for the day and vise versa. A westerner was speaking to him and asked what he likes doing in his spare time... the answer was he liked to fish as it was relaxing.

Okay said the western western why don't you sell the extra fish, save up buy a boat so you can go deeper for the fish... then sell the fish and save up to buy a second boat, hire a fisherman, and take a per-centage, from that before you know it you could have a fleet of boats and taking a percetage, so you could retire and do what you like doing.

The answer from the simple man who was a fisherman was, "I like to fish,I find it relaxing... I already do that." at the end of the day he had a roof over his head for when it rained, he had food in his stomach and his family were supported. He had clothes. He didn't want or need to more. He didn't want to force others to work for him, and take a percentage, to retire he was already doing what he wanted to do... Totally different mind set.

mashman

17th April 2010, 15:31

My plan is to watch Mad Max 1 & 2 at least once a week.....On my 50" Plasma, which currently has 3 consoles, 2 computers, a digital recorder,an amp, and a DVD player plugged into it.

Oh yeah.:Punk::Punk::Punk:

Sounds like a nice setup. Wish I could afford something like that :shifty:... perhaps when i'm older and the kids have gone. Tis such a long long way away though :crybaby: and i want it NOW... lol

mashman

17th April 2010, 15:33

Coldrider

17th April 2010, 15:48

Perhaps they weren't thinking straight when they demanded the farms. Kinda back fired didn't it.yes well, capitalism organises resources.

Headbanger

17th April 2010, 15:50

and i want it NOW... lol

Credit.....

mashman

17th April 2010, 16:05

yes well, capitalism organises resources.

There are lots of ways to organise resources. I reckon doing it financially has to be one of the worst though. As for the new farmers. They didn't need money, the needed knowledge to succeed...

mashman

17th April 2010, 16:07

Credit.....

My wife hates the stuff and I can understand why as I know her family secrets :shifty:. My reasons for not wanting credit are publicly available lol... I never had a credit card until I came to NZ... seems they're almost compulsory over here.

NighthawkNZ

17th April 2010, 16:22

seems they're almost compulsory over here.

I haven't got one ;) never needed it ain't getting one... just like I ain't getting a cage license either... :D

Coldrider

17th April 2010, 16:50

There are lots of ways to organise resources. I reckon doing it financially has to be one of the worst thoughwhich countries are doing in lots of different ways?

oldrider

17th April 2010, 17:38

When society began in NZ there were none of these systems and people survived and prospered.

Free trade, exchange and barter evolved until the gold standard and social debt and taxation were introduced for our "collective benefit"!

The nett result has gradually enslaved us to the systems and handed control of our lives to those who "control the systems"!

The controllers will not relinquish that power without a fight to the death!

In order to avoid that, they seek to control our minds, through "education"!

Such are the risks of state controlled education systems financed by those who benefit from the political control of our "reason"!

The only "State control" that I subscribe to is my "State of mind", the last bastion of individual freedom! :shifty:

Coldrider

17th April 2010, 18:47

yep barter was truly amazing back then, swap a province for a couple of muskets and blankets, not that efficient though the transactions still being completed 150 years later.
but hey what value is a piece of paper wih a few quid etched upon it. The poms surely learnt how to strip wealth, as opposed to money.

mashman

17th April 2010, 19:39

which countries are doing in lots of different ways?

none of them. none of them have even tried since the gold standard started (to my knowledge, but plenty have been converted). why would you. money gives people power in a financial world... and some of that power is used to hold influence over those that don't care.

Coldrider

17th April 2010, 19:48

The gold standard is long gone, it is called 'fiat' money now.

mashman

18th April 2010, 22:07

The gold standard is long gone, it is called 'fiat' money now.

I can see how they thought that would work (3 ways are better than one, some form of failover)

The term fiat money is used to mean:

"any money declared by a government to be legal tender.[1]"

Made by anyone, used by everyone, no choice. I know that's happened before. Decimalisation in the UK in the 70's.

pre 1971 £1 = 20 Shillings = 240 pence
15-2-1971 £1 = 100 new pence

questionable source??? But wow where did the other 140 pence go?

"state-issued money which is neither legally convertible to any other thing, nor fixed in value in terms of any objective standard.[2]"

So money is measured by money and by money alone, no gold or resource, nothing? it is an item just the same as anything else. fair enough.

"money without intrinsic value.[3]"

So really you're paying me with something that's really worth nothing? but can be used to get anything you want?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_money

If it's worth nothing and causes so much trouble in the community, then why would you keep using it? Same with P, Gambling, Drink etc...

And that is my "current" perception.

Coldrider

18th April 2010, 22:34

numbers are man made convention are they not?, what is anything worth, where in the universe do find a 3 or a 7 or a 1000047568686?

Coldrider

18th April 2010, 22:44

printing fiat money as not as simple as it seems, or the outcome rather. Hitler tried it counterfitting pounds during the war, not to make the average UKer richer.

mashman

18th April 2010, 22:45

numbers are man made convention are they not?, what is anything worth, where in the universe do find a 3 or a 7 or a 1000047568686?

What's your reason for keeping money then?

Coldrider

18th April 2010, 22:49

What's your reason for keeping money then?I find stamp collecting boring...actually I'm not sure I keep cash anymore, clients pay me a number that goes into my bank a/c and those numbers appear on a statement, I am not sure that those numbers are cash.

mashman

18th April 2010, 22:50

printing fiat money as not as simple as it seems, or the outcome rather. Hitler tried it counterfitting pounds during the war, not to make the average UKer richer.

Why isn't printing money smple?

Coldrider

18th April 2010, 22:52

Why isn't printing money smple?how many people have the skills to do it? (avoiding the real answer)

mashman

18th April 2010, 22:53

I find stamp collecting boring...actually I'm not sure I keep cash anymore, clients pay me a number that goes into my bank a/c and those numbers appear on a statement, I am not sure that those numbers are cash.

I suppose if you work in the post office collecting stamps for people it could get kinda monotonous :bleh:... sounds like they tip you well.

What would you class those number then?

Coldrider

18th April 2010, 22:56

I suppose if you work in the post office collecting stamps for people it could get kinda monotonous :bleh:... sounds like they tip you well.

What would you class those number then?out of all the actual dollars in the economy, probably only 30% actually exist as notes.

mashman

18th April 2010, 22:58

how many people have the skills to do it? (avoiding the real answer)

Is that really relevant if we live in a society where it doesn't exist? True, it does exist, so a single global printer then? Single Source of truth. Bolted under lock and key. Guarded in a cave in Wales somewhere by a killer rabbit.

Coldrider

18th April 2010, 23:02

Is that really relevant if we live in a society where it doesn't exist? True, it does exist, so a single global printer then? Single Source of truth. Bolted under lock and key. Guarded in a cave in Wales somewhere by a killer rabbit.Financial fortune tellars reckon we will end up with only three world currencies.

Coldrider

18th April 2010, 23:05

Actually, would prison labour fit your financial model?, wasn't that how Lada's were made.

mashman

18th April 2010, 23:07

out of all the actual dollars in the economy, probably only 30% actually exist as notes.

They are still perceived as dollars by the majority of the public I would have thought?

mashman

18th April 2010, 23:09

Financial fortune tellars reckon we will end up with only three world currencies.

Easier to monitor 3 than thousands I suppose. But why not just have 1?

Coldrider

18th April 2010, 23:12

Easier to monitor 3 than thousands I suppose. But why not just have 1?because the logical one is the most openly corrupt.

mashman

18th April 2010, 23:15

Actually, would prison labour fit your financial model?, wasn't that how Lada's were made.

Dealing with prisoners, especially financial ones, would be a sticky subject indeed. Best ship them to Oz, it's been done before and noone complained then, heh... All you could do is reassess the "criminals" and release as necessary. I'm sure it would all depend on the crime, as it does at the moment.

Dunno about Lada's or anything that prisoners have ever made. I've heard tell that they make licence plates somewhere, the US i think...

mashman

18th April 2010, 23:16

because the logical one is the most openly corrupt.

So for you it's a giant game of monopoly and we're nearly down to 3 players. If that's the case. To what end?

Coldrider

18th April 2010, 23:21

If that's the case. To what end?not sure what you mean here? like a dropping on a snake in snakes & ladders or not throwing a six to finish the game.
To forgo ones national currency would be like surrendering your sovereignty.

mashman

18th April 2010, 23:23

not sure what you mean here? like a dropping on a snake in snakes & ladders or not throwing a six to finish the game.
To forgo ones national currency would be like surrendering your sovereignty.

Yes i had that same thought. But your national pride (sovereignty?) is not built upon your imports or exports.

mashman

14th October 2010, 15:03

Shameless dredge... The world still sucks, even more so than 6 months ago and i'd say a good 90% of that is financially related...

Whatever happened to the smart people? The so called leaders of the world... Oh yeah, they're reveered for their financial status/acumen :facepalm:, their intellect :facepalm::facepalm:, their savoir faire :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm: which is anything but.

We throw money at situations left and right and all we ever hear is, it's not enough... WTF!!! Why don't "they" just print more money. YES "THEY" CAN PRINT MORE MONEY IF "THEY" WANT TO... OTHERWISE WHERE THE FUCK DOES IT COME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! How could the smart people have missed this?

If "they" can't print more money, tui, and there's never enough to go around, then perhaps getting rid of money would remove the financial barriers that keep so many people on the breadline? How could the smart people have missed such a simple solution to the every day struggles of human beings?

I know it can be done and i'm a run of the mill thick prick. It looks bloody easy to do too... Why haven't the smart people figured this out yet?. Lack of vision? Lack of leadership? Lack of Brains? or is it because your position in the world is depicted by the amount of money you earn (read decision making)? :sick::facepalm:

Seems like the smart people really ain't that smart at all... GAH, bunch of shortsighted morons...

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrr

money = financial system or any other system of barter for that matter :)

Latte

14th October 2010, 15:36

mashman

14th October 2010, 17:29

How do I get a new speed triple if there isn't teh moneyz ?

Partially serious - a non feudal (I think thats the right term) system appears to be great to cover "needs". But I can't get my head around how it works for "wants".

I'll get to the triple :yes:

My version: We use NZ (proves to the world that it can be done, still has "large elements" of a culture that, until relatively recently, lived financially free (ok they traded, and so will we to a degree)

The wants. Most wants are fads anyway, marketted, advertised, targetted etc... The short version.

You've just rendered, probably half of your population unemployed. Businesses that's are making a profit will leave because there's no money to be made. You can now educate new teachers, doctors, nurses, rescue services, police, motorcycle designers :shifty:, scientists, basically want producers, sports people (we'll still be part of the world and we'll still probably play sports) etc...

What are your wants going to be? A TV, an Iphone, Make Up :shifty:, the latest PC and all of that really really really really really really useful stuff? If you're about to live in a financially free country and the world has accepted that, i'm sure they'll throw us a few techy toys every now and then... that's if we don't start manufacturing our own toys locally :) (we don't have any financial constraints)

Anyway, the trippple... You could order the bike as a kit. It will be sent to your house. The engine will be complete, but you'll need organise the rest of the assembly yourself... ask a mate or pop to the local mechanics or engineers place... Have certified motorbike builder people, dunno... there's plenty of variations given the new workforce available and the generosity of the rest of the world :)...

I'm sure the wants will take care of themselves. But i reckon once your "needs" are covered, your wants will change dramatically, especially when you only work 4 hour days, 4 days a week :) The rest of the world will still be taking part, we're just trialling things for them and i'm sure the wants will be catered for... we'd all be sensible, right :blink:

Dunno about a feudal system, not really sure what it would be called, perhaps it shouldn't be looked at as a system... kinda illustrating the point further...

It may not work at all, but i'd be surprised given the current state of affairs...

schrodingers cat

14th October 2010, 17:48

mashman

14th October 2010, 18:31

I'm sure you're a nice bloke Mashman but you're looking like a twit here. No financal system? Might as well try to eliminate rain.

You could do it if you lived on a Desert Island with no-one except immediate family or fellow zealots. I presume you would be their glorious leader?
Can't see a group of more than 30 pax working. Would need to be in a region of temperate climate and an abundance of natural resources.
You would need a large exclusion zone so you NEVER come into contact with ANY other group.
It may also work (briefly) if you adopt a total subsistence lifestyle and NEVER generate a surplus.

Rather than disagree with me I'd prefer you explained your utopia.
Please factor in human nature...

heh, I know how it sounds all too well (nice or not is irrelevant really, if forest gump came up with the notion i'd still agree) :shifty: and thanks for being so polite :lol:... :rofl:@ the glorious leader, not interested, there are MANY more capable than me :yes:, MANY more smarter than me, better communicators blah blah blah...

People will be people. People will still be twits and espouse outlandish ideas, financial system or not. People will still get pissed up and go beat someone stupid, financial system or not. People will be exactly the way they are (as you point out), but I hope, and believe, that people would be a lot less duplicitous in day to day life and would inherently trust each other more, if financial gain wasn't a factor. After that it's anyone's guess, but I can only hope that the new found equity would be enough to promote competition, forward thinking (wanky maybe), but that rather than a greed for a plot of land, someones TV, someones car etc... type of society that we have now.

All i can do is hope that people would see the value in the ?"ideal"? of a less than perfect life v's what we have today. Dream on maybe. I fully understand that I have to live this life and actually love it to pieces, but it could be much better and I think about it from time to time :).

I hope i stuck to the remit :) so much hope :)

Virago

14th October 2010, 19:01

Unfortunately there's only so much you can say about the fairies at the bottom of the garden, before it all becomes rather boring.

Obsession doesn't prove a point.

mashman

14th October 2010, 19:13

Unfortunately there's only so much you can say about the fairies at the bottom of the garden, before it all becomes rather boring.

Obsession doesn't prove a point.

The ideal just rules my life.

schrodingers cat

14th October 2010, 19:18

I hope i stuck to the remit :) so much hope :)

I think Buddahism or B'Hai is more your thing - not economics

Altruism stems from surplus. Surplus implies production and trade and (usually) some system of production and distribution.

Trouble is; IT IS WHAT IT IS. It can't be anything other

Virago

14th October 2010, 19:36

The ideal just rules my life.

Unfortunately proselytising zealots can seldom recognise their own obsession. There may yet be hope for you - come back towards the light...

mashman

14th October 2010, 20:55

I think Buddahism or B'Hai is more your thing - not economics

Altruism stems from surplus. Surplus implies production and trade and (usually) some system of production and distribution.

Trouble is; IT IS WHAT IT IS. It can't be anything other

The only thing I enjoyed about economics was the Lecturer... she was mighty purdy :yes:

Fair enough. Could be i'm chasing the wrong rainbow :)

Unfortunately proselytising zealots can seldom recognise their own obsession. There may yet be hope for you - come back towards the light...

:lol: IT'S A TRAP... google dictionary has been takin a batterin tonight :).
I am the light, bow before my greatness :wings:

avgas

29th May 2013, 16:41

I think Buddahism or B'Hai is more your thing - not economics

Altruism stems from surplus. Surplus implies production and trade and (usually) some system of production and distribution.

Trouble is; IT IS WHAT IT IS. It can't be anything other
Listen to him. He could be telling this from beyond the grave. I don't know yet - haven't opened the box. But it's possible.

SMOKEU

29th May 2013, 20:59

We can all use Bitcoins.

mashman

29th May 2013, 21:11

We can all use Bitcoins.

Did you not see that they're going after the bitcoin exchanges? google is gonna be launching theirs soon, so it might be worth having a read and then think about cashing up.

SMOKEU

29th May 2013, 22:29

Did you not see that they're going after the bitcoin exchanges? google is gonna be launching theirs soon, so it might be worth having a read and then think about cashing up.

Yeah, I should cash out soon. I was going to do that a couple of months ago, but then the market crashed to around half of what it was.

mashman

29th May 2013, 22:38

Yeah, I should cash out soon. I was going to do that a couple of months ago, but then the market crashed to around half of what it was.

Reckon bitcoin will survive?

SMOKEU

30th May 2013, 10:57

Reckon bitcoin will survive?

It will. Due to increasing government distrust with regard the financial markets, there is a need and a demand for a more anonymous, third party payment which isn't run by jews (to my knowledge Bitcoin isn't).

The Bitcoin economy is huge and has at least tripled in size over the past year, but I guess a downside to it is the risk of hyperdeflation which occurred recently after an artificially rapid inflation which caused Bitcoins to at least halve in value within a 24 hour period. It may not be prime time for it yet, but as we have seen the success of Silk Road and other such merchants where anonymity is either desired or required, there will always be a place for Bitcoin.

avgas

30th May 2013, 11:52

It will. Due to increasing government distrust with regard the financial markets, there is a need and a demand for a more anonymous, third party payment which isn't run by jews (to my knowledge Bitcoin isn't).

The Bitcoin economy is huge and has at least tripled in size over the past year, but I guess a downside to it is the risk of hyperdeflation which occurred recently after an artificially rapid inflation which caused Bitcoins to at least halve in value within a 24 hour period. It may not be prime time for it yet, but as we have seen the success of Silk Road and other such merchants where anonymity is either desired or required, there will always be a place for Bitcoin.
Or miners...........who make the whole market seem as legit as blood diamonds.

imdying

30th May 2013, 11:57

Did you not see that they're going after the bitcoin exchanges?Yep, thought you were just scaremongering, but I see the powers that be are rallying the troops against it.

SMOKEU

30th May 2013, 11:58

They're out to get anything if they can't get their cut.

bogan

30th May 2013, 12:31

So you're saying I can download this thing, which turns my computer into a heater, and gives me currency I can exchange for pies? How many pies a week are we talking here?

mashman

30th May 2013, 12:39

Yep, thought you were just scaremongering, but I see the powers that be are rallying the troops against it.

Scaremongering is your point of view. Mine is pretty much always concern at what the coonts are getting away with. 50 Shades of grey political stylez.

Big Dave

30th May 2013, 12:46

In case you missed it last time.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-3POYx6IeeI?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

mashman

30th May 2013, 13:53

Chuck D..... :Punk:

avgas

30th May 2013, 14:10

In case you missed it last time.
Or
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5K1RcKJVbHA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

avgas

30th May 2013, 14:19

So you're saying I can download this thing, which turns my computer into a heater, and gives me currency I can exchange for pies? How many pies a week are we talking here?
Depends on your powerbill. The american farms I have seen use about $1000/month in power. But we are talking rigs running in the 10kW range.

But I am going to give it a try with my crapbox tv viewer and see if I can get 1 pie with it.

But you can buy whole rigs to do it for you
http://www.butterflylabs.com/

bogan

30th May 2013, 14:27

Depends on your powerbill. The american farms I have seen use about $1000/month in power. But we are talking rigs running in the 10kW range.

But I am going to give it a try with my crapbox tv viewer and see if I can get 1 pie with it.

But you can buy whole rigs to do it for you
http://www.butterflylabs.com/

The mining/exchange rate confuses me, but I've downloaded a wallet or client or some shit, which is syncing with the network or some other shit. Its the sort of ambiguous program with promises of money that would make me tell it to get fucked were it not so well known.

bogan

30th May 2013, 14:35

https://bitclockers.com/calc

Apparently my 680 can earn like 2 bucks per day!

Big Dave

30th May 2013, 15:23

https://bitclockers.com/calc

Apparently my 680 can earn like 2 bucks per day!

Wow! That's almost You Tube partner rates.

SMOKEU

30th May 2013, 15:38

The mining/exchange rate confuses me, but I've downloaded a wallet or client or some shit, which is syncing with the network or some other shit. Its the sort of ambiguous program with promises of money that would make me tell it to get fucked were it not so well known.

Your wallet is different from the miner. I suggest using GUIMiner to start off with. You need a decent AMD GPU, otherwise you're wasting your time and money as Nvidia GPUs suck balls for mining. Don't even consider using a CPU as they're a complete joke for mining. I also suggest joining a pool unless you have crazy hashing power.

You should overclock the GPU, and underclock the memory to save power. Monitor your temperatures closely, and use flags of -v -w 128 for most AMD cards in GUIMiner. Append -f 60 for desktop usage.

Buying a good ASIC would be the best way to mine if you can afford it and deal with the general availability issues surrounding those.

mashman

30th May 2013, 16:08

Depends on your powerbill. The american farms I have seen use about $1000/month in power. But we are talking rigs running in the 10kW range.

But I am going to give it a try with my crapbox tv viewer and see if I can get 1 pie with it.

But you can buy whole rigs to do it for you
http://www.butterflylabs.com/

Fuck that shit... get a real mining rig

http://www.sikharchives.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/bitcoin_mining_setup.jpeg

bogan

30th May 2013, 16:14

avgas

30th May 2013, 16:22

Fuck that shit... get a real mining rig

http://www.sikharchives.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/bitcoin_mining_setup.jpeg
Actually PS3's will be cheap soon too

On an ironic side note - Berkeley Uni has lost something like 90% of its processing power that it had via BOINC (Seti@home etc) since Bitcoin mining was conceived.

SMOKEU

30th May 2013, 16:58

Yeh can't be assed with that shit, missed out on the period for a decent return rate. After doing some more reading, it seems like a very cunningly designed economy system, rewarding early adopters. Reckon the mining stage is pretty much done, my money would be on it going tits up as mining operations die down. Best option now is to sell some mining rigs to some poor schmucks and cash out in the next exchange rate high.

Or just build a totally kick ass gaming rig and use it for mining when you're not pwning teh n00bz with haxx. At least it heats the room in winter and you can somewhat (even fully) offset the cost of the cards by the returns from mining.

My video card has paid itself off enough to buy 5 7970s if I want...

bogan

30th May 2013, 17:30

Or just build a totally kick ass gaming rig and use it for mining when you're not pwning teh n00bz with haxx. At least it heats the room in winter and you can somewhat (even fully) offset the cost of the cards by the returns from mining.

My video card has paid itself off enough to buy 5 7970s if I want...

Therein lies the problem, your card has yeilded massive rate of returns in the past, that will be unachievable in the future. But the coins you mined in the past, have only recently appreciated in value enough that you realise the rate of returns. Which is good for you, but I'm not going to run mine 24/7 when at current rate of coin return and market value, it would take years to pay off the card, and we know the coin rate of return will only drop, though the market could go either way. And due to a flawed software model that requires each user to download all bitcoin transactions, I'm picking the bitcoin economy will stop growing, and then collapse.

SMOKEU

30th May 2013, 17:37

Therein lies the problem, your card has yeilded massive rate of returns in the past, that will be unachievable in the future. But the coins you mined in the past, have only recently appreciated in value enough that you realise the rate of returns. Which is good for you, but I'm not going to run mine 24/7 when at current rate of coin return and market value, it would take years to pay off the card, and we know the coin rate of return will only drop, though the market could go either way. And due to a flawed software model that requires each user to download all bitcoin transactions, I'm picking the bitcoin economy will stop growing, and then collapse.

Actually, the current price is roughly proportional to the block difficulty level when I got the majority of the coins. So basically, I'm mining a lot fewer coins than before (due to the block difficulty), but those BTC are worth more.

Secondly, it's not "flawed" that all users have to process all the transactions, as that is what prevents fraud. Otherwise, it won't be long until some crafty programmer finds a way to fraudulently generate BTC, and the whole project will become a big joke, just as if every second person was printing real money at home. The only way to defeat these safeguards were if an attacker manages to have over half the total network hash rate to themself.

The first time you connect your wallet to the network, it does take a long time (hours) to sync with the block chain, but once that's done, it takes less time for each subsequent block chain synchronization.

bogan

30th May 2013, 17:51

Actually, the current price is roughly proportional to the block difficulty level when I got the majority of the coins. So basically, I'm mining a lot fewer coins than before (due to the block difficulty), but those BTC are worth more.

Secondly, it's not "flawed" that all users have to process all the transactions, as that is what prevents fraud. Otherwise, it won't be long until some crafty programmer finds a way to fraudulently generate BTC, and the whole project will become a big joke, just as if every second person was printing real money at home. The only way to defeat these safeguards were if an attacker manages to have over half the total network hash rate to themself.

The first time you connect your wallet to the network, it does take a long time (hours) to sync with the block chain, but once that's done, it takes less time for each subsequent block chain synchronization.

Yes, but the first coins you mined are now worth more, I'm assuming is how you get to the 7 graphics cards. Or if you had sold them as soon as they were mined, would you still have got 7 cards worth?

It is flawed because it prevents growth and places massive demand on infrastructure for what is only a virtual currency. How much data will have to be sent to all bitcoin users if it were to ever approach credit card levels of transactions per second? How much power is used through mining? As the mining's rate of returns drops to below the cost of the power it uses, how will that affect the bitcoin's block chain encryption?

SMOKEU

30th May 2013, 18:14

Yes, but the first coins you mined are now worth more, I'm assuming is how you get to the 7 graphics cards. Or if you had sold them as soon as they were mined, would you still have got 7 cards worth?

It is flawed because it prevents growth and places massive demand on infrastructure for what is only a virtual currency. How much data will have to be sent to all bitcoin users if it were to ever approach credit card levels of transactions per second? How much power is used through mining? As the mining's rate of returns drops to below the cost of the power it uses, how will that affect the bitcoin's block chain encryption?

Yes, those early coins are worth more and early adopters were somewhat rewarded more than new miners today, but if I were to have started mining today rather than 2 years ago, I'd be just as well off either way due to the block chain vs value being largely proportional. I look at Bitcoin more as a mid term investment, rather than a fast way to make money, but there's nothing stopping people from getting weekly payouts if that's what they want to do. Personally I like to treat it like shares in a company where you don't expect a rapid return, but instead hold on for a long period of time. If I had sold all my coins as soon as I had mined them, then I would have got very little money compared to today, but by holding onto the BTC for this period of time I'm also risking losing everything if there's a huge crash.

As the bitcoin network grows, there will of course be more transactions, which leads to an increase in the amount of data that the miners need to process. However, as more transactions occur, more miners also join the network which further distributes the network load.

The cost of electricity also varies wildly with the geographical location of the miner. The USA generally has cheap power compared to us, with many people getting free electricity as part of their tenancy agreement. Conventional banks also use a phenomenal amount of energy. The encryption won't be affected by a smaller hash rate unless someone manages to have more than 50% of the total network hash rate in order to overpower the other miners.

mashman

30th May 2013, 18:20

So, still only 17 no's out of 60 votes.

bogan

30th May 2013, 18:45

Yes, those early coins are worth more and early adopters were somewhat rewarded more than new miners today, but if I were to have started mining today rather than 2 years ago, I'd be just as well off either way due to the block chain vs value being largely proportional. I look at Bitcoin more as a mid term investment, rather than a fast way to make money, but there's nothing stopping people from getting weekly payouts if that's what they want to do. Personally I like to treat it like shares in a company where you don't expect a rapid return, but instead hold on for a long period of time. If I had sold all my coins as soon as I had mined them, then I would have got very little money compared to today, but by holding onto the BTC for this period of time I'm also risking losing everything if there's a huge crash.

As the bitcoin network grows, there will of course be more transactions, which leads to an increase in the amount of data that the miners need to process. However, as more transactions occur, more miners also join the network which further distributes the network load.

The cost of electricity also varies wildly with the geographical location of the miner. The USA generally has cheap power compared to us, with many people getting free electricity as part of their tenancy agreement. Conventional banks also use a phenomenal amount of energy. The encryption won't be affected by a smaller hash rate unless someone manages to have more than 50% of the total network hash rate in order to overpower the other miners.

How does that work, you say you'd be as well of starting today, but also say its the mid term investment that got you the decent return, isn't it one or the other?

How is the network load distributed? All wallets get all the data, it's load duplication.

It still sounds like on energy useage per dollar transferred, bitcoining is far less efficient. Who does all the encryption once miner's get less return than the electricity costs though? It has to be done by somebody right?

SMOKEU

30th May 2013, 19:00

How does that work, you say you'd be as well of starting today, but also say its the mid term investment that got you the decent return, isn't it one or the other?

How is the network load distributed? All wallets get all the data, it's load duplication.

It still sounds like on energy useage per dollar transferred, bitcoining is far less efficient. Who does all the encryption once miner's get less return than the electricity costs though? It has to be done by somebody right?

What I meant to say was that if I sold all my coins every week 2 years ago when I started to mine compared to doing the same thing today, I wouldn't be much more well off either way. I hoarded my coins in the hope that they would increase in value, which they have. It's not much different than buying/mining BTC today with the intention of selling them in 2 years for a grossly inflated price.

All wallets have to synchronize with the block chain before that wallet can send/receive transactions. That's why you don't see payments immediately after sending them from your pool to your wallet. It's more of a "proof of work" concept than outright encryption, so basically all users have to verify the transactions of other users, so if someone does manage to "hack" the code to fraudulently create BTC, the other miners would quickly see the discrepancy in the block chain and the transaction would be considered void. The whole Bitcoin project is a lot more complicated for me to have any more than a basic grasp of the concepts involved.

You're right about the power usage, but as the mining world moves more to ASICs (and to a lesser extent, FPGAs), efficiency is increased at exponential levels. Now a basic ASIC miner with the hash rate of 8 5970s (the quintessential mining card), with the electricity consumption of a single 7870 are becoming commonplace for serious miners. It's all worth it though since we need a third party currency that doesn't suffer government intervention (even that is now fucked). It's not a perfect system and can't be expected to fully replace conventional currencies, but what price can you put on freedom?

bogan

30th May 2013, 19:55

What I meant to say was that if I sold all my coins every week 2 years ago when I started to mine compared to doing the same thing today, I wouldn't be much more well off either way. I hoarded my coins in the hope that they would increase in value, which they have. It's not much different than buying/mining BTC today with the intention of selling them in 2 years for a grossly inflated price.

All wallets have to synchronize with the block chain before that wallet can send/receive transactions. That's why you don't see payments immediately after sending them from your pool to your wallet. It's more of a "proof of work" concept than outright encryption, so basically all users have to verify the transactions of other users, so if someone does manage to "hack" the code to fraudulently create BTC, the other miners would quickly see the discrepancy in the block chain and the transaction would be considered void. The whole Bitcoin project is a lot more complicated for me to have any more than a basic grasp of the concepts involved.

You're right about the power usage, but as the mining world moves more to ASICs (and to a lesser extent, FPGAs), efficiency is increased at exponential levels. Now a basic ASIC miner with the hash rate of 8 5970s (the quintessential mining card), with the electricity consumption of a single 7870 are becoming commonplace for serious miners. It's all worth it though since we need a third party currency that doesn't suffer government intervention (even that is now fucked). It's not a perfect system and can't be expected to fully replace conventional currencies, but what price can you put on freedom?

I'm struggling to see any benefits of this that extend to users instead of early adopters.

The currency more subject to supply/demand/investment inflation/deflation like all others, more so since it is a new thing. It's subject to high infrastructure demands, and unable to acheive the number of transactions of other popular methods. Because it will never achieve the transaction rates, it will never replace standard currency, and will thus be dependent on in it to calculate its exchange rate and value.

It'd be nice to have a super low fee and anonymous system for international transactions. But why all the bullshit with mining, increasing mining difficulty, network and power infrastructure loads, and wildly fluctuating exchange rates?

mashman

30th May 2013, 20:08

I'm struggling to see any benefits of this that extend to users instead of early adopters.

Sounds like the financial system. Oh yeah, it is.

bogan

30th May 2013, 20:14

Sounds like the financial system. Oh yeah, it is.

I dunno, it's nice to be able to buy things from overseas without having to train 8 goats to swim...

So, still only 17 no's out of 60 votes.

Also, don't forget that second no category eh...

mashman

30th May 2013, 20:24

I dunno, it's nice to be able to buy things from overseas without having to train 8 goats to swim...

Also, don't forget that second no category eh...

Money will still be generated by the country for overseas trade... we just won't use it in the local economy.

:rofl: have you read how that second No category is worded? Technically it's a yes ;)

bogan

30th May 2013, 20:46

Money will still be generated by the country for overseas trade... we just won't use it in the local economy.

:rofl: have you read how that second No category is worded? Technically it's a yes ;)

So to get some fancy motorycle parts that they only sell overseas I have to ask the government pretty please? Or will I get an allotment of overseas money to use?

Technically, it's a bull shit poll category, the whole poll is bullshit as it overlooks the most important aspect, which is would you want to.

mashman

30th May 2013, 20:54

So to get some fancy motorycle parts that they only sell overseas I have to ask the government pretty please? Or will I get an allotment of overseas money to use?

Technically, it's a bull shit poll category, the whole poll is bullshit as it overlooks the most important aspect, which is would you want to.

I know this may seem like a radical idea, but bear with me. The motorcycle shop might have one in stock or failing that they'll order one in for you. I know I know, I'm dreamin.

Erm, you did read the question, right?

bogan

30th May 2013, 22:00

I know this may seem like a radical idea, but bear with me. The motorcycle shop might have one in stock or failing that they'll order one in for you. I know I know, I'm dreamin.

Erm, you did read the question, right?

Yeh, but who allocates that much money from our overseas trade to the bike shop for fancy parts?

The question was would you, which can be interpreted in two way, would you want to, or would you put up with it. Like I could ask would you live in NZ if they put taxes up 3%, sure would, but that doesn't mean I want it to happen.

mashman

30th May 2013, 22:14

Yeh, but who allocates that much money from our overseas trade to the bike shop for fancy parts?

The question was would you, which can be interpreted in two way, would you want to, or would you put up with it. Like I could ask would you live in NZ if they put taxes up 3%, sure would, but that doesn't mean I want it to happen.

How does it currently happen?

So which version did everyone use?

bogan

30th May 2013, 22:22

How does it currently happen?

So which version did everyone use?

With me giving them money. Do you mean every importer has to also be a goat exchange, so I can give them my 7 goats, which they will swap with the government for an allocation of overseas trade revenue to buy my bike parts then?

Dunno, but chances are if you have to ask the participants follow up questions to make sense of the answer, it was a shit poll to begin with.

mashman

30th May 2013, 22:53

With me giving them money. Do you mean every importer has to also be a goat exchange, so I can give them my 7 goats, which they will swap with the government for an allocation of overseas trade revenue to buy my bike parts then?

Dunno, but chances are if you have to ask the participants follow up questions to make sense of the answer, it was a shit poll to begin with.

No goats required. I guess no one's really in to bikes enough to want to cater for others unless there's a buck in it. Still, there's always No.8 wire and that really sticky silver shite.

There is that chance... although seeking clarification in the form of a follow up question could highlight that the person asking the question doesn't want to make a mistake and choose the only stupid answer in the poll when a straight, or gay, No option was provided. Just covering the bases like. Anyway, they should ban that poll shit and just let us fight it out. I bags the rocket launcher and the sniper rifle.

bogan

30th May 2013, 23:00

No goats required. I guess no one's really in to bikes enough to want to cater for others unless there's a buck in it. Still, there's always No.8 wire and that really sticky silver shite.

There is that chance... although seeking clarification in the form of a follow up question could highlight that the person asking the question doesn't want to make a mistake and choose the only stupid answer in the poll when a straight, or gay, No option was provided. Just covering the bases like. Anyway, they should ban that poll shit and just let us fight it out. I bags the rocket launcher and the sniper rifle.

And this is why you're one of only a very few pushing for the financial system to be dropped. Quite simply because it works, it facilitates and encourages trade, so we live with greater access to goods and technology than we would otherwise have. It's certainly not ideal, but far ahead of any other options being put forward.

mashman

30th May 2013, 23:17

And this is why you're one of only a very few pushing for the financial system to be dropped. Quite simply because it works, it facilitates and encourages trade, so we live with greater access to goods and technology than we would otherwise have. It's certainly not ideal, but far ahead of any other options being put forward.

Coz none of that would take place because money doesn't exist? Why wouldn't we have goods and technology if money didn't exist? I disagree that it's far ahead. It's old and tired and allows people to die every second of the day. I don't call that being far ahead of a system that will not only stop many of those who are dying every second, but will also not push people into bankruptcy/poverty because they became ill, won't knock them back for healthcare because they are deemed to have had a prior condition, won't be used as a reason to go to war etc... Me thinks your classification chip is malfunctioning.

bogan

31st May 2013, 09:57

Coz none of that would take place because money doesn't exist? Why wouldn't we have goods and technology if money didn't exist? I disagree that it's far ahead. It's old and tired and allows people to die every second of the day. I don't call that being far ahead of a system that will not only stop many of those who are dying every second, but will also not push people into bankruptcy/poverty because they became ill, won't knock them back for healthcare because they are deemed to have had a prior condition, won't be used as a reason to go to war etc... Me thinks your classification chip is malfunctioning.

Didn't you just say I'd have to go without fancy bike parts? So no, that wouldn't take place. You still haven't actually explained anything about an alternative system, so I can't comment on the rest.

mashman

31st May 2013, 10:59

Didn't you just say I'd have to go without fancy bike parts? So no, that wouldn't take place. You still haven't actually explained anything about an alternative system, so I can't comment on the rest.

Not that I remember. And isn't that a followup question?

To put it as simply as possible. A simple agreement is entered into by a vote. I will continue to do what I do during my day if you will. This means that the chains of supply and demand are not broken. Everything gets to where it needs to go, because it already does, including bike parts. that is our social contract.

Monetary value will be "virtualised" in that money will not exist be used in the local NZ economy.

Local Economy: Any good/service/whatever that is produced in NZ for the local economy will have its associated costs added to NZ Inc's balance sheet, as it currently is.

Global Economy: Any good that is sold overseas will be paid for using money (coz they'll be using money) and will be added to NZ Inc's balance sheet, as it currently is. Any Import that is bought will be paid for using money that NZ Inc has on its balance sheet. The price of that good will fluctuate, but that won't matter, because it will be free to NZers.

The function of government: To facilitate the requests of NZ communities as the govt will hold the overall RBE stock list.

scumdog

31st May 2013, 11:03

:rofl: have you read how that second No category is worded? Technically it's a yes ;)

Hence why I couldn't be bothered with the 'poll'.:yawn::shifty:

bogan

31st May 2013, 11:13

Not that I remember. And isn't that a followup question?

To put it as simply as possible. A simple agreement is entered into by a vote. I will continue to do what I do during my day if you will. This means that the chains of supply and demand are not broken. Everything gets to where it needs to go, because it already does, including bike parts. that is our social contract.

Monetary value will be "virtualised" in that money will not exist be used in the local NZ economy.

Local Economy: Any good/service/whatever that is produced in NZ for the local economy will have its associated costs added to NZ Inc's balance sheet, as it currently is.

Global Economy: Any good that is sold overseas will be paid for using money (coz they'll be using money) and will be added to NZ Inc's balance sheet, as it currently is. Any Import that is bought will be paid for using money that NZ Inc has on its balance sheet. The price of that good will fluctuate, but that won't matter, because it will be free to NZers.

The function of government: To facilitate the requests of NZ communities as the govt will hold the overall RBE stock list.

It was only like 3 posts ago. And what is wrong with follow up questions, it wasn't my poll.

No goats required. I guess no one's really in to bikes enough to want to cater for others unless there's a buck in it. Still, there's always No.8 wire and that really sticky silver shite.

A few problems:
Without money, who decides who gets what?
Without pay, why should those who dislike their job keep working?

SMOKEU

31st May 2013, 11:15

I'm struggling to see any benefits of this that extend to users instead of early adopters.

The currency more subject to supply/demand/investment inflation/deflation like all others, more so since it is a new thing. It's subject to high infrastructure demands, and unable to acheive the number of transactions of other popular methods. Because it will never achieve the transaction rates, it will never replace standard currency, and will thus be dependent on in it to calculate its exchange rate and value.

It'd be nice to have a super low fee and anonymous system for international transactions. But why all the bullshit with mining, increasing mining difficulty, network and power infrastructure loads, and wildly fluctuating exchange rates?

Bitcoin n00bs can still get a reasonable return at current rates. If you buy a small ASIC for say, NZ$1000 including shipping, tax etc, then at the current difficulty rates you can cash out every month (or more) if you like and enjoy your payout. Or, you could hold on to them for a while. The electricity costs are small and you could pay off the hardware after a few months (you can do the calculations yourself to figure out the hash rate vs current BTC value at the exchanges, then you will know how many BTC you will mine every day at current difficulty levels which gives you an accurate $ amount you're getting at current prices. Then you can see what they're worth in "real" money for reassurance). Like any investment, it's a risk and not a "get rich quick scheme".

The "mining" is not bullshit, it's the amount of work the miners have put into maintaining the block chain. If everyone could just write a script to generate 10,000,000 Bitcoins all at once, the project would be laughable and useless. There has to be a certain cost or difficulty in obtaining the resource (BTC in this case), or they won't be worth anything, just like precious metals. I'm not sure if you're aware that there is a finite amount of Bitcoins that will ever be generated, which is 21,000,000. I suggest you read this. (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Blocks#Even_when_all_21_million_coins_have_been_ge nerated.3F)

scumdog

31st May 2013, 11:17

A few problems:
Without money, who decides who gets what?
Without pay, why should those who dislike their job keep working?

True.

"I don't want to work in the dag cruching plant any more - I want to work in a fashion shop selling knickers to hot chicks and helping them to get the right bra size"

bogan

31st May 2013, 11:31

Bitcoin n00bs can still get a reasonable return at current rates. If you buy a small ASIC for say, NZ$1000 including shipping, tax etc, then at the current difficulty rates you can cash out every month (or more) if you like and enjoy your payout. Or, you could hold on to them for a while. The electricity costs are small and you could pay off the hardware after a few months (you can do the calculations yourself to figure out the hash rate vs current BTC value at the exchanges, then you will know how many BTC you will mine every day at current difficulty levels which gives you an accurate $ amount you're getting at current prices. Then you can see what they're worth in "real" money for reassurance). Like any investment, it's a risk and not a "get rich quick scheme".

The "mining" is not bullshit, it's the amount of work the miners have put into maintaining the block chain. If everyone could just write a script to generate 10,000,000 Bitcoins all at once, the project would be laughable and useless. There has to be a certain cost or difficulty in obtaining the resource (BTC in this case), or they won't be worth anything, just like precious metals. I'm not sure if you're aware that there is a finite amount of Bitcoins that will ever be generated, which is 21,000,000. I suggest you read this. (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Blocks#Even_when_all_21_million_coins_have_been_ge nerated.3F)

'At current difficulty rates' See this is the problem, from this link https://bitclockers.com/calc in a week that difficult will increase by 27%. Add to that more miners looking for fewer coins, and the rate of difficulty is bound to rise exponentially.

Its bullshit because virtual currency is not a resource, its virtual, and massively subject to the exchange rates of other currencies. It's bullshit because the miner's rate of return for the same amount of work diminishes hugely as the coin limit is approached. Why is the cost of aquiring it not just limited to buying through bitcoin exchanges, why have mineable coins at all?

mashman

31st May 2013, 11:49

It was only like 3 posts ago. And what is wrong with follow up questions, it wasn't my poll.

A few problems:
Without money, who decides who gets what?
Without pay, why should those who dislike their job keep working?

Nope, still can't see it. Perhaps you be so kind as to highlight the quote along with your translation?

Just carry on consuming what you currently do and then no one needs to make that decision. Failing that, use your common sense and personal responsibility, but if you wouldn't mind sparing a thought for others, it would be appreciated.
Those who detest their job do so for a reason. Hopefully people will be prepared to suffer it in the short term whilst we figure out exactly what jobs are required and what jobs aren't... then maybe they'll take the 3 or 4 hour job that makes a difference to the community instead of making a money for an employer they dislike. Entirely up to them. Given there are no financial constraints, they'll still be able to get on with their day. Should they decide to rush out and consume consume consume without a care in the world, they will eventually have nothing left to consume. Perhaps at that point in time they'll come to appreciate the contribution that others make for them.

True.

"I don't want to work in the dag cruching plant any more - I want to work in a fashion shop selling knickers to hot chicks and helping them to get the right bra size"

Eventually I envisage that with the drastic drop in price range, you could finally get into women's underwear.

bogan

31st May 2013, 12:04

Nope, still can't see it. Perhaps you be so kind as to highlight the quote along with your translation?

Just carry on consuming what you currently do and then no one needs to make that decision. Failing that, use your common sense and personal responsibility, but if you wouldn't mind sparing a thought for others, it would be appreciated.
Those who detest their job do so for a reason. Hopefully people will be prepared to suffer it in the short term whilst we figure out exactly what jobs are required and what jobs aren't... then maybe they'll take the 3 or 4 hour job that makes a difference to the community instead of making a money for an employer they dislike. Entirely up to them. Given there are no financial constraints, they'll still be able to get on with their day. Should they decide to rush out and consume consume consume without a care in the world, they will eventually have nothing left to consume. Perhaps at that point in time they'll come to appreciate the contribution that others make for them.

Eventually I envisage that with the drastic drop in price range, you could finally get into women's underwear.

Errr, I did highlight the quote. You said that bike shops got stuff in because there was money in it for them, and would not do so otherwise.

But currently I budget and save up money for things I want. How do I budget and save up for things without money? I would still want them, so what factors determine when I can get them? while ensuring that the Global Import Budget is not exceeded.
Dagging sheep is certainly a required job, people do it because the pay is good. Why system has the right to ask that they suffer through it while getting the same benefits as those selling undies?

mashman

31st May 2013, 13:32

Errr, I did highlight the quote. You said that bike shops got stuff in because there was money in it for them, and would not do so otherwise.

But currently I budget and save up money for things I want. How do I budget and save up for things without money? I would still want them, so what factors determine when I can get them? while ensuring that the Global Import Budget is not exceeded.
Dagging sheep is certainly a required job, people do it because the pay is good. Why system has the right to ask that they suffer through it while getting the same benefits as those selling undies?

A small part of what I said was that shops currently do it for money (some for the love I have no doubt), but I didn't say they wouldn't do it otherwise.

You could look at it from the perspective that the import budget would never run out. Remember money is plucked out of thin air... and failing that we can simply adjust the value of goods that are produced in NZ, let's call that inflation, and raise the balance sheet. Essentially the financial value of your country can be what you would like it to be. However, being fair to the rest of the world would see us limit our prosperity. We don't want to cause a global financial crisis after all, not another one. but in answer to your question: if you truly need something that you would have normally required, then the budget will be found. Sure there may well be "limits" on some things (primarily linked to wasteful consumption), but you will be able to have what you need.
We'll use robots to de-dag sheep. Then the people who do that job can move on to something a little more important, hopefully. Perhaps they will go an sell undies and live out their dreams in ladies underwear. There will be jobs that no one wants to do, there will be jobs that not all have the skills to do, there will be jobs that we can all do, but they'll all need doing. How we decide to organise ourselves is our choice. Perhaps we'll organise ourselves in such a way that we'll rotate across jobs so that they don't get monotonous as well as providing failover and cover should the need arise. How would you organise us?

bogan

31st May 2013, 13:39

A small part of what I said was that shops currently do it for money (some for the love I have no doubt), but I didn't say they wouldn't do it otherwise.

You could look at it from the perspective that the import budget would never run out. Remember money is plucked out of thin air... and failing that we can simply adjust the value of goods that are produced in NZ, let's call that inflation, and raise the balance sheet. Essentially the financial value of your country can be what you would like it to be. However, being fair to the rest of the world would see us limit our prosperity. We don't want to cause a global financial crisis after all, not another one. but in answer to your question: if you truly need something that you would have normally required, then the budget will be found. Sure there may well be "limits" on some things (primarily linked to wasteful consumption), but you will be able to have what you need.
We'll use robots to de-dag sheep. Then the people who do that job can move on to something a little more important, hopefully. Perhaps they will go an sell undies and live out their dreams in ladies underwear. There will be jobs that no one wants to do, there will be jobs that not all have the skills to do, there will be jobs that we can all do, but they'll all need doing. How we decide to organise ourselves is our choice. Perhaps we'll organise ourselves in such a way that we'll rotate across jobs so that they don't get monotonous as well as providing failover and cover should the need arise. How would you organise us?

Wow, you really have no concept of how the global economy works do you?

mashman

31st May 2013, 13:41

Wow, you really have no concept of how the global economy works do you?

Would you care to expand on the reasons that have led you to that conclusion?

bogan

31st May 2013, 13:46

Would you care to expand on the reasons that have led you to that conclusion?

The financial value of our country is determined by other countries; primarily their valuation on the goods/services our country exports. A country can manipulate their own valuation to a degree by managing exports and the amount of currency in circulation, but you can't just click your fingers and pluck it out of thin air.

mashman

31st May 2013, 13:59

The financial value of our country is determined by other countries; primarily their valuation on the goods/services our country exports. A country can manipulate their own valuation to a degree by managing exports and the amount of currency in circulation, but you can't just click your fingers and pluck it out of thin air.

You can if NZ Inc holds all of the zero's and one's... although it'll be more of a tapping of the fingers than a clicking.

bogan

31st May 2013, 14:09

You can if NZ Inc holds all of the zero's and one's... although it'll be more of a tapping of the fingers than a clicking.

How exactly?

scumdog

31st May 2013, 14:19

mashman

31st May 2013, 14:25

How exactly?

Give everyone a pay rise. Give everyone a pay cut. Change the prices of raw materials. Make a speech about what we intend to do in response to the country's economic profile (like Wheeler did this morning and in response the $ fell, because he made a speech :facepalm:). We could quite easily have several thousand variations that would respond to various economic issues and readjust the value of the economy accordingly. A human being just has to agree with the situation, type in the appropriate code and pop the enter key. People build economic models all the time, but they're predictive, we would build a reactive one.

scumdog

31st May 2013, 14:30

Change the prices of raw materials.

Wow, how will you persuade the overseas suppliers of raw material to do that??

mashman

31st May 2013, 14:33

Wow, how will you persuade the overseas suppliers of raw material to do that??

We threaten them by fucking their economy over... then again, I did mean the ones that NZ produces.

bogan

31st May 2013, 14:37

Give everyone a pay rise. Give everyone a pay cut. Change the prices of raw materials. Make a speech about what we intend to do in response to the country's economic profile (like Wheeler did this morning and in response the $ fell, because he made a speech :facepalm:). We could quite easily have several thousand variations that would respond to various economic issues and readjust the value of the economy accordingly. A human being just has to agree with the situation, type in the appropriate code and pop the enter key. People build economic models all the time, but they're predictive, we would build a reactive one.

Give everyone a pay rise, and people would buy from elsewhere, give everyone a pay cut and they would move elsewhere (though now I'm confused, cos I thought people didn't get paid in a money free society). Change the price of raw materials and they would be bought elsewhere, or NZ's stock would be bought out then we would have to import our own at higher prices than we just sold it. I'm no economist, but your oversimplification and just plain misunderstanding of how the global economy works pretty much voids your ideals of a local money free society functioning within the world economy.

You don't seem to realise prediction is vastly preferable to reactive as an economic model due to how investing works. Sell when you predict something is about to fall in price is far better than selling as a reaction to a drop in price.

scumdog

31st May 2013, 14:42

We threaten them by fucking their economy over... then again, I did mean the ones that NZ produces.

And overseas suppliers to NZ?

bogan

31st May 2013, 14:47

I think even Piggy found THAT out!:yes:

Some politician from before my time?

SMOKEU

31st May 2013, 14:54

'At current difficulty rates' See this is the problem, from this link https://bitclockers.com/calc in a week that difficult will increase by 27%. Add to that more miners looking for fewer coins, and the rate of difficulty is bound to rise exponentially.

Its bullshit because virtual currency is not a resource, its virtual, and massively subject to the exchange rates of other currencies. It's bullshit because the miner's rate of return for the same amount of work diminishes hugely as the coin limit is approached. Why is the cost of aquiring it not just limited to buying through bitcoin exchanges, why have mineable coins at all?

In the perfect world the BTC/$ ratio is directly proportional, but fluctuations in the markets are a risk. The current BTC/$ ratio is about the same it was 2 years ago, so there is some stability. Over the past month or so prices have changed very little too.

If you're not keen on Bitcoin, there are a few derivatives such as Litecoin which offers significantly faster transaction times in comparison to Bitcoin and also has the added bonus to GPU miners of not having ASICs forcing up the difficulty as much since it's written using Scrypt which isn't optimized for ASICs. Even CPU mining for Litecoins is viable, so if you can get a botnet up and running you could come out with a fair bit of money.

bogan

31st May 2013, 15:04

In the perfect world the BTC/$ ratio is directly proportional, but fluctuations in the markets are a risk. The current BTC/$ ratio is about the same it was 2 years ago, so there is some stability. Over the past month or so prices have changed very little too.

If you're not keen on Bitcoin, there are a few derivatives such as Litecoin which offers significantly faster transaction times in comparison to Bitcoin and also has the added bonus to GPU miners of not having ASICs forcing up the difficulty as much since it's written using Scrypt which isn't optimized for ASICs. Even CPU mining for Litecoins is viable, so if you can get a botnet up and running you could come out with a fair bit of money.

What's BTC/$? the exchange rate I would have thought, but that has been anything but stable.

Its the whole concept I'm not really getting tbh.

mashman

31st May 2013, 15:15

Give everyone a pay rise, and people would buy from elsewhere, give everyone a pay cut and they would move elsewhere (though now I'm confused, cos I thought people didn't get paid in a money free society). Change the price of raw materials and they would be bought elsewhere, or NZ's stock would be bought out then we would have to import our own at higher prices than we just sold it. I'm no economist, but your oversimplification and just plain misunderstanding of how the global economy works pretty much voids your ideals of a local money free society functioning within the world economy.

You don't seem to realise prediction is vastly preferable to reactive as an economic model due to how investing works. Sell when you predict something is about to fall in price is far better than selling as a reaction to a drop in price.

Money is virtual remember. We still produce value because we still produce goods/services etc... and that goes onto the balance sheet. As for raising and lowering prices, we'll respond to what the market dictates in the appropriate manner.

You are an economist, even economists say that everyone is. So highlight the areas of the global economy that you would like expanded upon. My understanding doesn't void anything. You're the one choosing to over-complicate how an economy works, not me.

In response to the areas you have highlighted: You have ignored the quality of the raw materials we are going to produce. Yes if our prices are too high people will not buy. You have ignored that our internal economy makes up a part of our GDP. You seem to be equating the cost of production to some form of linear all inclusive BBQ, yes that's how it currently works, but where you control wages and good/service prices/taxation etc... you also control the final price of the good. Take these things as individual costs and weight as appropriate. In theory you could give everything that NZ exports away for free and the internal economy would produce the costs required to make up that part of your GDP... ad infinitum. Not fair and I'm sure it would incur the wrath of some organisation or other... but definitely possible to do.

And overseas suppliers to NZ?

WTO ;)

SMOKEU

31st May 2013, 15:23

[QUOTE=bogan;1130555547]What's BTC/$? the exchange rate I would have thought, but that has been anything but stable.

QUOTE]

Yes.

The market isn't always stable, but you have to be prepared to take the risk if you want to make any investment. With a keen eye on the markets you can generally speculate short term price changes with relative accuracy.

bogan

31st May 2013, 15:32

Money is virtual remember. We still produce value because we still produce goods/services etc... and that goes onto the balance sheet. As for raising and lowering prices, we'll respond to what the market dictates in the appropriate manner.

You are an economist, even economists say that everyone is. So highlight the areas of the global economy that you would like expanded upon. My understanding doesn't void anything. You're the one choosing to over-complicate how an economy works, not me.

In response to the areas you have highlighted: You have ignored the quality of the raw materials we are going to produce. Yes if our prices are too high people will not buy. You have ignored that our internal economy makes up a part of our GDP. You seem to be equating the cost of production to some form of linear all inclusive BBQ, yes that's how it currently works, but where you control wages and good/service prices/taxation etc... you also control the final price of the good. Take these things as individual costs and weight as appropriate. In theory you could give everything that NZ exports away for free and the internal economy would produce the costs required to make up that part of your GDP... ad infinitum. Not fair and I'm sure it would incur the wrath of some organisation or other... but definitely possible to do.

It's virtual, but it is also a measure of value, determined globally. We still produce the same value, but without an internal money system, how is that value distributed throughout the population?

Not good enough, you said earlier you can pluck money out of thin air for use in the global economy, justifying this by changing wages (which we wouldn't get, so this confuses me), and changing material prices (only applies to export). To then say it would be done as a response to the market is contrary to your earlier proposed use as a tool to pluck money out of thin air.

I was going to write more, but you seem to be going around in circles, so I'll leave it at that and see if you can work on the one point for a while.

bogan

31st May 2013, 15:36

Yes.

The market isn't always stable, but you have to be prepared to take the risk if you want to make any investment. With a keen eye on the markets you can generally speculate short term price changes with relative accuracy.

The exchange rate 2 years ago was 20usd per bitcoin, now it is 130usd per bitcoin. Those numbers are not the same.

mashman

31st May 2013, 15:56

It's virtual, but it is also a measure of value, determined globally. We still produce the same value, but without an internal money system, how is that value distributed throughout the population?

Not good enough, you said earlier you can pluck money out of thin air for use in the global economy, justifying this by changing wages (which we wouldn't get, so this confuses me), and changing material prices (only applies to export). To then say it would be done as a response to the market is contrary to your earlier proposed use as a tool to pluck money out of thin air.

I was going to write more, but you seem to be going around in circles, so I'll leave it at that and see if you can work on the one point for a while.

The point is. You control your money supply. You control what percentage of that money is "spent" on everything your produce. You could start charging a $1 baby shit tax if you liked. In other words, you can do what the fuck you want with your GDP at any given point in time to react to market conditions. What are you assuming is going to be determined globally?

Think of the money being plucked out of thin air as a form of QE or CE. Except we put it on whatever we want... or at least the account code representation of.

In other words, you're out of ideas or simply can't grasp the concept (fair enough, it took me a while)? You're putting up your own roadblocks which you're quite capable of bypassing yourself should to choose to do so. And given that you're the one asking all of the questions, perhaps you should try gaining more of an understanding before you continue... the bonus being that it'll stop me from having to repeat myself.

bogan

31st May 2013, 16:05

The point is. You control your money supply. You control what percentage of that money is "spent" on everything your produce. You could start charging a $1 baby shit tax if you liked. In other words, you can do what the fuck you want with your GDP at any given point in time to react to market conditions. What are you assuming is going to be determined globally?

Think of the money being plucked out of thin air as a form of QE or CE. Except we put it on whatever we want... or at least the account code representation of.

In other words, you're out of ideas or simply can't grasp the concept (fair enough, it took me a while)? You're putting up your own roadblocks which you're quite capable of bypassing yourself should to choose to do so. And given that you're the one asking all of the questions, perhaps you should try gaining more of an understanding before you continue... the bonus being that it'll stop me from having to repeat myself.

Yes, you control your money supply, but the global economy controls its value. This is the point you are continually failing to address from the money side.

The other points you failed to address is worker motivation, and consumer resource allocation. Though if you could prove your claim that NZ can pluck money out of thin air, and thus subsist on imports, then workers wouldn't have to work, and resources would be plentiful enough that allocation is not required.

mashman

31st May 2013, 16:27

Yes, you control your money supply, but the global economy controls its value. This is the point you are continually failing to address from the money side.

The other points you failed to address is worker motivation, and consumer resource allocation. Though if you could prove your claim that NZ can pluck money out of thin air, and thus subsist on imports, then workers wouldn't have to work, and resources would be plentiful enough that allocation is not required.

Yes the global economy does control the value of the $ to a large degree. However you can use that system against itself. As mentioned earlier, depending on how you stimulate (positively or negatively) the economy, you can mitigate that to a large extent... or at minimum you should be able to. A group of country's would have to be waging financial war against NZ for that not to be the case. And that would be a tad hypocritical of them if they did. Some country's are printing money, some are relying on austerity, some bloke just needs to make a speech, a few company's only need to return positive accounts etc... for the economy to react. Given that it's primarily confidence, would the NZ economy not have the confidence of the global economy in the knowledge that we can meet the market? Manipulation of the $ happens in many ways. I'm sure there are smart fullas in unzed who understand very single nuance of that system that could insulate NZ from having financial war waged against them.

Worker motivation: if they have voted in a brand spanking new system, why would you not put in your effort if the outcome would be a return to the old ways? Seeing the society work will be enough. Else why vote for it?
Consumer resource allocation: As said earlier, pretty much the same as it happens now. Personal responsibility being key to not rattling through resources in the first 5 minutes.
I'll look out the IMF document that explains that banks can "print" their own money.
Whilst that could well happen. It's a Resource Based Economy. Resources will have to be allocated and as I said earlier, that has to be done on a need basis. You need your bike part, then we'll get it. You need a Ferrari, then you're probably taking the piss, but there are ways (we're still going to have a record of who had what $ wise before switching the flip) to get around that and make that car available. With any luck the person that has it will lend it out when they're not using it. Personally I'm happy with the Prila and have a large dose of personal responsibility thrown in for good measure.

Here's a video referencing IMF document (http://tvnz.co.nz/seven-sharp/paying-interest-loan-never-existed-video-5336329) and explaining more about how money is created from real economists in NZ. One of them used to work with JK.

bogan

31st May 2013, 16:58

Yes the global economy does control the value of the $ to a large degree. However you can use that system against itself. As mentioned earlier, depending on how you stimulate (positively or negatively) the economy, you can mitigate that to a large extent... or at minimum you should be able to. A group of country's would have to be waging financial war against NZ for that not to be the case. And that would be a tad hypocritical of them if they did. Some country's are printing money, some are relying on austerity, some bloke just needs to make a speech, a few company's only need to return positive accounts etc... for the economy to react. Given that it's primarily confidence, would the NZ economy not have the confidence of the global economy in the knowledge that we can meet the market? Manipulation of the $ happens in many ways. I'm sure there are smart fullas in unzed who understand very single nuance of that system that could insulate NZ from having financial war waged against them.

Worker motivation: if they have voted in a brand spanking new system, why would you not put in your effort if the outcome would be a return to the old ways? Seeing the society work will be enough. Else why vote for it?
Consumer resource allocation: As said earlier, pretty much the same as it happens now. Personal responsibility being key to not rattling through resources in the first 5 minutes.
I'll look out the IMF document that explains that banks can "print" their own money.
Whilst that could well happen. It's a Resource Based Economy. Resources will have to be allocated and as I said earlier, that has to be done on a need basis. You need your bike part, then we'll get it. You need a Ferrari, then you're probably taking the piss, but there are ways (we're still going to have a record of who had what $ wise before switching the flip) to get around that and make that car available. With any luck the person that has it will lend it out when they're not using it. Personally I'm happy with the Prila and have a large dose of personal responsibility thrown in for good measure.

Here's a video referencing IMF document (http://tvnz.co.nz/seven-sharp/paying-interest-loan-never-existed-video-5336329) and explaining more about how money is created from real economists in NZ. One of them used to work with JK.

Ok, so there is no way to pluck money out of thin air, you can give things a prod here an there, but the country would still need to rely on the value of exports to maintain the imports.

Worker motivation, that is circular logic, I thought you were explaining why they would want to vote it in in the first place.
Resource allocation. No, your whole point is that money is gone, so it cannot be the same as now. You can't rely on personal responsibility to maintain the same level of consumerism for at least two reasons, 1 is the obvious theiving/greedy cunts that are around, 2 is there's no way to work towards something; I want that new bike, but without a savings metric how do I know when it is responsible for me to go and get it?

Again, I'll keep it brief so we stay on point.

gwigs

31st May 2013, 17:18

mashman

31st May 2013, 17:58

Ok, so there is no way to pluck money out of thin air, you can give things a prod here an there, but the country would still need to rely on the value of exports to maintain the imports.

Worker motivation, that is circular logic, I thought you were explaining why they would want to vote it in in the first place.
Resource allocation. No, your whole point is that money is gone, so it cannot be the same as now. You can't rely on personal responsibility to maintain the same level of consumerism for at least two reasons, 1 is the obvious theiving/greedy cunts that are around, 2 is there's no way to work towards something; I want that new bike, but without a savings metric how do I know when it is responsible for me to go and get it?

Again, I'll keep it brief so we stay on point.

Theoretically we'll still be pulling money out of thin air and as it is a current practice around the globe we could use it as a mechanism for generating more money. Although we're offering "value" for "money". Yup, our exports should balance our imports.

Worker motivation and the reason that you vote for the system aren't mutually exclusive in the first instance, as we need base point to start from i.e. calculate the "wealth" of the country, figure out which jobs aren't required (of which there will be many), figure out educational priorities, service priorities etc... Hence the request that we keep our current jobs at the start.
Resource Allocation. It can be the same as now and it will. The reason being that the Ocean1's, jonbuoy's etc... of the world who believe that they are worth more than someone else, can in fact get more than someone else in the short term. With any luck that'll keep the greedy cunts happy for a while. In regards to working towards something, you won't necessarily have to. Needs will most definitely be fulfilled, it's the wants that will be the issue. If you use a motorcycle as your transport and something goes tits, it'll be seen as a need because we need your input at work. there's going to have to be a large element of trust i.e. personal responsibility, in that people don't go ape shit and consume consume consume over and above that which they need. There's very little choice in that matter and goes back to Resource Allocation to a certain degree. We can only hope that need will be your driver and not want.

mashman

31st May 2013, 18:02

The way I see it in a resource based economy people would not actually need to own anything,
people own things that dont get used often enough,say a video camera or tools ,stuff that sits in cupboards or sheds doing nothing...why not be able to get things you need from your local facility
(dont have a word for it but like a Hire outlet) for free.
So there would be thousands of units of an item that no longer need to be made saving valuable resources.
In a resourced based economy people would be able to follow their interests without the stumbling block of money...Say you are a ten year old fascinated by astronomy but your parents are poor..
Too bad kid youre poor..who knows what potential has been lost...this kid may have made many fantastic discoveries...or the poor kid who wants to be a doctor..or a scientist..or whatever....
Money, its no suprise they,re giving non away.
i know I will be flamed for this but I dont give a fuck..
I will probably get called a dreamer...a bit like John Lennon...but I,m not the only one eh..

Absolutely... but we have to go from point A to RBE relatively carefully, because as you know, some people are so scared (of only having the same as someone who "technically" earns less than they do) of change, that they're going to have a hard time letting that fear go. Resource Library's I think the VP call them, great idea and one of the first things we could set up. That should make a fair dent in the imports we require, leaving money available for motorcycly things ;)

Ocean1

31st May 2013, 18:14

as you know, some people are so scared (of only having the same as someone who "technically" earns less than they do) of change

Not to mention those that aren't keen on subsidising those who earn fuck all any more than they currently do.

You still haven't got a handle on "earn" have you?

sketch

31st May 2013, 18:20

what a load of pointless crap............. thats like asking would you live in new zealand if a 18yo size 6 blondie with d cups sucked you off every morning

mashman

31st May 2013, 18:23

Not to mention those that aren't keen on subsidising those who earn fuck all any more than they currently do.

You still haven't got a handle on "earn" have you?

keen on subsidising those who earn fuck all any more than they currently do = earn less.

Yup, I've got a handle on it.

mashman

31st May 2013, 18:25

what a load of pointless crap............. thats like asking would you live in new zealand if a 18yo size 6 blondie with d cups sucked you off every morning

That would certainly help... although ugly people who rely on $ to attract pretty women are gonna be sorely disappointed.

Ocean1

31st May 2013, 18:46

keen on subsidising those who earn fuck all any more than they currently do = earn less.

What?

Yup, I've got a handle on it.

If you had the slightest idea you'd realise that anyone can have whatever they want without your clueless scheme. They simply have to earn it.

scumdog

31st May 2013, 18:48

WTO ;)

You are planning to 'convince' the WTO to drop the price of all raw products NZ plans in importing from them.

bogan

31st May 2013, 19:10

Theoretically we'll still be pulling money out of thin air and as it is a current practice around the globe we could use it as a mechanism for generating more money. Although we're offering "value" for "money". Yup, our exports should balance our imports.

Worker motivation and the reason that you vote for the system aren't mutually exclusive in the first instance, as we need base point to start from i.e. calculate the "wealth" of the country, figure out which jobs aren't required (of which there will be many), figure out educational priorities, service priorities etc... Hence the request that we keep our current jobs at the start.
Resource Allocation. It can be the same as now and it will. The reason being that the Ocean1's, jonbuoy's etc... of the world who believe that they are worth more than someone else, can in fact get more than someone else in the short term. With any luck that'll keep the greedy cunts happy for a while. In regards to working towards something, you won't necessarily have to. Needs will most definitely be fulfilled, it's the wants that will be the issue. If you use a motorcycle as your transport and something goes tits, it'll be seen as a need because we need your input at work. there's going to have to be a large element of trust i.e. personal responsibility, in that people don't go ape shit and consume consume consume over and above that which they need. There's very little choice in that matter and goes back to Resource Allocation to a certain degree. We can only hope that need will be your driver and not want.

No, you can't use it as a sustainable mechanism for generating more money, there's that other mechanism which counters it called inflation.

I didn't say they were mutually exclusive, I asked how such a system would motivate workers to do the undesirable tasks, of which there will still be many.

That is not the same as it is now, who decides what is need and what is want? who decides whose wants are frivolous and whose wants are ok? Sounds like there will be a lot of jobs created for that, and a lot of potential for abuse of power.

This sort of system just doesn't lend itself to countrywide implementation, communes and the like where they can be selective about who is in it would work be a far better place to start.

mashman

31st May 2013, 19:10

What?

If you had the slightest idea you'd realise that anyone can have whatever they want without your clueless scheme. They simply have to earn it.

I said You said I said

Really? So there are at least 7 billion CEO roles that command a salary of over $1 million per annum?

mashman

31st May 2013, 19:12

You are planning to 'convince' the WTO to drop the price of all raw products NZ plans in importing from them.

Not at all... but seek justice there should NZ be discriminated against given their new economic model.

SMOKEU

31st May 2013, 19:26

The exchange rate 2 years ago was 20usd per bitcoin, now it is 130usd per bitcoin. Those numbers are not the same.

Take a look at the block difficulty now and compare it to 2 years ago...

Ocean1

31st May 2013, 19:31

I said You said I said

No, more drivel doesn't make the first lot any clearer.

Really? So there are at least 7 billion CEO roles that command a salary of over $1 million per annum?

Is that the only way you can think of to earn money?

'Cause I got to tell you you're not cut out for it.

bogan

31st May 2013, 19:34

Take a look at the block difficulty now and compare it to 2 years ago...

Which is why I asked if it was just the exchange rate you were talking about, is it not just the exchange rate now?

Jesus H Christ, is nobody in this thread I try and have a discussion with capable of a coherent and on-track conversation.

mashman

31st May 2013, 19:35

No, you can't use it as a sustainable mechanism for generating more money, there's that other mechanism which counters it called inflation.

I didn't say they were mutually exclusive, I asked how such a system would motivate workers to do the undesirable tasks, of which there will still be many.

That is not the same as it is now, who decides what is need and what is want? who decides whose wants are frivolous and whose wants are ok? Sounds like there will be a lot of jobs created for that, and a lot of potential for abuse of power.

This sort of system just doesn't lend itself to countrywide implementation, communes and the like where they can be selective about who is in it would work be a far better place to start.

They use it as a mechanism for generating money currently, t'would seem unfair that we wouldn't be allowed to do it too... but yes, how do you counter inflation should you decide to try to beat the inflation trap. Something Oldrider posted a while back showed how it could be done (The Guernsey Experiment), however we're going to be creating money against tangible value i.e. the price of our resources. That should, according to economic theory, be enough to to limit inflationary effects.

I never said you did, I was highlighting that if we have voted for the system in the first place then we'd likely be motivated to do the shit jobs, because they need to be done. We would fully understand that if these jobs aren't done then we'd likely end up going back towards a financially based system. So if the majority have votes for the system, why would they not do what it took to maintain that system?

You decide what is a need and a want. Personal responsibility remember. Also I said it CAN be the same as now, not it WILL be. There will be the potential for an abuse of power. Mechanisms can be put in place to limit that, such as reviewing spending and questioning the reasons for certain individuals/groups sucking in resources that could be better used elsewhere. As I said, you're going to have to trust people to make the right choice at some point in time.

That's why most of decision making will be made at community level. They will know what resources their community needs and with any luck, trustworthy sensible people will fill those rolls.

mashman

31st May 2013, 19:39

Is that the only way you can think of to earn money?

'Cause I got to tell you you're not cut out for it.

Not at all. But if those 7 billion high salaried positions don't exist, then how can they have whatever they want? Someone still needs to clean, empty the drains, paint the safety lines on the road etc... and due to the shit wages that those jobs pay, they are very limited in what they can have.

Not cut out for what? Making decisions? Although you could be right, my golf game sucks.

Ocean1

31st May 2013, 19:40

Jesus H Christ, is nobody in this thread I try and have a discussion with capable of a coherent and on-track conversation.

You've noticed too eh?

Ocean1

31st May 2013, 19:44

But if those 7 billion high salaried positions don't exist, then how can they have whatever they want? Someone still needs to clean, empty the drains, paint the safety lines on the road etc... and due to the shit wages that those jobs pay, they are very limited in what they can have.

I didn't say they could earn a million dollars for doing a $20 job. Nonetheless the option's there for them if they can be bothered to work that hard.

Not cut out for what? Making decisions? Although you could be right, my golf game sucks.

Actually, now that you come to mention it; fuck all.

But I'm sure there's a circus somewhere... no, maybe not.

bogan

31st May 2013, 19:47

They use it as a mechanism for generating money currently, t'would seem unfair that we wouldn't be allowed to do it too... but yes, how do you counter inflation should you decide to try to beat the inflation trap. Something Oldrider posted a while back showed how it could be done (The Guernsey Experiment), however we're going to be creating money against tangible value i.e. the price of our resources. That should, according to economic theory, be enough to to limit inflationary effects.

I never said you did, I was highlighting that if we have voted for the system in the first place then we'd likely be motivated to do the shit jobs, because they need to be done. We would fully understand that if these jobs aren't done then we'd likely end up going back towards a financially based system. So if the majority have votes for the system, why would they not do what it took to maintain that system?

You decide what is a need and a want. Personal responsibility remember. Also I said it CAN be the same as now, not it WILL be. There will be the potential for an abuse of power. Mechanisms can be put in place to limit that, such as reviewing spending and questioning the reasons for certain individuals/groups sucking in resources that could be better used elsewhere. As I said, you're going to have to trust people to make the right choice at some point in time.

That's why most of decision making will be made at community level. They will know what resources their community needs and with any luck, trustworthy sensible people will fill those rolls.

Well why don't we currently do it too then?

Because people vote for what benefits themselves. How many voters would be of the opinion 'A system where I don't have to do this shit job anymore but still get all the things I currently do; fucking sign me up'.

The problem there is, if people could be trusted to make the right decisions, the financial system wouldn't have the problems you seek to solve.

All in all, far too optimistic about this causing people to suddenly develop empathy and altruism, and no accountability for the masses that don't.

bogan

31st May 2013, 19:52

You've noticed too eh?

Initially I thought it was just my rudimentary economic understanding preventing me from seeing the 'logical' steps between points. But now I think the conversation is more akin to yelling at somebody who is using 80 volt suppositories while pogo-sticking through a field of gorse.

scumdog

31st May 2013, 19:54

. but seek justice there should NZ be discriminated against given their new economic model.

FFS; it's high finance we're talking about, they don't 'do' charity for small countries like NZ!

mashman

31st May 2013, 20:05

Jesus H Christ, is nobody in this thread I try and have a discussion with capable of a coherent and on-track conversation.

http://besovereign.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/benjamin-einbahnstrasse.jpg?w=500

Ocean1

31st May 2013, 20:12

Initially I thought it was just my rudimentary economic understanding preventing me from seeing the 'logical' steps between points.

It's a special type of logic.

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP102934.pdf

mashman

31st May 2013, 20:12

Well why don't we currently do it too then?

Because people vote for what benefits themselves. How many voters would be of the opinion 'A system where I don't have to do this shit job anymore but still get all the things I currently do; fucking sign me up'.

The problem there is, if people could be trusted to make the right decisions, the financial system wouldn't have the problems you seek to solve.

All in all, far too optimistic about this causing people to suddenly develop empathy and altruism, and no accountability for the masses that don't.

Why didn't it work in Guernsey?

Is that all you've gleaned out of our internet conversation? If that's the case, you're definition of a conversation (see above image) is where the problem is.

Oh I see, you think there's nothing wrong with the system and it's fundamentally a people issue? That's all people.

:rofl: coz we've built a caring sharing sort of society that encourages such behaviours... and despite that, people are still trusting, empathetic and altruistic given the shit they have to go through. What do you mean, no accountability for the masses?

FFS; it's high finance we're talking about, they don't 'do' charity for small countries like NZ!

Sorry, forgot that money trumps anything <_<

bogan

31st May 2013, 20:20

Why didn't it work in Guernsey?

Is that all you've gleaned out of our internet conversation? If that's the case, you're definition of a conversation (see above image) is where the problem is.

Oh I see, you think there's nothing wrong with the system and it's fundamentally a people issue? That's all people.

:rofl: coz we've built a caring sharing sort of society that encourages such behaviours... and despite that, people are still trusting, empathetic and altruistic given the shit they have to go through. What do you mean, no accountability for the masses?

Sorry, forgot that money trumps anything <_<

I have no idea what Guernsey is or what did/didn't work there.

All I've gleaned is that you really don't understand the problem you're trying to solve. Sorry, but the question dodging and lack of logical answers makes such a conclusion inescapable.

As per you model, it does nothing to discourage bad behaviour except trust in the good, at least the current option has methods to discourage such behaviour that don't result in its own collapse. So yes, no accountability if the masses decide to 'need' more than they can provide.

mashman

31st May 2013, 20:36

I have no idea what Guernsey is or what did/didn't work there.

All I've gleaned is that you really don't understand the problem you're trying to solve. Sorry, but the question dodging and lack of logical answers makes such a conclusion inescapable.

As per you model, it does nothing to discourage bad behaviour except trust in the good, at least the current option has methods to discourage such behaviour that don't result in its own collapse. So yes, no accountability if the masses decide to 'need' more than they can provide.

:killingme So you did what you're constantly accusing Ed of then.

I don't? That's one hell of an assumption given that you seem unable to grasp the concept. Hardly a scientific evaluation.

You don't consider that a huge drop in crime as discouraging bad behaviour? Yes there will be methods for dealing with bad behaviour, as there currently is. Are the masses going to decide to need more than is provided? And if they do, you don't believe that the system be able to react?... even though it has with a financial system. Fucksake that's a piss weak dismissal.

mashman

31st May 2013, 20:36

It's a special type of logic.

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP102934.pdf

It describes your logic to a T.

bogan

31st May 2013, 20:47

:killingme So you did what you're constantly accusing Ed of then.

I don't? That's one hell of an assumption given that you seem unable to grasp the concept. Hardly a scientific evaluation.

You don't consider that a huge drop in crime as discouraging bad behaviour? Yes there will be methods for dealing with bad behaviour, as there currently is. Are the masses going to decide to need more than is provided? And if they do, you don't believe that the system be able to react?... even though it has with a financial system. Fucksake that's a piss weak dismissal.

Have you posted a link and refered to the findings of the Guernesy bloke then? What exactly did I do that I accuse Ed of?

Like I said, the question dodging, and flawed logic you provide led me to my findings.

What huge drop in crime? See this is that logic disconnect I struggle with, where has that claim come from? You're not explaining how it would be able to react to an increased 'need', you keep pointing to how the financial system deals with going, yeh we'll do it that way but without the money; thats the piss weak argument I'm dismissing. This is one of the most obvious potential flaws in such a system, if you can't explain that, I don't see how you can claim it would be better. But you seem to be taking it a bit personally now, so I'm not hopeful the standard of discussion will improve.

mashman

31st May 2013, 21:11

Have you posted a link and refered to the findings of the Guernesy bloke then? What exactly did I do that I accuse Ed of?

Like I said, the question dodging, and flawed logic you provide led me to my findings.

What huge drop in crime? See this is that logic disconnect I struggle with, where has that claim come from? You're not explaining how it would be able to react to an increased 'need', you keep pointing to how the financial system deals with going, yeh we'll do it that way but without the money; thats the piss weak argument I'm dismissing. This is one of the most obvious potential flaws in such a system, if you can't explain that, I don't see how you can claim it would be better. But you seem to be taking it a bit personally now, so I'm not hopeful the standard of discussion will improve.

Having an opinion on something you never went and sought any information on. Essentially they printed their own money and put an expiration date on it to control inflation. It fell apart because the bank of england got its teeth into people that felt that they were better than someone else and therefore they were entitled to more than someone else.

What question dodging? Coz it isn't an intentional dodge. What flawed logic? I guess I don't speak bogan.

No money = no need to take anything from anyone else i.e. thieve. That's a huge chunk of crime gone.

mashman

31st May 2013, 21:16

I didn't say they could earn a million dollars for doing a $20 job. Nonetheless the option's there for them if they can be bothered to work that hard.

Actually, now that you come to mention it; fuck all.

But I'm sure there's a circus somewhere... no, maybe not.

Can you tell me how people could earn a million dollars doing a $20 job?

bwaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa... you seem to be exceptionally precious today.

bogan

31st May 2013, 21:25

Having an opinion on something you never went and sought any information on. Essentially they printed their own money and put an expiration date on it to control inflation. It fell apart because the bank of england got its teeth into people that felt that they were better than someone else and therefore they were entitled to more than someone else.

What question dodging? Coz it isn't an intentional dodge. What flawed logic? I guess I don't speak bogan.

No money = no need to take anything from anyone else i.e. thieve. That's a huge chunk of crime gone.

I've sought information on this, I just didn't happen to find that info on the subject, nothing like what I accuse Ed of.

The one where I keep asking why people would do jobs they don't enjoy, its either dodging or flawed logic as nobody else here can see how that would work. All you've said is that people would do them because otherwise the system would fail, I suspect those doing shit jobs who look to their neighbors doing good jobs for exactly the same reward would be more likely to want to see it fail than succeed. Those are the same people that currently demand to be paid more than others for the inconvenience, why does your system suddenly grant them with altruism?

See now it makes more sense when you provide the logic behind the claim. But I suspect it would be replaced by overwhelming numbers of people deciding they need more than they would currently be able to afford.

Ocean1

31st May 2013, 21:26

Can you tell me how people could earn a million dollars doing a $20 job?

They can't. Ever.

What they can do is work towards a better job.

Or not.

Either way they'll only ever get whatever they can sell their services for.

scumdog

31st May 2013, 21:27

No money = no need to take anything from anyone else i.e. thieve. That's a huge chunk of crime gone.

Wot a lod o' codswallop.

What about items of property including fruit, veges etc

Peopl will 'take them from anyone else' ya know - they already do.

Ocean1

31st May 2013, 21:35

Wot a lod o' codswallop.

What about items of property including fruit, veges etc

Peopl will 'take them from anyone else' ya know - they already do.

Wee fruit story.

Couple of years ago I put a sign up out on the road saying "FREE FRUIT, COME AND PICK IT".

Unknown to me up the road a bit the neighbour's kids have a stall selling cheap apples, fundraising for the local school, honesty box thing.

I never saw a single soul. But some desperado cleaned out the kids stall, apples AND cashbox. :facepalm:

mashman

31st May 2013, 21:49

I've sought information on this, I just didn't happen to find that info on the subject, nothing like what I accuse Ed of.

The one where I keep asking why people would do jobs they don't enjoy, its either dodging or flawed logic as nobody else here can see how that would work. All you've said is that people would do them because otherwise the system would fail, I suspect those doing shit jobs who look to their neighbors doing good jobs for exactly the same reward would be more likely to want to see it fail than succeed. Those are the same people that currently demand to be paid more than others for the inconvenience, why does your system suddenly grant them with altruism?

See now it makes more sense when you provide the logic behind the claim. But I suspect it would be replaced by overwhelming numbers of people deciding they need more than they would currently be able to afford.

Fair enough. I should have posted a link or at least explained.

I did answer that question, but I guess not in the right language. Nobody else? Essentially that is the answer. We would have to do jobs we may well hate because the alternative is going back to a system that we voted out for a very good reason. Envy is a bastard and all I can say is get over it. Success is what? Having more than someone else? The altruism will be there if the system is voted for. This has never been done before so there is one hell of a lot riding on us seeing the benefits in the new system v's the old system. Yup that's asking a lot of the current beings wandering the planet, but I'd love to know where we stood in regards to how many would give it a go (that includes showing that restraint for stuff through personal responsibility and responsibility towards others). It is a HUGE matter of trust. The solutions are there to the economic issues, I offer a version of them, but without a doubt those who understand the intricate details could dot the i's and cross the t's in a more succinct manner.

That's quite possible. Which is why I keep coming back to the fundamental, well we voted for it to get away from the financial system, why would we put ourselves into a position where we end up going back to it.

mashman

31st May 2013, 21:56

They can't. Ever.

What they can do is work towards a better job.

Or not.

Either way they'll only ever get whatever they can sell their services for.

I understand that... a handful may make it. Helps to be a man too eh ;). As gwigs said earlier, do we have any idea of the potential that we're losing because these guys are, to all intents and purposes, stuck without the potential to push themselves in other arenas.

Wot a lod o' codswallop.

What about items of property including fruit, veges etc

Peopl will 'take them from anyone else' ya know - they already do.

Eh? What do you mean what about fruit and veges? Wouldn't they just go to the market and pick their own up?

Ocean1

31st May 2013, 22:03

I understand that... a handful may make it. Helps to be a man too eh ;). As gwigs said earlier, do we have any idea of the potential that we're losing because these guys are, to all intents and purposes, stuck without the potential to push themselves in other arenas.

It takes effort to realise potential.

Every one of us is stuck at the level our effort got us to, potential ain't worth shit without you work for what you want.

scumdog

31st May 2013, 22:20

Eh? What do you mean what about fruit and veges? Wouldn't they just go to the market and pick their own up?

Hell no, why put yourself out going all the way to market when you can just jump the neighbours fence to get what you want...I mean to get to market ya might have to somehow get a car and petrol too...

bogan

31st May 2013, 22:36

That's quite possible. Which is why I keep coming back to the fundamental, well we voted for it to get away from the financial system, why would we put ourselves into a position where we end up going back to it.

This is where you lose me, because that hasn't happened, and unless such issues as I keep raising are addressed, I don't think it will ever happen. That is what makes it circular logic.

mashman

31st May 2013, 22:51

It takes effort to realise potential.

Every one of us is stuck at the level our effort got us to, potential ain't worth shit without you work for what you want.

It does, I agree. But that potential isn't necessarily realised or realisable at school and if these people leave with few qualifications and end up in scramble to survive jobs, your society isn't exactly setup to cater for their needs without them putting themselves heavily into debt in the hope that they can find a job on the other side.

I agree with that to an extent, but sometimes you do have to give something to people on a plate for that potential to be realised. If it's of benefit, then why wouldn't you? Your society says do the hard yards as there are no shortcuts irrespective of what your potential is.

Hell no, why put yourself out going all the way to market when you can just jump the neighbours fence to get what you want...I mean to get to market ya might have to somehow get a car and petrol too...

So the choice is knickin your neighbours fruit and veg and risking a stint in jail or going to the market to pick up your own veg even though a car will be available and it will be fueled. I'd lend my car to the worst neighbour in the world to do that. After all, they can't sell it.

This is where you lose me, because that hasn't happened, and unless such issues as I keep raising are addressed, I don't think it will ever happen. That is what makes it circular logic.

You are putting up those hurdles though. I'm not. There are always solutions to the problems you highlight. I've attempted to offer some form of solution. At the end of the day it will all come down to trust. Living without money is a given in regards to less crime, free education, lots of people doing different things etc... and the economic hurdles are probably the least of our worries... but it's up to the individual to exercise personal responsibility and restraint and to, ommmmmmmmm, embrace the change for what it is and for what it offers for society. So yeah, the logic will always be circular until certain things are accepted (irrespective of the level of detail) and then we can leap forwards to go through another set of logic loops.

scumdog

1st June 2013, 09:43

So the choice is knickin your neighbours fruit and veg and risking a stint in jail or going to the market to pick up your own veg even though a car will be available and it will be fueled. I'd lend my car to the worst neighbour in the world to do that. After all, they can't sell it.

Jail??

For knickin a few fruit and veges?

"I don't thinks so Tim"

Sheesh!

mashman

1st June 2013, 09:51

Jail??

For knickin a few fruit and veges?

"I don't thinks so Tim"

Sheesh!

She be the case though. It's the act remember, not what was taken... apparently. T'would seem as though the "law" is a hypocritical ass.

blue rider

1st June 2013, 10:06

Ocean1

1st June 2013, 10:31

It does, I agree. But that potential isn't necessarily realised or realisable at school and if these people leave with few qualifications and end up in scramble to survive jobs, your society isn't exactly setup to cater for their needs without them putting themselves heavily into debt in the hope that they can find a job on the other side.

I don't agree. Look around, society is set up to cater for the needs of those who consume more than they earn. So there's not only second chances after failure at school there's on-going support for further failure. And, as a rule, when you encourage a certain behaviour it rapidly becomes "normal". Which is why we currently have a society being rapidly populated by failures: there's not enough of a link between productive effort and it's natural reward.

No doubt the potential's there. No doubt at all. It's the effort that's missing.

I agree with that to an extent, but sometimes you do have to give something to people on a plate for that potential to be realised. If it's of benefit, then why wouldn't you? Your society says do the hard yards as there are no shortcuts irrespective of what your potential is.

But it's very rarely of any benefit, so why would you bother. Sure, there's a few that put in a better effort given a second chance, and I have no problem with policy making such chances easier to manage. But the real problem is the general expectation that someone can continually live high and earn low. It's simply not sustainable.

You bleat on about how the GFC was the fault of the big corporations and banking sector's manipulation of the financial system, but that's simply not so. The root cause was a whole generation of western consumers spending way more than they earned. The GFC is simply the latest in a long series of natural corrections to that excess, it wasn't the worst and it won't be the last. So the contention that there's no reason anyone can't enjoy the fruits of modern manufacturing efficiencies and technological improvements no matter what they do for a crust is exposed as patent drivel. They need to earn it.

And the expertise required to earn the standard of living available now is far more sophisticated and extensive than that which was required to keep up with the 1960s Jones'. If you want to live ploughing fields behind the arse of a horse then be prepared to live like a 17th century peasant. if you expect to live well in this century you had better come armed with qualifications and skills valuable to this century's inhabitants. That, and a viable work ethic.

bogan

1st June 2013, 10:33

You are putting up those hurdles though. I'm not. There are always solutions to the problems you highlight. I've attempted to offer some form of solution. At the end of the day it will all come down to trust. Living without money is a given in regards to less crime, free education, lots of people doing different things etc... and the economic hurdles are probably the least of our worries... but it's up to the individual to exercise personal responsibility and restraint and to, ommmmmmmmm, embrace the change for what it is and for what it offers for society. So yeah, the logic will always be circular until certain things are accepted (irrespective of the level of detail) and then we can leap forwards to go through another set of logic loops.

Pointing out problems is a lot different to putting them up. At the end of the day such a system must be logical enough for people to trust in it; which is different from people having to trust each other to become altruistic in order to make it work. If the logic is always circular, I doubt it will ever be accepted, certainly not starting out on a country scale.

SMOKEU

1st June 2013, 11:03

Which is why I asked if it was just the exchange rate you were talking about, is it not just the exchange rate now?

Jesus H Christ, is nobody in this thread I try and have a discussion with capable of a coherent and on-track conversation.

Fair enough, I was meaning that the exchange rate vs difficulty rate is similar to that of 2 years ago. You mine a lot fewer BTC, but those BTC are worth a lot more, so you end up with a similar amount of money 2 years ago compared to today if you were to sell your BTC on a weekly basis.

My advice - buy a cheap ASIC if you can get your hands on one (I'm not sure if BFL have sorted out their supply issues yet).

bogan

1st June 2013, 11:26

Fair enough, I was meaning that the exchange rate vs difficulty rate is similar to that of 2 years ago. You mine a lot fewer BTC, but those BTC are worth a lot more, so you end up with a similar amount of money 2 years ago compared to today if you were to sell your BTC on a weekly basis.

My advice - buy a cheap ASIC if you can get your hands on one (I'm not sure if BFL have sorted out their supply issues yet).

And you think that rate will stay the same? As mining difficulty skyrockets will the exchange rate skyrocket too? I just can't see why the driving force for the currency would be based on some arbitrary encryption system...

mashman

1st June 2013, 11:51

Pointing out problems is a lot different to putting them up. At the end of the day such a system must be logical enough for people to trust in it; which is different from people having to trust each other to become altruistic in order to make it work. If the logic is always circular, I doubt it will ever be accepted, certainly not starting out on a country scale.

Fair point... and noted. Perhaps phrasing it as, if you are morally irresponsible you will be thrown in jail, with a judge deciding what is moral or not. That's what happens at the moment (accept with "laws"), so there shouldn't be any trust issues, tight? People already trust each other. Granted there's a huge amount of skepticism in that trust, but that's primarily because they don't want to be ripped off. Removing money should remove a vast chunk of that mistrust, after all confidence crime requires trust to exist in the first place. I think that will turn around, foolishly perhaps, dunno, but removing money should remove many of the reasons for confidence crimes (SCF/Hanover/JP Morgan et al). True. The scarey thing is though, that circular logic already exists, boom and bust for example. How do we fix that, oh we throw in a different economic model. Nope, still boom and bust... best change the economic model then... nope still boom and bust... let's change the economic model then... ad infinitum. No money can break that boom and bust cycle and given that the experts and professionals are the real smart people of the world (debatable :innocent:), wonder how well they;d be able to define NOW (or similar) in reference to your questions?

bogan

1st June 2013, 11:55

Fair point... and noted. Perhaps phrasing it as, if you are morally irresponsible you will be thrown in jail, with a judge deciding what is moral or not. That's what happens at the moment (accept with "laws"), so there shouldn't be any trust issues, tight? People already trust each other. Granted there's a huge amount of skepticism in that trust, but that's primarily because they don't want to be ripped off. Removing money should remove a vast chunk of that mistrust, after all confidence crime requires trust to exist in the first place. I think that will turn around, foolishly perhaps, dunno, but removing money should remove many of the reasons for confidence crimes (SCF/Hanover/JP Morgan et al). True. The scarey thing is though, that circular logic already exists, boom and bust for example. How do we fix that, oh we throw in a different economic model. Nope, still boom and bust... best change the economic model then... nope still boom and bust... let's change the economic model then... ad infinitum. No money can break that boom and bust cycle and given that the experts and professionals are the real smart people of the world (debatable :innocent:), wonder how well they;d be able to define NOW (or similar) in reference to your questions?

Wait, so if a Judge decides I need to keep doing the crutching but I have quit, I could go to jail? Or if a judge decides I didn't need that bike part I tried to order I could go to jail? And who judges the judges?

mashman

1st June 2013, 11:59

How about living in a world where ones ability to obtain a credit is based on a 'social profile'......might also be used to determine ones employability

http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/26/why-your-social-media-profile-might-be-your-next-credit-score/

interesting read

Awesome, social media idol... women will rule that world and would get the breast jobs. All to protect money :rofl: What a waste of processing power.
I guess an interview question could be, does your world stop you from applying for jobs :shifty:

mashman

1st June 2013, 12:02

Wait, so if a Judge decides I need to keep doing the crutching but I have quit, I could go to jail? Or if a judge decides I didn't need that bike part I tried to order I could go to jail? And who judges the judges?

It's all up to the judge. Hey, you want accountability, how far do you want to go in regards to coercing people to be accountable? You only tried to order the part, no harm no foul, but still, if the judge is on the rag you could well be in the shit.

bogan

1st June 2013, 12:07

It's all up to the judge. Hey, you want accountability, how far do you want to go in regards to coercing people to be accountable? You only tried to order the part, no harm no foul, but still, if the judge is on the rag you could well be in the shit.

So, swapping one system in which the majority of the power lies with just a few for another. Yeh, no thanks on that shit.

SMOKEU

1st June 2013, 12:29

And you think that rate will stay the same? As mining difficulty skyrockets will the exchange rate skyrocket too?

It generally follows that trend, although every now and again there will be skyrocketing exchange rates, followed by inevitable crash before steadying itself out again. There was such a crash a couple of months ago when BTC went up to $US266, before steadily plummeting back down to the current values.

Once the values increase, that generally stops people from selling coins, until the market reaches a certain point where people dump their coins en masse which forces prices down. It's not much different from the general share markets in that respect where supply and demand is what forces prices to change.

mashman

1st June 2013, 12:39

I don't agree. Look around, society is set up to cater for the needs of those who consume more than they earn. So there's not only second chances after failure at school there's on-going support for further failure. And, as a rule, when you encourage a certain behaviour it rapidly becomes "normal". Which is why we currently have a society being rapidly populated by failures: there's not enough of a link between productive effort and it's natural reward.

No doubt the potential's there. No doubt at all. It's the effort that's missing.

So what do you propose you do with the failures? Fucksake we'd have never had the lightbulb if we prescribed to putting a limit on the number of times a person was allowed to fail. Your criteria is all financilly based and rooted in some form of entitlement complex i.e. you deserve because you do, they don't because they failed. we have a society being rapidly filled with failures because we literally can't afford to keep allowing people to fail. Hell we have to throw ourselves into 20k's worth of debt to get a certain level of education in the first place. Tis fookin madness.

When should the effort be put in? Surely it's a case of when the person is ready to do it in the first place? Sure there are people who take their skills for granted and will expect that their aptitude should take them further than it actually does, but hey, if they learn from that, perhaps they'll do it better next time... although having said that, it may not be a financially viable option to have another go. Tis all part of that financial responsibility thing people keep wailing about and it isn't forgiving enough to afford a second chance with a clean slate, you have to start from where you left off. Again, lunacy if you're wanting to see the potential realised.

But it's very rarely of any benefit, so why would you bother. Sure, there's a few that put in a better effort given a second chance, and I have no problem with policy making such chances easier to manage. But the real problem is the general expectation that someone can continually live high and earn low. It's simply not sustainable.

You bleat on about how the GFC was the fault of the big corporations and banking sector's manipulation of the financial system, but that's simply not so. The root cause was a whole generation of western consumers spending way more than they earned. The GFC is simply the latest in a long series of natural corrections to that excess, it wasn't the worst and it won't be the last. So the contention that there's no reason anyone can't enjoy the fruits of modern manufacturing efficiencies and technological improvements no matter what they do for a crust is exposed as patent drivel. They need to earn it.

And the expertise required to earn the standard of living available now is far more sophisticated and extensive than that which was required to keep up with the 1960s Jones'. If you want to live ploughing fields behind the arse of a horse then be prepared to live like a 17th century peasant. if you expect to live well in this century you had better come armed with qualifications and skills valuable to this century's inhabitants. That, and a viable work ethic.

You would bother just in case it is of benefit. Slamming the door shut is cutting one's nose off to spite one's face surely?

Oh bullshit. People have been spending beyind their means for decades without much of an adverse economic affect... in fact the economy has relied on these people to get credit out there. What was the latest figures, they reckon 100,000 people have $32 trillion tied up in trusts and offshore accounts etc... that hasn't been taxed. Perhaps they should start by tightening the taxation rules so that EVERY $ is taxed. $32 trillionm christ that's twice the entire US debt. No, I don't buy it being a few million people who have overspent to the tune of 100 billion (or whatever they figure is they're claiming?), especially not when there have been several fraud cases in the billions that have fucked people over. Their behaviour has landed millions of people in the shit in the first place, but sure, let's blame the housing market instead of those who allowed the likes of Angelo Mozilo to go out and sell fucked up loans to people in the first place. But yeah, let's blame those who took a chance and got hammered by a failing economy.

Ok, so provide a job for every single person on the planet at a 20% the average wage. If you want people with qualifications, skills and expertise that are valuable, stump up for an exceptionally high standard of education, get your society sorted out and offer real gold at the end of that rainbow. The gold ain't there and people are seriously starting to notice. If you're going to expect people to educate themselves (i.e. pay for it) then I suggest business starts putting its money where it's mouth is and stops relying on govt programmes to produce suitable candidates. But no, they expect it to be the way tht they expect it to be and with as little expenditure invested as possible.

mashman

1st June 2013, 12:47

So, swapping one system in which the majority of the power lies with just a few for another. Yeh, no thanks on that shit.

What power do that few have? they're judges, they're not setting the rules, they're just dealing out judgement based on a case that will have been put before them ion exactly the same way as happens at the moment. The difference being that currently society will throw a cannabis user in jail and let a fraudster serve home detention. Not so in "mine". The cannabis user will be ignored and the fraudster will get thrown in jail for a long time hopefully, after all they've had everything given to them on a plate and still felt the need to fuck people over.

Laws will not make the rule of society, morals will. Perhaps the "judges" will be the members of your community, those who know you best.

Here's a list of some of the benefits. Would living under a dictator who offered your society these benefits really be so bad?

Free top quality Healthcare
Free top quality Education
The eradication of poverty
A HUGE drop in crime
Equity
Sensible Laws
Fewer Laws
Almost recession proof
No need for prostitution
Teens not getting pregnant to get a house
Green technologies would become affordable
Infrastructure would become affordable
Shorter working days
Less working days
More personal time
No reliance on insurance companies
No need to rely on a pension
Less environmental pressure
Safer communities
Doing things because they need to be done
You can be what you want
No manufacturing costs
No export costs
Higher building standards
Top notch sports facilities
The highest standard of living in the world
A free workforce
The ability to respond to natural disaster without waiting for insurance companies
KNOWledge shared, not silo'd for profit protection
Open competition
Unhindered innovation
No mortgages
No rent

bogan

1st June 2013, 12:48

It generally follows that trend, although every now and again there will be skyrocketing exchange rates, followed by inevitable crash before steadying itself out again. There was such a crash a couple of months ago when BTC went up to $US266, before steadily plummeting back down to the current values.

Once the values increase, that generally stops people from selling coins, until the market reaches a certain point where people dump their coins en masse which forces prices down. It's not much different from the general share markets in that respect where supply and demand is what forces prices to change.

Yeh, I'm not a fan of sharemarkets for the artificial manipulations to the value of things. And this seems even worse as it's completely artificial, there is no inherent value in a BTC, what is to stop everyone just going fuck this, its getting too hard to mine them, sell what we have, thus further devaluing it below the cost of mining them.

bogan

1st June 2013, 12:58

What power do that few have? they're judges, they're not setting the rules, they're just dealing out judgement based on a case that will have been put before them ion exactly the same way as happens at the moment. The difference being that currently society will throw a cannabis user in jail and let a fraudster serve home detention. Not so in "mine". The cannabis user will be ignored and the fraudster will get thrown in jail for a long time hopefully, after all they've had everything given to them on a plate and still felt the need to fuck people over.

Laws will not make the rule of society, morals will. Perhaps the "judges" will be the members of your community, those who know you best.

Here's a list of some of the benefits. Would living under a dictator who offered your society these benefits really be so bad?

Free top quality Healthcare
Free top quality Education
The eradication of poverty
A HUGE drop in crime
Equity
Sensible Laws
Fewer Laws
Almost recession proof
No need for prostitution
Teens not getting pregnant to get a house
Green technologies would become affordable
Infrastructure would become affordable
Shorter working days
Less working days
More personal time
No reliance on insurance companies
No need to rely on a pension
Less environmental pressure
Safer communities
Doing things because they need to be done
You can be what you want
No manufacturing costs
No export costs
Higher building standards
Top notch sports facilities
The highest standard of living in the world
A free workforce
The ability to respond to natural disaster without waiting for insurance companies
KNOWledge shared, not silo'd for profit protection
Open competition
Unhindered innovation
No mortgages
No rent

Judges, morals, it all comes back to someone or some few at the top calling the shots. If they were randomly selected from the community it has a vastly higher rate of succeeding, but only if there is clear guidelines for how the judging needs to work, relying on the differing morals of a community member to create a consistent system of judgment is not going to work.

So, I'm just going to highlight on of those points under the yay for dictators list; 'a free workforce' if the workforce is having their jobs dictated to them they are not free, in fact that is simply a slave workforce.

mashman

1st June 2013, 13:46

Judges, morals, it all comes back to someone or some few at the top calling the shots. If they were randomly selected from the community it has a vastly higher rate of succeeding, but only if there is clear guidelines for how the judging needs to work, relying on the differing morals of a community member to create a consistent system of judgment is not going to work.

So, I'm just going to highlight on of those points under the yay for dictators list; 'a free workforce' if the workforce is having their jobs dictated to them they are not free, in fact that is simply a slave workforce.

It does come back to someone, but preferably a few at the top calling the shots... but those people will be "experts" in their fields, so won't be calling the shots over everything (unlike today's moneymen). Randomly selected people from the community, yup, I'm good with that and in regards to the differing morals, there should be some form of simple criteria... along the lines of, did they endanger anyone else, was what they did detrimental to the community, did they cause real harm (not just offending someone) to an individual, measures that are relatively moral free. Consistent justice is going to be a nightmare, but with any luck people would be reasonable enough that sentencing could be for the crime that was committed as the community can take the character of the person etc... into consideration. Not flawless or perfect, but probably the best we could expect?

We currently work in some shit jobs for shit pay leaving us in shit conditions, so this comes back to are you prepared to do X for your community. Tis part of the reason I mentioned that we'd have more than 1 person to any job. That offers the potential to roster/rotate the workforce around jobs, potentially doing 1 two hour day in the sewer, 1 four hour day on the bins, 5 days off. Who knows, but as more and more people become available due to the measured jobs cull, more and more options can open up to share the shit jobs across the community.

As an example, I'm a computer programmer. My job will be culled. The reason being that there are too many programmers in the country and the majority are working on similar software for different company's. Part of the country job restructure is the standardisation of development languages, or at least the creation of a set of business system interfaces that will allow ALL of our systems to communicate. What do I do? 1 three hour day tending the veggie gardens in the two streets in my area with 10 other people. 1 four hour day on the bins with 4 other people. 1 six hour day walking the farmers fields picking weeds (instead of spraying chemicals) with 50 other people, 1 six hour day transporting food/seed/fertilizer to wherever it needs to go (2 hours) all by myself, 1 hour doing the school bus run and 3 hours squirting oil on the joints of the de-dagging machine with the mechanic laughing at me whilst reading his porn mag. 3 days off. All this time I am also available to provide support for the country's applications should I be needed. As my life plows on, I perform a raft of different jobs and at some point I suddenly have a calling to be a Dr. I train for 7 years and pass well. I now work 3 six hour days as a Dr, the 1 day walking the fields coz I like it and the 1 day doing the veggies or bins as cover, or just because I can and feel like it. Blah blah blah blah blah...