Occupy Dunedin? [Archive] - Page 2

Oscar

28th November 2011, 09:03

I wouldn't last as a politician. My hypocrisy will only go so far... not so career politicians, or those who are only in it because it was on their bucket list it would seem.

That tells me that they are sheep funnily enough. We don't wanna sell the assets, but we'll vote for them anyway. Genius. That or the vote was rigged :corn:

Heh, true, the minor parties will likely have to bend their principles to have their good ideas heard... heaven forbid the nats would implement a policy because it makes sense and not expect some form of "payment" in return for doing the party a favour :blink:. That's one of the bigger reasons I detest these dickheads and their way of doing things. It never ceases to amaze me that they sell the people down the river in one way, so that they can have "their" policy implemented because it supposedly benefits us in a different way. I won't vote for that shite. Baaaaaaaaa.

I'm sure JK sees it that way. Hang on a minute are you :shit: ........ so much for working together for the sake of the country eh...

Your hypocrisy may not go that far, but your stupidity and arrogance more than make ‎up for that. And for someone who craps on about the “99%” you seem to have fuck ‎all respect for democracy. ‎Did you actually vote?

As for the smaller parties having to bend their principles to get their idea heard, so ‎what? You’d be the first to complain if you thought a small party was getting ‎preferential treatment for policies that you opposed. ‎

Berries

28th November 2011, 11:22

Looks like they have had enough in Invercargill now, maybe we can have the Octagon back soon too.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/6047332/Protesters-pack-up

mashman

28th November 2011, 11:22

Pot kettle black, meh :bleh:
Do I have no respect for democracy? What draws you to that conclusion? Don't I always vote? :whistle: (do you have a point?)

:facepalm: Is that what I would do? I fail to see your point, again. Preferential treatment is a way of life n'est pas?... especially if more of the good ideas are coming from one area. Why would I complain about that? Would I sell my principles just to have one of my policies implemented, that would kinda depend on the policy and what I'd have to vote for in return. I object to the fact that I'd have to do something in return where the policy I put forwards would be of benefit to the people that had put me in parliament in the first place. If the policy is "sound" and can't get in on its own merit, without having to "curry favour", then there's something wrong. So no, I don't agree that party's should have to bend their principles to get their ideas heard. Is that so hard for you to comprehend?

It's not a fuckin game! although it would seem that the drama queens find it an acceptable way for a government to behave.

mashman

28th November 2011, 11:23

Looks like they have had enough in Invercargill now, maybe we can have the Octagon back soon too.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/6047332/Protesters-pack-up

ahhhhhh... couldn't last forever eh.

BoristheBiter

28th November 2011, 11:24

Oscar

28th November 2011, 11:25

mashman

28th November 2011, 11:33

Did you vote?

Can you read?

Oscar

28th November 2011, 13:06

Can you read?

I certainly can.
So having established that you vote (assuming that your smillie use was not ironic), did you vote for a party that doesn't do deals and accomodations under MMP? I'd be interested if their was one.

mashman

28th November 2011, 13:13

I certainly can.
So having established that you vote (assuming that your smillie use was not ironic), did you vote for a party that doesn't do deals and accomodations under MMP? I'd be interested if their was one.

I voted not to vote.

Oscar

28th November 2011, 13:30

I voted not to vote.

So you're a sheep with no clue?

mashman

28th November 2011, 13:50

So you're a sheep with no clue?

Not how I see it... but certainly a classification I'd parrot.

imdying

28th November 2011, 14:00

Personally I think there is some validity in their protests. That banks can make Billions of Dollars profit, but that young families can't afford a house/mortgage is just one of themHere's the thing though... there are plenty of young families in New Zealand that can afford a house/mortgage.

mashman

28th November 2011, 14:52

Here's the thing though... there are plenty of young families in New Zealand that can afford a house/mortgage.

and there are plenty who can't, even though they work 8 hours per day 5 days a week, and much longer in other cases. Hardly seems right really, does it?

imdying

28th November 2011, 15:09

and there are plenty who can't, even though they work 8 hours per day 5 days a week, and much longer in other cases. Hardly seems right really, does it?That there are those that can't and those that can? That seems right to me. Those people are called renters. Some people even choose that for themselves, so presumably being a long term renter isn't the end of the world. Maybe the problem is affordable mortgages, but the rampant desire New Zealanders have to be saddled by one?

mashman

28th November 2011, 15:15

That there are those that can't and those that can? That seems right to me. Those people are called renters. Some people even choose that for themselves, so presumably being a long term renter isn't the end of the world. Maybe the problem is affordable mortgages, but the rampant desire New Zealanders have to be saddled by one?

Fair enough. Can't/can, want/don't want, but I think you're onto it with affordable mortgages... for those who would like to own their own place (as odd as it may seem to ya). Aye, it's probably western attitude, tis certainly a UK mantra.

Oscar

28th November 2011, 15:25

and there are plenty who can't, even though they work 8 hours per day 5 days a week, and much longer in other cases. Hardly seems right really, does it?

There are also those who hold shares in banks, either individually or through superannuation funds, who rely on dividends to get by.
Would you reduce their income to allow cheaper loans?

mashman

28th November 2011, 16:44

There are also those who hold shares in banks, either individually or through superannuation funds, who rely on dividends to get by.
Would you reduce their income to allow cheaper loans?

Why can't you have both?

Oscar

29th November 2011, 07:31

Why can't you have both?

No reason, but it would probably require some sort of Govt. g'tee or tax payers input.

mashman

29th November 2011, 09:06

No reason, but it would probably require some sort of Govt. g'tee or tax payers input.

Would the new borrowing generate more $$$ to return to those who hold shares? After all the loan will probably be sold on? so why would taxpayers need to pay more?

Oscar

29th November 2011, 09:12

Would the new borrowing generate more $$$ to return to those who hold shares? After all the loan will probably be sold on? so why would taxpayers need to pay more?

Assuming that you're advocating making it easier for people who can't currently afford a mortgage or don't qualify in terms of equity, then some sort of Govt. g'tee or input will be required. The fact is that it's cheaper to borrow housing finance than it has been for several generations, so the interest cost is unlikely to be the limiting factor. It is also worth remembering that the 2008 global financial meltdwon was started by US mortgage lenders dabbling in low/no equity housing finance.

mashman

29th November 2011, 09:21

Assuming that you're advocating making it easier for people who can't currently afford a mortgage or don't qualify in terms of equity, then some sort of Govt. g'tee or input will be required. The fact is that it's cheaper to borrow housing finance than it has been for several generations, so the interest cost is unlikely to be the limiting factor. It is also worth remembering that the 2008 global financial meltdwon was started by US mortgage lenders dabbling in low/no equity housing finance.

Bloody money :innocent:. :rofl:@dabbling, that's one way to put it... didn't the Fed pretty much offer a free for all with almost 0% interest rates? ahhh self regulation :whistle:

Oscar

29th November 2011, 09:29

Bloody money :innocent:. :rofl:@dabbling, that's one way to put it... didn't the Fed pretty much offer a free for all with almost 0% interest rates? ahhh self regulation :whistle:

No.
It was the securitisation of mortgages (where dodgy ones were included with good ones) which relied on mortgage insurers like AIG which caused the problem.

oneofsix

29th November 2011, 09:43

No.
It was the securitisation of mortgages (where dodgy ones were included with good ones) which relied on mortgage insurers like AIG which caused the problem.

I didn't think they even included the good mortgages, they just watered down the risk by spreading it across multiple mortgages

mashman

29th November 2011, 11:25

No.
It was the securitisation of mortgages (where dodgy ones were included with good ones) which relied on mortgage insurers like AIG which caused the problem.

first linky off the googley thing (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/13/60minutes/main3257567.shtml)... I've seen it mentioned several times over in various analysissssss'ss's'... interesting article though. Fascinating man if somewhat naive (tui?). AIG et al just took advantage of what was available, something we all do and always have... hence the tui?

Oscar

29th November 2011, 11:36

first linky off the googley thing (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/13/60minutes/main3257567.shtml)... I've seen it mentioned several times over in various analysissssss'ss's'... interesting article though. Fascinating man if somewhat naive (tui?). AIG et al just took advantage of what was available, something we all do and always have... hence the tui?

Low rates are one thing (and we are living in a very low rate enviroment currently), but subprime mortgages are something else entirely.
Essentially, mortgage insurers like AIG took away the need for lenders to be cautious and were fooled into thinking that if the risky loans were spread across the market via securitisation things would be OK.

Actually, I'm not sure what AIG was thinking to get so exposed to subprime lending:facepalm:

The bottom line is that lending to people on the margins (either in terms of equity and/or income) is inherently risky, low rates or not.

mashman

29th November 2011, 16:03

Low rates are one thing (and we are living in a very low rate enviroment currently), but subprime mortgages are something else entirely.
Essentially, mortgage insurers like AIG took away the need for lenders to be cautious and were fooled into thinking that if the risky loans were spread across the market via securitisation things would be OK.

Actually, I'm not sure what AIG was thinking to get so exposed to subprime lending :facepalm:

The bottom line is that lending to people on the margins (either in terms of equity and/or income) is inherently risky, low rates or not.

Low rates are everything though aren't they? Doesn't everyone try to find the best rates, to then pass on to someone else at a slightly higher rate, rinse and repeat? As you say, securitisation (I looked it up) only goes so far in terms of mitigating risk, especially when you end up with the same debt in a different form and don't know it... which I assume happened more than they thought would?

The thing that cracks me up, and this is somewhat simplified, is that the sources lends at lowish rates, rinsing and repeating as the money flows through the system, until some group somewhere decides that borrowing is getting out of control (low interest rates for a prolonged period of time, who'da thought that would happen :facepalm:), so they bump interest rates in an attempt to reign in borrowing (lending rates do affect mortgage rates). The bumping of the interest rate exposes the areas of "boom", and by default those who have borrowed when it was just affordable, be it subprime/stock market etc..., so they keep on pushing until it pops (I highly doubt that there is magical point of financial "equilibrium"). For me that's a huge irony, the irony being that those doing the initial lending are also the ones responsible for the control of setting interest rates (I know there are other factors such as bond value at any given point in time) and therefore they are also responsible for the recession. Blaming it on the point of failure on those who could once afford their debt, before interest rate rises, is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to deflect the responsibility on to borrowers who could once afford their debt. Wrong?

They probably believed that the good times were gonna roll forever.

mashman

29th November 2011, 16:24

Good on 'em... (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/12158037/defiant-occupy-protestors-remain-in-octagon/)... if public opinion is remains divided, I'm assuming 99 : 1 :shifty: (either way I care not, but secretly :blink: do), that can only be a good thing too. Maybe the folk doon soof ain't all dopey Scots throwbacks after all.

jazfender

2nd December 2011, 06:45

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy?newsfeed=true

An interesting comment and worth the read.

mashman

2nd December 2011, 07:45

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/25/shocking-truth-about-crackdown-occupy?newsfeed=true

An interesting comment and worth the read.

Couple the above with this (http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being) and it doesn't paint a pretty picture in any way, shape or form... I'd hate to be a US citizen at the moment. Good luck to them over there.

oneofsix

2nd December 2011, 08:00

oldrider

2nd December 2011, 08:22

and like the frog sitting in the pot on the stove asking "what do you mean by it is getting hotter" there will still be those amongst us asking "what have I lost". the reply "Oh nothing important, just a little freedom here, a little right there, and a tiny bit of information over there, so nothing really" until you put it together. Home Land Security was always going to be monster for the USA, too KGB like not to be.

Ahh, the old frog in the pot theory! .... Yep, that describes majority New Zealand to a tee!

The answers are there plain to see but unfortunately the moral majority can't see the wood for the trees!

Like most of the "free world" we still believe without question that "we" are still the good guys and "they" (the other side) are the bad guys!

The 1% are the guys holding the strings of both the good puppets and the bad puppets and the 1% is always at the top of the pyramid! :mellow:

avgas

2nd December 2011, 08:56

I wonder if we would consider them (occupy protesters) differently if they had inspirational speakers like Mario Savio or MLK?

BoristheBiter

2nd December 2011, 08:59

I wonder if we would consider them (occupy protesters) differently if they had inspirational speakers like Mario Savio or MLK?

Ummmmm.........NO

mashman

2nd December 2011, 09:30

I wonder if we would consider them (occupy protesters) differently if they had inspirational speakers like Mario Savio or MLK?

I think that's the whole point, imho, and the whole reason Occupy communicate the way they do. I've been wondering if anyone would post it, but they haven't, which is kinda disappointing in ways, so I'll let the cat out of the bag... obviously this is my perspective, but I see no other reason for the way Occupy have conducted themselves. Looking at it from the perspective of "What are they trying to achieve", "Why have they made no demands", "Why do they not have a leader" and variations of, all questions that have been posted here along with scathing remarks (thanks to those posters, you make my day), without any thought it would seem. They see chaos in the lack of structure, lack of direction, zero leadership etc... I see intelligence, and I have absolutely NO doubt at all that the 1% understand why Occupy have done things the way they have. Hence the response towards Occupy in the US.

So, from my perspective, and letting the cat out of the bag... the whole Occupy thing is not about railing against the 1% etc..., not strictly, it's about presenting an awareness of the 1% and their games for people to think about. I know, radical eh. They are not trying to tell people what to do or how to think. I know some will find that concept hard to get their heads around, kinda goes hand in hand with the whole thinking about it thing. Unfortunately, well kinda, I doubt many of Occupy understand that themselves, they are there to protest against the 1% first and foremost, but they have followed "the rules"... a collective of people with varying needs, wants and desires, but every single issue they highlight shows the 1%ers game for what it is.

Therefore, they don't need speakers. Word of mouth and a little bit of thought is good enough. We know that there's corruption that we will never find out about. How do you stop it when those in power make laws to protect themselves? How do you highlight the "invisible" corruption when those in power aren't accountable to anyone, and they know it? You can't, so go on, tin foil hat me and I shall ask for your address so that I can send you a bucket of sand... whilst laughing at you and laughing hard :yes:.

So there it is, answers to those all important questions of what the fuck are they doing and why aren't they doing it the same way protesters have been doing for years. Ever wonder why Occupy stand by the slogan that you can't evict an idea? Tis because the idea becomes yours because you haven't been spoon fed it, you have thought about it in the cold light of day.

I'm sure some will see that as an arrogant and idiotic view :shifty:. If that's the case, prove me wrong, or type out a shit load of drivel in opposition so that I can laugh at you... go on, you know you want to.

So, I'll leave this post with some truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9RiqYC3lrA

mashman

3rd December 2011, 18:48

this could get interesting (http://occupywallst.org/article/occupy-wall-street-goes-home/)... fuckin good on 'em

oldrider

3rd December 2011, 19:08

this could get interesting (http://occupywallst.org/article/occupy-wall-street-goes-home/)... fuckin good on 'em

Still a case of "A" and "B" fighting .... for the benefit of "C" where "C" = the 1%! :facepalm:

C did not get where they are by being careless or stupid and they are well prepared for "every" attack on their rice bowl! :corn:

mashman

3rd December 2011, 19:26

Still a case of "A" and "B" fighting .... for the benefit of "C" where "C" = the 1%! :facepalm:

C did not get where they are by being careless or stupid and they are well prepared for "every" attack on their rice bowl! :corn:

I care not, given that people will take their houses back. Guess we'll see what happens should the 1% decide that they're not allowed to do that. As posted earlier, this'll show the game for what it is if they "retaliate". But I take you point. Hopefully B will figure it out at some point.

I agree... but how far will B go to defend C? given that A are currently peaceful.

oldrider

3rd December 2011, 19:42

I care not, given that people will take their houses back. Guess we'll see what happens should the 1% decide that they're not allowed to do that. As posted earlier, this'll show the game for what it is if they "retaliate". But I take you point. Hopefully B will figure it out at some point.

I agree... but how far will B go to defend C? given that A are currently peaceful.

Create a need, exploit the greed .... loyalty? .... he who pays the piper calls the tune and "C" is the great conductor of the symphony of life!

When A and B are lulled into total confusion and mistrust they will be at each others throats, that is the creative role of the media!

The occupiers have just begun, C (the 1%) on the other hand has a world of experience in these matters, it is what they do and have done it since time began! :shifty:

mashman

3rd December 2011, 20:10

Create a need, exploit the greed .... loyalty? .... he who pays the piper calls the tune and "C" is the great conductor of the symphony of life!

When A and B are lulled into total confusion and mistrust they will be at each others throats, that is the creative role of the media!

The occupiers have just begun, C (the 1%) on the other hand has a world of experience in these matters, it is what they do and have done it since time began! :shifty:

I completely agree. Although the creation of the need is excused as commerce. Without it you can have no economic growth, so is it really loyalty? Or is it just consumerism fulfilling its accepted function? We call it success... some people get rich, some suffer and some sit down with cigars and brandy and pat each other on the back for a job well done, and as you say, the beat goes on.

The thing is I don't see A as being confused anymore. B will do as they're told, because that is their role, but that can't last forever... eventually B will question what they're being told and the media will facilitate that... if they stay true to form.

Aye they've got experience managing the tempo... but A aren't playing to any tempo are they? they are quite unpredictable... hence the shutting them down. If this goes the distance, C will have never faced numbers like this... What would happen if B is overwhelmed by A, or B decides not to defend C any more?

oldrider

3rd December 2011, 20:38

I completely agree. Although the creation of the need is excused as commerce. Without it you can have no economic growth, so is it really loyalty? Or is it just consumerism fulfilling its accepted function? We call it success... some people get rich, some suffer and some sit down with cigars and brandy and pat each other on the back for a job well done, and as you say, the beat goes on.

The thing is I don't see A as being confused anymore. B will do as they're told, because that is their role, but that can't last forever... eventually B will question what they're being told and the media will facilitate that... if they stay true to form.

Aye they've got experience managing the tempo... but A aren't playing to any tempo are they? they are quite unpredictable... hence the shutting them down. If this goes the distance, C will have never faced numbers like this... What would happen if B is overwhelmed by A, or B decides not to defend C any more?

Clear cut really, A and B have to cosy up and kick C into oblivion!

A have begun the process, B are still a little reticent, they know something is going down but the media are well into their business of creating confusion and doubt!

The people that you refer to in your first paragraph above are not the enemy, except that they will do C's bidding without question because they have done well out of the system as it is! :yes: (I.E. John Key for instance)

Winston001

3rd December 2011, 20:54

... but A aren't playing to any tempo are they? they are quite unpredictable... hence the shutting them down. If this goes the distance, C will have never faced numbers like this... What would happen if B is overwhelmed by A, or B decides not to defend C any more?

This describes the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution.

The French were successful but the Russians are still struggling generations after October 1917.

The odds of a true revolution in the USA are nil. Too many ordinary people own guns and will not allow activists to destroy their jobs and their lives.

That must sound quixotic given the activists have the ordinary man at their heart but economic and social upheaval threatens everyone. It won't happen.

mashman

3rd December 2011, 21:00

Clear cut really, A and B have to cosy up and kick C into oblivion!

A have begun the process, B are still a little reticent, they know something is going down but the media are well into their business of creating confusion and doubt!

The people that you refer to in your first paragraph above are not the enemy, except that they will do C's bidding without question because they have done well out of the system as it is! :yes: (I.E. John Key for instance)

Fingers crossed eh.

I'm hoping that Occupy will get ex-B's on the front line, which should? mitigate media interference... it's not what ya know eh?

I understand that they are A and B just living their lives the best they can, given the "circumstances". As for JK (et al?), I'm still 50/50 on that, trust eh...

mashman

3rd December 2011, 21:10

This describes the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution.

The French were successful but the Russians are still struggling generations after October 1917.

The odds of a true revolution in the USA are nil. Too many ordinary people own guns and will not allow activists to destroy their jobs and their lives.

That must sound quixotic given the activists have the ordinary man at their heart but economic and social upheaval threatens everyone. It won't happen.

Where they violent exchanges? I don't read I'm afraid.

What do you mean by true revolution?

I understand that it "can't" happen in the US, not without violent revolution (I hope I'm wrong on both counts)... and getting rid of the 1% is like getting rid of a drug dealer, as there's always others to take their place. Time for a change, and a biggun. Think globally, act locally :laugh:, I'd love to :yes:

BoristheBiter

4th December 2011, 12:21

Where they violent exchanges? I don't read I'm afraid.

What do you mean by true revolution?

I understand that it "can't" happen in the US, not without violent revolution (I hope I'm wrong on both counts)... and getting rid of the 1% is like getting rid of a drug dealer, as there's always others to take their place. Time for a change, and a biggun. Think globally, act locally :laugh:, I'd love to :yes:

That's because the whole world owes money to them.
Think globally?......... I think the world is fucked, too many have one hand out, the other in the pot, while crying they don't get enough for free.

mashman

4th December 2011, 13:34

That's because the whole world owes money to them.
Think globally?......... I think the world is fucked, too many have one hand out, the other in the pot, while crying they don't get enough for free.

So do it all for free Thinking Locally, which will stop the crying and hands in multiple pots issue, and if that works, what do you think would happen Globally? Less fucked world going in a more positive direction?

BoristheBiter

4th December 2011, 13:41

So do it all for free Thinking Locally, which will stop the crying and hands in multiple pots issue, and if that works, what do you think would happen Globally? Less fucked world going in a more positive direction?

You really no nothing about human nature do you?

mashman

4th December 2011, 14:05

You really no nothing about human nature do you?

What makes you say that? I'm more than happy with my views on human nature. Humans react to situations. The majority aren't threatening or a threat unless they perceive a threat. I'd say if that was true of the majority, then 99% of the people on the planet aren't threats... which would mean that you know nothing about human nature :bleh:

oldrider

4th December 2011, 22:22

comment on world financial crisis: http://blog.imva.info/world-affairs/system-failure

Don't shoot the messenger, read or read not ... your choice! :corn:

mashman

5th December 2011, 00:53

something along the same lines:

"Jacques Delors, former president of the European Commission , suggested "a fault in execution" meant the present crisis in the eurozone was inevitable." (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/jacques-delors-says-eurozone-flawed-050841344.html;_ylt=AoFgq6yByPeKudozADWK1pa_fMl_;_ ylu=X3oDMTUxYmx0MGF1BGNjb2RlA2N0LmMEbWl0A01vc3RQb3 B1bGFyIEZQIE1peGVkIExpc3QEcGtnAzg5NzhjZDk3LTU2NjIt Mzc0My1iM2VlLWIxNGQ1MmZmYjMyZARwb3MDNgRzZWMDTWVkaW FCTGlzdE1peGVkTW9zdFBvcHVsYXJDQQR2ZXIDNjU4M2E0ZTAt MWRjMy0xMWUxLTliZGYtY2M3MDhlZjBkOTBi;_ylg=X3oDMTFv ZzY4MG5jBGludGwDZ2IEbGFuZwNlbi1nYgRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdG NhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3) Open door for the NWO?

I'll say it again. Free the local NZ economy and we could save millions if not billions of lives. If I sound irrational/mad/insane, I care not, but we do have a choice.

oldrider

5th December 2011, 08:20

All of this is made worse by the fact that it is so preventable! :doh:

BoristheBiter

5th December 2011, 08:57

All of this is made worse by the fact that it is so preventable! :doh:

Yep, kill all hippies.

jazfender

5th December 2011, 13:49

Yep, kill all hippies.

Man I don't get you bleaters. Getting angry at people for drawing attention to societal issues completely misses the point. All the protest represents is an idea and a feeling. Obviously quite a strong feeling based on the worldwide response and the amount of time and effort they are putting into it.

Are you scared of what the idea represents? Cos I can't think of another reason for your hostility towards peaceful protesters.

Fuck I'll bet you haven't even been directly affected by any of the protest camping.

oneofsix

5th December 2011, 13:52

Man I don't get you bleaters. Getting angry at people for drawing attention to societal issues completely misses the point. All the protest represents is an idea and a feeling. Obviously quite a strong feeling based on the worldwide response and the amount of time and effort they are putting into it.

Are you scared of what the idea represents? Cos I can't think of another reason for your hostility towards peaceful protesters.

Fuck I'll bet you haven't even been directly affected by any of the protest camping.

Suspect you've summed it up Jazfender. The protest haters represent those that the protest is about. Otherwise what is wrong with paly fair, paly nice, unless you are on of those benefiting from the dirty play.

mashman

5th December 2011, 13:54

Yep, kill all hippies.

Whereas eating the rich frees up much more capital than killing the hippies

oneofsix

5th December 2011, 14:04

Whereas eating the rich frees up much more capital than killing the hippies

more lean meat too

BoristheBiter

5th December 2011, 14:12

Whereas eating the rich frees up much more capital than killing the hippies

Mate I would be too tough from working, you need to try a nice plump hippy. All that lazing around eating vege's, smoking dope, nice and tender and a smoky taste

oneofsix

5th December 2011, 14:13

Mate I would be too tough from working, you need to try a nice plump hippy. All that lazing around eating vege's, smoking dope, nice and tender and a smoky taste

There is your mistake. You will be nice lean muscle meat whereas the hippie would be contaminated fat.

BoristheBiter

5th December 2011, 14:13

Suspect you've summed it up Jazfender. The protest haters represent those that the protest is about. Otherwise what is wrong with paly fair, paly nice, unless you are on of those benefiting from the dirty play.

Fuck I wish in the 1% then i wouldn't have to work 6 days a week.

BoristheBiter

5th December 2011, 14:14

There is your mistake. You will be nice lean muscle meat whereas the hippie would be contaminated fat.

You haven't seen me then i take it.

oneofsix

5th December 2011, 14:18

You haven't seen me then i take it.

Yeah saw from your other post

Fuck I wish in the 1% then i wouldn't have to work 6 days a week

You are no good, want those tasty 1% that can afford the private gym and personal trainer to build that juicy lean muscle.

BoristheBiter

5th December 2011, 14:22

Yeah saw from your other post

You are no good, want those tasty 1% that can afford the private gym and personal trainer to build that juicy lean muscle.

But if you look at what we eat, cows, sheep, pigs. Look at other carnivores they only eat herbivorous, so it must stand to reason we should only eat vegetarians.

mashman

5th December 2011, 20:01

Mate I would be too tough from working, you need to try a nice plump hippy. All that lazing around eating vege's, smoking dope, nice and tender and a smoky taste

S'ok, I don't mind eating jerky :shifty:

mashman

6th December 2011, 10:11

Police include Occupy movement on ‘terror’ list (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/police-include-occupy-movement-on-%E2%80%98terror%E2%80%99-list.html) ...

oneofsix

6th December 2011, 10:20

Police include Occupy movement on ‘terror’ list (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/police-include-occupy-movement-on-%E2%80%98terror%E2%80%99-list.html) ...

Bloody terrorists, imagine them having the cheek to say stuff like "[We] work with the community" they obviously don't understand the full meaning of the word community. "We’ve seen crime linked to protests in recent weeks" of course he has, what else do you call confidence tricksters getting people to take over large mortgages, bursting the balloon and then reprocessing peoples homes?
Oops I think I've reversed the roles from the article :devil2:

mashman

6th December 2011, 10:26

Oscar

6th December 2011, 10:32

Police include Occupy movement on ‘terror’ list (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/police-include-occupy-movement-on-%E2%80%98terror%E2%80%99-list.html) ...

That's the UK movement - how is it relevant to NZ?

bogan

6th December 2011, 10:34

Man I don't get you bleaters. Getting angry at people for drawing attention to societal issues completely misses the point. All the protest represents is an idea and a feeling. Obviously quite a strong feeling based on the worldwide response and the amount of time and effort they are putting into it.

Are you scared of what the idea represents? Cos I can't think of another reason for your hostility towards peaceful protesters.

Fuck I'll bet you haven't even been directly affected by any of the protest camping.

Depends on what they are protesting though, a lot of what I have seen come through the media machine is just some filthy hippies pissed off that people who work have more money than them. Obviously the start of the movement was due to the special treatment the 1% get, making it harder for the 99% to cross the gap with hard work alone; but the protestors are not reinforcing that fact, or maybe it is the media focusing on the filthy hippies instead.

oneofsix

6th December 2011, 10:37

That's the UK movement - how is it relevant to NZ?

wait, it's coming. :wait:

Same drivers involved in both sides. Think world economy.

Funny how now the iron curtain comos have folded and the bamboo comos are now seen as a great trade opportunity and saviour to the blotted capitalism it seems the money have turned to pick on their own citizens.
also
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/6092128/Widening-gap-between-rich-and-poor

Oscar

6th December 2011, 10:49

wait, it's coming. :wait:

Same drivers involved in both sides. Think world economy.

Funny how now the iron curtain comos have folded and the bamboo comos are now seen as a great trade opportunity and saviour to the blotted capitalism it seems the money have turned to pick on their own citizens.
also
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/6092128/Widening-gap-between-rich-and-poor

I was referring to the people involved.
If the UK cops put the Occupy London people on the terror list, how is that relevant to Dunedin?
Is it networked?

oneofsix

6th December 2011, 10:55

I was referring to the people involved.
If the UK cops put the Occupy London people on the terror list, how is that relevant to Dunedin?
Is it networked?

You don't think that our authorities wouldn't talk to those on which they are based? But even if they didn't, and I don't think this low level protest would be discussed at that level, they will be observing. Migth pay not to think in terms of the police force :Police: as such, more in terms of those they answer to.

BoristheBiter

6th December 2011, 11:12

Bloody terrorists, imagine them having the cheek to say stuff like "[We] work with the community" they obviously don't understand the full meaning of the word community. "We’ve seen crime linked to protests in recent weeks" of course he has, what else do you call confidence tricksters getting people to take over large mortgages, bursting the balloon and then reprocessing peoples homes?
Oops I think I've reversed the roles from the article :devil2:

Let me see, the police work with the community, I am part of the community, so therefore they seem to be doing the right thing, so no problem here.

As for the mortgages, when you borrow you are told what the repayments will be, if you can't budget why is that the fault of the bank?

jazfender

6th December 2011, 11:12

Depends on what they are protesting though, a lot of what I have seen come through the media machine is just some filthy hippies pissed off that people who work have more money than them. Obviously the start of the movement was due to the special treatment the 1% get, making it harder for the 99% to cross the gap with hard work alone; but the protestors are not reinforcing that fact, or maybe it is the media focusing on the filthy hippies instead.

An idea or movement starts as a general feeling of dissatisfaction with the status quo, which is what the media honed in on first. As it has been mentioned before, it takes awhile for a feeling to be refined. There are thousands of people with this feeling, each with their own opinions and thoughts and solutions to the problem (much like KB).

This delay is not good enough for Rupert Murdoch though and doesn't sell papers so they choose to fixate on whatever they can - in this case the lack of a common goal for the protest and the general appearance or "type" of people protesting.

Whether or not you choose to believe the media's interpretation of the movement is up to you but remember what sells and what doesn't.

mashman

6th December 2011, 12:11

I was referring to the people involved.
If the UK cops put the Occupy London people on the terror list, how is that relevant to Dunedin?
Is it networked?

It refers to the Occupy movement. The keyword is Occupy, not Dunedin.
It's not an If, because they have been added to the terror list.
Yes. It's a global movement.

jazfender

7th December 2011, 06:22

Ocean1

7th December 2011, 06:58

For those that think New Zealand is not a part of the global feeling of economic injustice:

"The gap between rich and poor has widened further in New Zealand - and in Sweden - than in any other developed countries in the past 25 years."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10771388

That's yet another hint to those that didn't choose to work towards a good career.

Not surprising it's going over their head, though, all the advice at school didn't sink in.

oneofsix

7th December 2011, 07:06

That's yet another hint to those that didn't choose to work towards a good career.

Not surprising it's going over their head, though, all the advice at school didn't sink in.

:rofl: good career. Bit hard to do when the goal posts keep changing. No this is pure greed nothing to do with good career. It's not your engineers, professors and inventor types that are the 1% here. Wake up and smell the shit before its shoved down your throat. When the Russian communist system collapsed capitalism was doomed and these Occupy protests are just one of the death knells.

jazfender

7th December 2011, 07:58

That's yet another hint to those that didn't choose to work towards a good career.

Not surprising it's going over their head, though, all the advice at school didn't sink in.

Look, those that are defending the 1% based on their own success or experience need to take a step back and acknowledge that circumstances leading to where they are now are unique to them.

More often than not, getting a good job is who you know, where you are at any given time, the state of the economy where you are, the opportunities available, the education you have access to, the number of other people going for the job, the hours you are available, your household situation and a whole bunch of other factors. These are highly variable between two people and especially between two from different backgrounds, communities, lifestyles.

I agree that getting a good job or career is the product of hard work, but that is not the only thing and think of the millions of people working in slavery conditions in sweatshops. You would not say that they are not doing all they can in order to "advance their career".

The 1% may get a good position from working hard but you have to consider that they are skipping a whole lot of the other problems that cause people to miss out purely by being in the privileged position they are.

Ocean1

7th December 2011, 08:01

It's not your engineers, professors and inventor types that are the 1% here.

Is it not?

Go on, then, who are they?

mashman

7th December 2011, 08:03

That's yet another hint to those that didn't choose to work towards a good career.

Not surprising it's going over their head, though, all the advice at school didn't sink in.

As mentioned in another thread. One person has one job. There aren't enough jobs to go around. Those who come out school educated and want to work are going to try to find jobs. To that end, where all of the jobs are already filled, either someone has to leave a job before the lolly scramble for that position starts, or someone needs to create a job (entrepreneur etc...) which probably takes business from someone else and potentially puts more out of work, they'll maybe take any shit because they just need money, or they'll go on the dole. It's like a full car park, but without a queuing system. 1 in 1 out... So I disagree that it's because school didn't sink in, or that they're lazy etc... yes there are elements of people not wanting to work, but tarring them all with the same brush is poor.

Ocean1

7th December 2011, 08:09

Look, those that are defending the 1% based on their own success or experience need to take a step back and acknowledge that circumstances leading to where they are now are unique to them.

More often than not, getting a good job is who you know, where you are at any given time, the state of the economy where you are, the opportunities available, the education you have access to, the number of other people going for the job, the hours you are available, your household situation and a whole bunch of other factors. These are highly variable between two people and especially between two from different backgrounds, communities, lifestyles.

I agree that getting a good job or career is the product of hard work, but that is not the only thing and think of the millions of people working in slavery conditions in sweatshops. You would not say that they are not doing all they can in order to "advance their career".

The 1% may get a good position from working hard but you have to consider that they are skipping a whole lot of the other problems that cause people to miss out purely by being in the privileged position they are.

Third world labour rates do affect me. They make comodity prices much lower than they would be if I had to pay the sort of prices we did here in the 70's when it cost over a year's income to buy a Vauxhaul Chevett.

They would also affect me directly, if I was a labourer. And yes it was my unending good fortune to have fallen completely unaided into a profession where that's not the case.

So when I found myself needing a job some years ago I knocked on doors untill I found a business prepared to let me work for free. It took me two weeks to show them they could afford to keep me there on full commercial rates. The backpaid me the two weeks.

Privilege, forsooth.

Scuba_Steve

7th December 2011, 08:37

That's yet another hint to those that didn't choose to work towards a good career.

Not surprising it's going over their head, though, all the advice at school didn't sink in.

yea fucking morons who wanted to become doctors, cops, teachers, vets, nurses, engineers, truckies & other useful people in society. Idiots should have all become useless greedy money grabbing corrupt 1%ers :facepalm:

Winston001

7th December 2011, 11:03

yea fucking morons who wanted to become doctors, cops, teachers, vets, nurses, engineers, truckies & other useful people in society. Idiots should have all become useless greedy money grabbing corrupt 1%ers :facepalm:

I'm genuinely puzzled about this 1% in New Zealand terms. So far as I can tell we don't have a lot of extremely wealthy people - but perhaps I'm naive or blind.

But assuming they exist, does it really matter? We all die eventually and personal wealth gets distributed among families who forget how hard it was to get in the first place...and spend it.

Anyway, my experience is that wealthy people look very ordinary and you'd never know about them. The ones I've dealt with are not in professional occupations: instead they have a knack, a personal ability to succeed where 99 of us would not. And sometimes their fortune has come from pure dumb luck - but they have understood how to retain it when the luck ends.

Oscar

7th December 2011, 11:08

I'm genuinely puzzled about this 1% in New Zealand terms. So far as I can tell we don't have a lot of extremely wealthy people - but perhaps I'm naive or blind.

But assuming they exist, does it really matter? We all die eventually and personal wealth gets distributed among families who forget how hard it was to get in the first place...and spend it.

Anyway, my experience is that wealthy people look very ordinary and you'd never know about them. The ones I've dealt with are not in professional occupations: instead they have a knack, a personal ability to succeed where 99 of us would not. And sometimes their fortune has come from pure dumb luck - but they have understood how to retain it when the luck ends.

I agree.
The top 1% in NZ aren't going to be Bankers or Sharebrokers, and those occupations don't suffer from the excesses of Wall Street anyway.
There is a propesity amongst the 99% crowd to automatically accept and transfer the propaganda from New York to a NZ context. Very naive.

mashman

7th December 2011, 11:23

I agree.
The top 1% in NZ aren't going to be Bankers or Sharebrokers, and those occupations don't suffer from the excesses of Wall Street anyway.
There is a propesity amongst the 99% crowd to automatically accept and transfer the propaganda from New York to a NZ context. Very naive.

:killingme gold! cheers Oscar

Oscar

7th December 2011, 11:32

:killingme gold! cheers Oscar

So you know who the top 1% are in NZ?
Care to enlighten us?

mashman

7th December 2011, 11:37

So you know who the top 1% are in NZ?
Care to enlighten us?

That's not why I'm laughing. But please, don't break with your tradition of putting words into my mouth (there's a hint)... the alternative doesn't bare thinking about.

BoristheBiter

7th December 2011, 11:40

That's not why I'm laughing. But please, don't break with your tradition of putting words into my mouth (there's a hint)... the alternative doesn't bare thinking about.

As long as it's only words.:sick:

mashman

7th December 2011, 11:42

As long as it's only words.:sick:

get out, OUT, never darken my door again you sick twisted puppy

BoristheBiter

7th December 2011, 11:44

get out, OUT, never darken my door again you sick twisted puppy

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::r ofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Oscar

7th December 2011, 11:50

That's not why I'm laughing. But please, don't break with your tradition of putting words into my mouth (there's a hint)... the alternative doesn't bare thinking about.

I'd rather not dwell on what other people put in your mouth, but if you want to use my words, go right ahead - yours have never made much sense.

mashman

7th December 2011, 11:54

I'd rather not dwell on what other people put in your mouth, but if you want to use my words, go right ahead - yours have never made much sense.

I can't get my tongue around your words...

BoristheBiter

7th December 2011, 11:58

I can't get my tongue around your words...

Words, first time I've heard it called that before.:innocent:

mashman

7th December 2011, 12:09

Words, first time I've heard it called that before.:innocent:

some people have tattoos of their mothers name in some funny pla :shit:

jazfender

7th December 2011, 12:17

So you know who the top 1% are in NZ?
Care to enlighten us?

This information is not difficult to find. Here's an article for you and the Forbes top 40 richest people in Australia and New Zealand, as a snapshot:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5989843/Revealing-the-gap-between-NZs-rich-and-poor

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/78/Rank_1.html

Also here's more from the NBR Rich List 2011:

http://www.therichest.org/nation/nbr-rich-list-2011/

oldrider

7th December 2011, 12:32

Oscar

7th December 2011, 12:35

99% aggrieved with someone (1%) to blame? .... Recipe for disaster. :facepalm:

It's obvious that the "99%" are nowhere near that percentage of the population.

mashman

7th December 2011, 13:11

This "occupy" thing is not going to go away anytime soon, as fast as world economies deteriorate, "occupy" will grow! :yes:

Confusion, discontent, loss of respect for authority, collective and individual hopelessness will encourage Civil disorder and evolve into chaos! :wacko:

99% aggrieved with someone (1%) to blame? .... Recipe for disaster. :facepalm:

History has shown us many times the peasants are most revolting when they are revolting .... it will not be pretty! :oi-grr:

IMHO a bigger threat than nuclear war. :mellow:

It's just nature's way it seems! :thud:

I hope that's the case.

It may also encourage the really smart 1% to redefine their business models and be the captains of industry that they for all of is and not just those that can afford it?

Only if you believe the hype. The 1% are just folk, their motives however... and if they will embrace a "different way", there'll be no disaster. Here's hoping.

I hope you're wrong. (but I'm far from convinced that any of my hopes will be read as sense)

True.

:rofl:... aye, we're helpless.

mashman

7th December 2011, 15:59

this made me a tad angry (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JAkUB7jRb2c)... fuckin mindless order following!

scumdog

7th December 2011, 16:32

this made me a tad angry (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JAkUB7jRb2c)... fuckin mindless order following!

Boh-ring, didn't see jack-shit, it's a nothing...

Makes me wonder how it was rated 218 'likes' and 80 'dislikes'!

Bikemad

7th December 2011, 17:07

FJRider

7th December 2011, 17:14

having been in Dunedin recently while on the Burt ..............i am surprised anyone would want to occupy the place........$8.50 - $9 for a pint at the Captain Cook and the same at bars in the octagon..........

I dont think they frequent those places ... they just sit around smoking , and singing songs ... :innocent:

Berries

7th December 2011, 18:39

Winston001

7th December 2011, 21:43

this made me a tad angry (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JAkUB7jRb2c)... fuckin mindless order following!

I'm actually sympathetic to the Occupy protesters (being a frustrated hippie from the 70s) but to be honest, this video was a beatup. Clever drama by the young woman but not exactly in the league of the pepper-spray incident. That was wrong.

Mind you, a policeman pepper-sprayed some guys doing a haka in Utah. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byIdYkfm0w4

Oh well, it was Utah...and the officer apologised.

mashman

7th December 2011, 21:55

I'm actually sympathetic to the Occupy protesters (being a frustrated hippie from the 70s) but to be honest, this video was a beatup. Clever drama by the young woman but not exactly in the league of the pepper-spray incident. That was wrong.

Mind you, a policeman pepper-sprayed some guys doing a haka in Utah. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byIdYkfm0w4

Oh well, it was Utah...and the officer apologised.

I'd say that calling it a beat up is a bit strong. Granted they didn't leave her naked, but was there really any reason for "manhandling" her the way they did? Why didn't they just arrest her? True in regards to the pepper-spray... but still an overreaction from a group of people who are trained to handle simple situations such as that. That's what makes me mad... the lack of thought from the boys in blue and I can only assume a large dollop of prejudice towards Occupy. Unfair maybe, but it's certainly the perception it left me with. Perhaps expecting a brain under that stupid hat is too much to ask for.

Yeah I remember seeing that :facepalm:... Again, a bit of a brain might have helped. I can understand the "panic" I suppose.

Winston001

7th December 2011, 21:59

This information is not difficult to find. Here's an article for you and the Forbes top 40 richest people in Australia and New Zealand, as a snapshot:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5989843/Revealing-the-gap-between-NZs-rich-and-poor

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/78/Rank_1.html

Also here's more from the NBR Rich List 2011:

http://www.therichest.org/nation/nbr-rich-list-2011/

Yeah I know but those are purile envy lists and of no value to a considered discussion. 40 people are insignificant in terms of national wealth for both countries.

The data from NZ statistics recently quoted on Stuff said that the top 1% held 16.4% of total wealth. That means 99% of the population hold 85.5% of the remaining wealth which certainly isn't balanced, but hardly reason to fetch the guillotines.

Frankly I don't care if there are a few uber wealthy so long as most people get a fair suck of the sav. And after doing aid work in India, I'd say we are all very fortunate. She's a pretty good place and no doubt about it.

Oscar

8th December 2011, 08:57

Yeah I know but those are purile envy lists and of no value to a considered discussion. 40 people are insignificant in terms of national wealth for both countries.

The data from NZ statistics recently quoted on Stuff said that the top 1% held 16.4% of total wealth. That means 99% of the population hold 85.5% of the remaining wealth which certainly isn't balanced, but hardly reason to fetch the guillotines.

Frankly I don't care if there are a few uber wealthy so long as most people get a fair suck of the sav. And after doing aid work in India, I'd say we are all very fortunate. She's a pretty good place and no doubt about it.

When you consider how much of the population is under 18, 99% of the population holding 85.5% of the wealth is OK.

jazfender

8th December 2011, 09:11

Yeah I know but those are purile envy lists and of no value to a considered discussion. 40 people are insignificant in terms of national wealth for both countries.

The data from NZ statistics recently quoted on Stuff said that the top 1% held 16.4% of total wealth. That means 99% of the population hold 85.5% of the remaining wealth which certainly isn't balanced, but hardly reason to fetch the guillotines.

Frankly I don't care if there are a few uber wealthy so long as most people get a fair suck of the sav. And after doing aid work in India, I'd say we are all very fortunate. She's a pretty good place and no doubt about it.

That same Stuff article says:

"The richest 1 per cent of the population owns three times more than the combined cash and assets of the poorest 50 per cent."

"But the gap between rich and poor still ranked ninth worst in the developed world in 2008."

You say as long as "most people get a fair suck of the sav", so who are those that you don't think should?

RDJ

8th December 2011, 10:49

Equality of opportunity can never guarantee equality of outcome

and

Inequality of outcome is no confiemation of inquality of opportunity

so

If we want equality of outcome, we need communism; and look at how well that worked out everywhere it has been tried...

Private enterprise based capitalism with appropriate regulation is the least worst system...

but YMMV

mashman

8th December 2011, 10:53

If we want equality of outcome, we need communism; and look at how well that worked out everywhere it has been tried...

What's your definition of equality of outcome?

RDJ

8th December 2011, 11:10

What's your definition of equality of outcome?

isn't my definition - it's what the Occupy mob are demanding we provide....

as someone else said on another site:

Since you can't force the "average" to be "superior", or the "inferior" to be "average", the only way to rectify inequality is to make everyone "inferior".

There are only two ways to eliminate "class warfare" - eliminate classes or eliminate the warfare. Eliminating classes is far easier politically.

This is "fairness" - it's inefficient, unproductive, pessimistic and self-defeating, but it's "fair", and it sometimes gets votes.

Personally, I'll take efficiency, productivity, optimism and success, and worry later about "fairness".

mashman

8th December 2011, 11:37

isn't my definition - it's what the Occupy mob are demanding we provide....

as someone else said on another site:

Since you can't force the "average" to be "superior", or the "inferior" to be "average", the only way to rectify inequality is to make everyone "inferior".

There are only two ways to eliminate "class warfare" - eliminate classes or eliminate the warfare. Eliminating classes is far easier politically.

This is "fairness" - it's inefficient, unproductive, pessimistic and self-defeating, but it's "fair", and it sometimes gets votes.

Personally, I'll take efficiency, productivity, optimism and success, and worry later about "fairness".

Is that what they're demanding? Seems our ideas of what they're demanding are different... heh, go figure.

You can't for the "superior" to be superior either. Seems like a silly way to look at it, but each to their own.

I'll add a 3rd way to eliminate class warfare. Take money out of the equation. After all, that's what splits the classes?

That's not "fairness" in my book, but I guess we all have our own ideas about what's fair. Although I'd argue that "fairness" in those terms being inefficient, unproductive, pessimistic and self-defeating is exactly what we have at the moment.

I'd argue that 8 hours a day is 8 hours a day and if you work those 8 hours to the best of your ability you should receive exactly the same amount of reparation as anyone else working 8 hours a day to the best of their ability. Those who believe different are up themselves and have chips on their shoulders that could break they toes should they fall off. All I hear is, but but but they've earned it... where the morons haven't. Piss poor in my book and inefficient, unproductive, pessimistic and self-defeating given what we are. Seems like such a waste that everyone with what it takes can't get to a position where they can prove that they've got what it takes, because those positions are already filled.

Did communism use money?

RDJ

8th December 2011, 12:28

I'd argue that 8 hours a day is 8 hours a day and if you work those 8 hours to the best of your ability you should receive exactly the same amount of reparation as anyone else working 8 hours a day to the best of their ability. <-> Did communism use money?

Senior Communist Party Members are certainly Richer Than All Their Tribe (hat tip to Mr Monsarrat) - the evidence is easy to find.

If everyone gets paid the same for 8 hours of the best of their ability, then their best will regress to a low norm - the evidence is all around to see.

We'll agree to disagree!

mashman

8th December 2011, 12:34

Senior Communist Party Members are certainly Richer Than All Their Tribe (hat tip to Mr Monsarrat) - the evidence is easy to find.

If everyone gets paid the same for 8 hours of the best of their ability, then their best will regress to a low norm - the evidence is all around to see.

We'll agree to disagree!

I'm not surprised communism failed then.

Why will their best regress? And where is the evidence?

We're probably going to have to.

Oscar

8th December 2011, 12:36

Is that what they're demanding? Seems our ideas of what they're demanding are different... heh, go figure.

You can't for the "superior" to be superior either. Seems like a silly way to look at it, but each to their own.

I'll add a 3rd way to eliminate class warfare. Take money out of the equation. After all, that's what splits the classes?

That's not "fairness" in my book, but I guess we all have our own ideas about what's fair. Although I'd argue that "fairness" in those terms being inefficient, unproductive, pessimistic and self-defeating is exactly what we have at the moment.

I'd argue that 8 hours a day is 8 hours a day and if you work those 8 hours to the best of your ability you should receive exactly the same amount of reparation as anyone else working 8 hours a day to the best of their ability. Those who believe different are up themselves and have chips on their shoulders that could break they toes should they fall off. All I hear is, but but but they've earned it... where the morons haven't. Piss poor in my book and inefficient, unproductive, pessimistic and self-defeating given what we are. Seems like such a waste that everyone with what it takes can't get to a position where they can prove that they've got what it takes, because those positions are already filled.

Did communism use money?

So tell me Comrade, if everyone is rewarded the same, where is the motivation to become better trained?
To work in dangerous or unpleasant jobs?

Winston001

8th December 2011, 12:41

You say as long as "most people get a fair suck of the sav", so who are those that you don't think should?

LOL guess I asked for that.

Who shouldn't? Clearly "young Polynesian, young Maori men in South Auckland, on the dole sitting in front of TV, smoking marijuana, watching pornography and planning more drug offending, more burglaries..." in the opinion of one politician. :D

Ok, I simply used the word "most" because no society is completely fair no matter how hard we try. There will always be a few who do not fit in or reject help when offered. I don't have any sociological data at hand so will take a punt that at any one time 5% will be in the outliers. Mental illness, personality disorders, criminal intentions, anti-social pathologies.

mashman

8th December 2011, 12:41

So tell me Comrade, if everyone is rewarded the same, where is the motivation to become better trained?
To work in dangerous or unpleasant jobs?

Plenty of jobs don't require training, yet plenty of people do them. I self train because those I've worked for refuse to see the value in training. Good job one of us did.

People work in dangerous and unpleasant jobs already with next to no reward in comparison to "lesser" jobs. Perhaps you malign human beings too much.

Oscar

8th December 2011, 12:47

Plenty of jobs don't require training, yet plenty of people do them. I self train because those I've worked for refuse to see the value in training. Good job one of us did.

People work in dangerous and unpleasant jobs already with next to no reward in comparison to "lesser" jobs. Perhaps you malign human beings too much.

I don't recall maligning anyone but you lately.
And I note that yet again you haven't actually answered the question.
Why aren't people who have trained or work in unpleasant jobs entitled to be paid more?

RDJ

8th December 2011, 12:51

I'm not surprised communism failed then.

Why will their best regress? And where is the evidence? *

We're probably going to have to.

* disclosure: I lived and worked in Russia for 4 years. Common Russian wry saying: "they pretended to pay us, so we pretended to work".

For a more philosophical exposition of the corollary that follows when everybody gets the same reward for an arbitrarily defined the same amount of work, may I refer you to the online document entitled "The Tragedy Of The Commons"...

mashman

8th December 2011, 12:53

I don't recall maligning anyone but you lately.
And I note that yet again you haven't actually answered the question.
Why aren't people who have trained or work in unpleasant jobs entitled to be paid more?

You believe that people need financial motivation and are incapable of training or bothering to "improve" their skill set unless money is involved.

That wasn't the question you asked... and I did answer it.

mashman

8th December 2011, 12:59

Scuba_Steve

8th December 2011, 13:11

Winston001

8th December 2011, 16:38

Here is a site which describes in graphs the core issues underlying the Occupy movement.

http://visual.ly/vizbox/inequality-in-america/#graphcontainer-3

The CEO of Capital One Financial earned above US$244,431,600.00 .

I've said previously that the complete disconnect between senior managers wages and average workers wages is irrational. Frankly I'm surprised it has taken so long for protest to arise....and what's worse, many average people think the Occupy people are pinko commies when in fact they are trying to help the average wage earner.

mashman

8th December 2011, 22:21

In case you haven't heard, President Obama wants the wealthiest to pay more in taxes. (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-billionaires-millionaires-pay-more-101300187.html)

mashman

8th December 2011, 22:58

* disclosure: I lived and worked in Russia for 4 years. Common Russian wry saying: "they pretended to pay us, so we pretended to work".

For a more philosophical exposition of the corollary that follows when everybody gets the same reward for an arbitrarily defined the same amount of work, may I refer you to the online document entitled "The Tragedy Of The Commons"...

Would taking the $$$ out of the situation go anyway to addressing the grievances of the workforce? as Scube_Steve mentioned above. I think it would too.

What about for the good of the country and not the individual? which is really where I'm coming from. Having said that, does private industry look after the land/The Commons? Do the issues being raised across the globe not prescribe to the Tragedy of The Commons philosophy? for 1, Climate Change, Kyoto and the big boys refusing to cut emissions as it would adversely affect their economies... irrespective of the knock on effects to the rest of the world. We need to do things smarter, as an example recently discussed with a friend, we have had 5 iphones in the last 4 years... other than a complete waste of resources what has that given to society? A phone that does 1 thing better than the last one. Perhaps if we had been doing things with resource wastage in mind (and without budget constraint), we'd have gone from the iphone 1 to the equivalent of the iphone 10 in the same 4 years. That goes for just about every product and as not everyone can make an iphone, or build a lawnmower or a laptop or a TV or a car or or or etc... wouldn't we be making better use of our collective resources than the private sector? and as we can't all make these items, the chance that The Tragedy of The Commons would happen in our very near future would be drastically reduced by more prudent use of the resources (buying us more time)? Perhaps we would have designed the phone to be upgradable too etc... all things that aren't explored because someone is out to make a $, irrespective of 1 more cow tipping the balance.

there are better ways of doing things. Most of the shit, sorry, I mean stuff, heh, we have these days is unnecessary, but because it makes money (there is no other reason), it's a valid use of resource. We've moved on since The Tragedy of The Commons was penned and whilst I agree that there is the potential for danger with people having equal access to everything, the resources in the hands of a few, seems to be doing a worse job of managing them imho. Anyhoo, perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned reparation, not reward, as there should be neither.

BoristheBiter

9th December 2011, 07:33

Would taking the $$$ out of the situation go anyway to addressing the grievances of the workforce? as Scube_Steve mentioned above. I think it would too.

What about for the good of the country and not the individual? which is really where I'm coming from. Having said that, does private industry look after the land/The Commons? Do the issues being raised across the globe not prescribe to the Tragedy of The Commons philosophy? for 1, Climate Change, Kyoto and the big boys refusing to cut emissions as it would adversely affect their economies... irrespective of the knock on effects to the rest of the world. We need to do things smarter, as an example recently discussed with a friend, we have had 5 iphones in the last 4 years... other than a complete waste of resources what has that given to society? A phone that does 1 thing better than the last one. Perhaps if we had been doing things with resource wastage in mind (and without budget constraint), we'd have gone from the iphone 1 to the equivalent of the iphone 10 in the same 4 years. That goes for just about every product and as not everyone can make an iphone, or build a lawnmower or a laptop or a TV or a car or or or etc... wouldn't we be making better use of our collective resources than the private sector? and as we can't all make these items, the chance that The Tragedy of The Commons would happen in our very near future would be drastically reduced by more prudent use of the resources (buying us more time)? Perhaps we would have designed the phone to be upgradable too etc... all things that aren't explored because someone is out to make a $, irrespective of 1 more cow tipping the balance.

there are better ways of doing things. Most of the shit, sorry, I mean stuff, heh, we have these days is unnecessary, but because it makes money (there is no other reason), it's a valid use of resource. We've moved on since The Tragedy of The Commons was penned and whilst I agree that there is the potential for danger with people having equal access to everything, the resources in the hands of a few, seems to be doing a worse job of managing them imho. Anyhoo, perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned reparation, not reward, as there should be neither.

Like I said you know nothing of human nature.

mashman

9th December 2011, 07:51

Like I said you know nothing of human nature.

Whilst that is a statement of fact, I see nothing to back it up... have you gone all Oscar on me?

avgas

9th December 2011, 08:22

it should be noted too that with money not being the motivating factor, people will tend to do work they enjoy rather than doing work that brings the $$$ & because of this, tend to obviously not only have a better/happier life but also tend to do a better job, as it's something they enjoy/are passionate about not just "something to pay the bills" or to keep a "lifestyle".
Two ways street also though. While money is a motivator, it is also a need. Take the need away and people are more likely to tell their boss to get fucked more often.
I certainly wouldn't take the shit I take if money wasn't a factor.
There was a study that found while people are motivated by stuff....there is a borderline of where they will take all amounts of shit you can deal with them as you have satisfied their basic needs. Right now I need my current income.........so I work in a job I am not happy about, and I get crap I don't want.
I suspect I am not alone. So remove money - it would become musical jobs as no job is perfect.

Not to mention all the engineers, doctors etc who are only 80% (or less) enthusiastic about their job will become architects and gardeners.

avgas

9th December 2011, 08:28

Like I said you know nothing of human nature.
The more I am aware, the less I know.
There are the unknowing educated and the naive who know less.

Its the one thing my education has taught me to always be true. So if someone claims to you to be all knowing about a subject - chances are they are the naive.

A little joke that always made me giggle was:
"Little Johnny was plotting his running, he had time on the x, distance on the y......but the imaginary number plane went right over his head."

BoristheBiter

9th December 2011, 08:31

Whilst that is a statement of fact, I see nothing to back it up... have you gone all Oscar on me?

You think that people will do "whats good for the country".
You think that everyone will do the jobs we hate.
You think that people will do the high risk jobs for the same reward.
You think that people will put other people/family on the same level as their own.
These the things you have to have happen for your idea to even have the remote possibility to work.

when it comes down to it we are an animal species, we need food, shelter, security and the continuation of our genetic line.
And we will do anything to have that, even if that means being above someone else.

mashman

9th December 2011, 08:53

You think that people will do "whats good for the country".
You think that everyone will do the jobs we hate.
You think that people will do the high risk jobs for the same reward.
You think that people will put other people/family on the same level as their own.
These the things you have to have happen for your idea to even have the remote possibility to work.

when it comes down to it we are an animal species, we need food, shelter, security and the continuation of our genetic line.
And we will do anything to have that, even if that means being above someone else.

They will.

You think that everyone will do the jobs we hate. They already do and they aren't well paid.
You think that people will do the high risk jobs for the same reward. They already do and they earn much less than plenty of others who do less risky jobs.
You think that people will put other people/family on the same level as their own. We already do. The majority of us already do... Tis only the snobby idiots that don't... those who value $$$ over people. Luckily a minority.

All of these things already happen where the "rewards" aren't even remotely equitable.

Finally you make some sense... Why do we feel the need to be above someone else? Is that the majority?
And if we will do anything, as you say, then why won't we try my idea? :corn:

RDJ

9th December 2011, 09:00

In case you haven't heard, President Obama wants the wealthiest to pay more in taxes. (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-billionaires-millionaires-pay-more-101300187.html)

He (Obama who is in the 1%) and his superrich buddies Buffet and Pelosi and Kerry and Gore and so forth / ad nauseam can pay more taxes any time they want to, there is in fact even a box to tick on the Inland Revenue tax return form to give money to the US government. What is stopping them from doing so right now? (rhetorical question, we all know what's stopping them).

BoristheBiter

9th December 2011, 09:06

They will.

You think that everyone will do the jobs we hate. They already do and they aren't well paid.
You think that people will do the high risk jobs for the same reward. They already do and they earn much less than plenty of others who do less risky jobs.
You think that people will put other people/family on the same level as their own. We already do. The majority of us already do... Tis only the snobby idiots that don't... those who value $$$ over people. Luckily a minority.

All of these things already happen where the "rewards" aren't even remotely equitable.

Finally you make some sense... Why do we feel the need to be above someone else? Is that the majority?
And if we will do anything, as you say, then why won't we try my idea? :corn:

Hence my opinion that you know nothing of human nature.

If someone isn't rewarded for doing a shit, or high risk job do you really think that it will get done if they don't.

I wasn't putting a $ value on people i was putting a ranking on them.

Question: your mother and someone else's mother are in front of a firing squad. you can save only one. which one do you choose?

mashman

9th December 2011, 09:16

Hence my opinion that you know nothing of human nature.

If someone isn't rewarded for doing a shit, or high risk job do you really think that it will get done if they don't.

I wasn't putting a $ value on people i was putting a ranking on them.

Question: your mother and someone else's mother are in front of a firing squad. you can save only one. which one do you choose?

Yes, why wouldn't it get done? If someone is prepared to do it already, why wouldn't they continue to do it, just because they aren't getting paid?, nooooooo... and as a form of trade-off, they'll be eradicating poverty, drastically dropping the crime rate and making NZ "safer", removing NZ from the possibility of the bank driven financial meltdown and the associated civil unrest that obviously occurs as well as getting as much potential as possible from the upcoming generation. Not a good enough reason? Where do most accidents happen? In the home. Fucksake, may as well be doing something risky if that's the gauntlet you're going to run every time you step out of bed. Yes, I do think shit will get done.

Why are you ranking people? So that they can feel superior to someone else? see the afore mentioned snobby idiots snip.

Maybe I'd take the bullet. Question: what the fuck are your and my mother doing in front of a firing squad?

mashman

9th December 2011, 09:21

He (Obama who is in the 1%) and his superrich buddies Buffet and Pelosi and Kerry and Gore and so forth / ad nauseam can pay more taxes any time they want to, there is in fact even a box to tick on the Inland Revenue tax return form to give money to the US government. What is stopping them from doing so right now? (rhetorical question, we all know what's stopping them).

And yet Buffet seems to be wanting to do just that, but on a countrywide scale. I hope they do it as it will buy some time.

oldrider

9th December 2011, 09:23

They will.

You think that everyone will do the jobs we hate. They already do and they aren't well paid.
You think that people will do the high risk jobs for the same reward. They already do and they earn much less than plenty of others who do less risky jobs.
You think that people will put other people/family on the same level as their own. We already do. The majority of us already do... Tis only the snobby idiots that don't... those who value $$$ over people. Luckily a minority.

All of these things already happen where the "rewards" aren't even remotely equitable.

Finally you make some sense... Why do we feel the need to be above someone else? Is that the majority?
And if we will do anything, as you say, then why won't we try my idea? :corn:

if we will do anything, as you say, then why won't we try my idea? ....

You think you have found some potential customers but obviously you haven't found a "buyer" yet!

Producing something you can't sell is just part of the commercial equation .... if you continue in that mode eventually you will go broke! :yes:

mashman

9th December 2011, 09:27

if we will do anything, as you say, then why won't we try my idea? ....

You think you have found some potential customers but obviously you haven't found a "buyer" yet!

Producing something you can't sell is just part of the commercial equation .... if you continue in that mode eventually you will go broke! :yes:

Not sure I completely follow what you mean there J. Can I have the same thing please, but hold the cryptic.

Oscar

9th December 2011, 10:14

Whilst that is a statement of fact, I see nothing to back it up... have you gone all Oscar on me?

Yes, he's quite normal.

BoristheBiter

9th December 2011, 11:12

Yes, why wouldn't it get done? If someone is prepared to do it already, why wouldn't they continue to do it, just because they aren't getting paid?, nooooooo... and as a form of trade-off, they'll be eradicating poverty, drastically dropping the crime rate and making NZ "safer", removing NZ from the possibility of the bank driven financial meltdown and the associated civil unrest that obviously occurs as well as getting as much potential as possible from the upcoming generation. Not a good enough reason? Where do most accidents happen? In the home. Fucksake, may as well be doing something risky if that's the gauntlet you're going to run every time you step out of bed. Yes, I do think shit will get done.

Why are you ranking people? So that they can feel superior to someone else? see the afore mentioned snobby idiots snip.

Maybe I'd take the bullet. Question: what the fuck are your and my mother doing in front of a firing squad?

OK if you remove the incentive to work, why would you carry on doing it?
You make all jobs the same, so I stop picking up rubbish to become a doctor as i will be paid while i train. it will take me forever or never as I am just not that smart.
But that doesn't matter as I am still doing something. But no one is picking up rubbish so now we live in a place that's covered in rubbish.

You still haven't answered the question. Who would you choose in your "holier than though everyone is the same ideals"?

mashman

9th December 2011, 11:43

OK if you remove the incentive to work, why would you carry on doing it?
You make all jobs the same, so I stop picking up rubbish to become a doctor as i will be paid while i train. it will take me forever or never as I am just not that smart.
But that doesn't matter as I am still doing something. But no one is picking up rubbish so now we live in a place that's covered in rubbish.

You still haven't answered the question. Who would you choose in your "holier than though everyone is the same ideals"?

The incentive to work will have to be replaced with a moral obligation (that's about the only succinct way I can phrase it), or vocationally, most likely a combination of the two. If WE don't work, then the potential is for everything to fall apart (as there is with the financial system), only less likely because if I chose not to work, everyone else will probably carry on, whereas if money stops work, no-one will do anything according to you.

All jobs the same? Paid what?
How's about everyone is picking up rubbish, or even not dropping it in the first place? From the everyone picking it up perspective I mean, one night a year you will be required to sweep the streets. You need 364 people in any given area to accomplish that task. Maybe you'll only be required to do it every 3 years or 4, or once a lifetime, dunno... same would go for most perceived "shit" jobs, so you may spend a total of 1 week per year doing communal chores. If that's all it takes, yes I would do that in a heartbeat. Obviously you wouldn't, because you wouldn't want to, but then I wouldn't expect that of those who value others less than the condition of their precious nails and superiority complex.

I'll flip a coin, or I'll get the mothers to discuss it between themselves and when the firing squad fall asleep, i'll free them both.

BoristheBiter

9th December 2011, 19:10

The incentive to work will have to be replaced with a moral obligation (that's about the only succinct way I can phrase it), or vocationally, most likely a combination of the two. If WE don't work, then the potential is for everything to fall apart (as there is with the financial system), only less likely because if I chose not to work, everyone else will probably carry on, whereas if money stops work, no-one will do anything according to you.

All jobs the same? Paid what?
How's about everyone is picking up rubbish, or even not dropping it in the first place? From the everyone picking it up perspective I mean, one night a year you will be required to sweep the streets. You need 364 people in any given area to accomplish that task. Maybe you'll only be required to do it every 3 years or 4, or once a lifetime, dunno... same would go for most perceived "shit" jobs, so you may spend a total of 1 week per year doing communal chores. If that's all it takes, yes I would do that in a heartbeat. Obviously you wouldn't, because you wouldn't want to, but then I wouldn't expect that of those who value others less than the condition of their precious nails and superiority complex.

I'll flip a coin, or I'll get the mothers to discuss it between themselves and when the firing squad fall asleep, i'll free them both.

I give up.
You are either stupid as mud to think this would work, walking around with a rose tinted glassed view of human nature or just trolling, either way I'm done.

mashman

9th December 2011, 19:37

I give up.
You are either stupid as mud to think this would work, walking around with a rose tinted glassed view of human nature or just trolling, either way I'm done.

heh... odd that most of the people I have spoken with understand what I'm getting at. They are human beings and understand that it's nothing more than a state of mind. Same as living with money, it's a state of mind. Perhaps mine is more of a state than most :blink:, but I've learned to live with that. So thinking it wouldn't work based on the arguments you have put forwards doesn't convince me to give it up. If all you have is human nature won't allow it to happen and in the same breath say that human being will do anything, then you should clean the shit off your rose tinted specs and have a slightly different look at the world.

It turns out that if money isn't a consideration for people who have nothing to lose, then they will happily live there and do their bit... unfortunately the flip side is that those who have something to lose (money, assets, status, position etc...), well some of them, don't get the idea. Just a personal observation after chatting with different people from different backgrounds with different perspectives etc... of those who are well off, I've found that most of them have either already considered and accepted the idea, or can be "persuaded" very easily of the "concept", irrespective of wether they think it can be achieved or not, and would indeed live in that society for the benefits it offers. But hey, they must know jack shit too.

JimO

9th December 2011, 20:29

well the fuckwits occupying the Octagon are indeed enjoying the "benefits"

Berries

9th December 2011, 21:23

Who fancies a bit of drunken fun in the Octagon on New Years Eve?

I saved some fireworks.

Virago

9th December 2011, 22:23

Who fancies a bit of drunken fun in the Octagon on New Years Eve?

I saved some fireworks.

Fireworks and tents...?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hudnsbDbOJY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Winston001

9th December 2011, 22:46

heh... odd that most of the people I have spoken with understand what I'm getting at.

Yes, why wouldn't it get done? If someone is prepared to do it already, why wouldn't they continue to do it, just because they aren't getting paid?, nooooooo... and as a form of trade-off, they'll be eradicating poverty, drastically dropping the crime rate and making NZ "safer",

Why are you ranking people? So that they can feel superior to someone else? see the afore mentioned snobby idiots snip.

Good on you Mash for challenging the status quo. We need to ask and wonder if society could be better - that is how humans progress.

The problem is that what you want and describe is a hive culture. Ants, bees etc. They act together for the greater good and have hierarchies - low class individuals (workers) through to high class (soldiers, queens etc).

Very few creatures on this planet adopt the hive mind. Most are pure individuals with various levels of cooperation. Tigers are solo. Lions get together. Crocodiles do not form teams.

And.....humans fall somewhere to the right of the sociability index - we like to be with each other. Still, we are individuals and the primary drive is to serve your own interests first. Then your spouse and children. Everyone else can look after themselves.

You need to research human evolutionary psychology and understand the difference between us and hive cultures. I may also suggest you need to open your mind and think about the arguments put forward by other people. Not just dismiss them; do searches and reflect on the essential nature of what it is to be human.

Big Dave

9th December 2011, 22:54

All the Idealism and Pragmatism have in common is the ism.

mashman

9th December 2011, 23:46

Good on you Mash for challenging the status quo. We need to ask and wonder if society could be better - that is how humans progress.

The problem is that what you want and describe is a hive culture. Ants, bees etc. They act together for the greater good and have hierarchies - low class individuals (workers) through to high class (soldiers, queens etc).

Very few creatures on this planet adopt the hive mind. Most are pure individuals with various levels of cooperation. Tigers are solo. Lions get together. Crocodiles do not form teams.

And.....humans fall somewhere to the right of the sociability index - we like to be with each other. Still, we are individuals and the primary drive is to serve your own interests first. Then your spouse and children. Everyone else can look after themselves.

You need to research human evolutionary psychology and understand the difference between us and hive cultures. I may also suggest you need to open your mind and think about the arguments put forward by other people. Not just dismiss them; do searches and reflect on the essential nature of what it is to be human.

I'd love to ask the whole of NZ :yes:. We can do better, I have no doubt (or at least not many) and see progress as being hampered by the pursuit of money and also constrained by the use of money... which leads me to believe that we can do better.

I'm sorry that it appears as though I'm describing a hive culture. I FULLY understand how individual we are, which is the main reason I don't believe that equality is attainable, I'm not looking at "my" solution in terms of true equality. By default I would expect hierarchies to form as the "like" minded/skilled cross each others paths during their work day, as "gurus" (leaders/innovators/managers/"workers") identify themselves through action and people attach themselves to their presence to learn etc... (hopefully passing on the knowledge without the worry of IP and law suits) We need all levels of capability to be able to function... but our current mechanism for creating these hierarchies is financial, which really isn't beneficial in my eyes. It brings out the worst in us.

As you name and describe those creatures I can name people that I have met and know that fit those animal traits. Off the top of my head... whilst Tigers are predominantly solo, they can be in each others company for prolonged periods of time given a certain set of circumstances, like a zoo or circus. Poor argument perhaps, but animals can change and do change their behaviour given a particular set of circumstances don't they? I have no doubt that if it was in their best interests they'd rip each other to pieces, and I believe that they do this where territory in dispute? but either way, where beneficial they will work together? I dare say the same can be said for Crocs, Lions etc... given a set of circumstances they will probably change their predominant behaviour to ensure their survival.

As for us, I don't see us as reacting too differently to animals, sheep mainly (snigger)... but our capacity for being able to adapt to change is under rated imho. Take a look at the abilities of kids these days, picking up technology easier than their parents in many cases and accept the differences in other children as nothing more than that. Where do adults go so wrong? As individuals we probably do look after ourselves before others, wife, kids, friends etc... but that doesn't mean that there aren't those who don't put others first. Again I guess that's situational, amongst other things. Thing is though, not everyone can look after themselves can they? I don't for one and I'm sure caregivers/charity workers, amongst others, realise that too... but I do accept that there are people that don't feel the same way as me. I used to be one :yes:.

Hopefully I've illustrated that I understand the fundamental difference between us and hive culturs above... individuality. I'll try a question. How can a person accept another persons point of view, consider it, not agree with it and post an alternative (their belief perhaps) without being told that they are being dismissive or closed minded? (I'm learning all the time, changing my perspectives all the time, to the point where I hardly recognise myself these days, especially the last 3/4 years). You mean go and read research that has been undertaken by reputable scientists, then "debunked" by rfeputable scientists, only to be replaced by a new "scientific" understanding, to be scientifically "debunked" etc... The internet is full of confusion from that perspective. I have no doubt that we share traits that can be packaged up and labelled, but how do you explain people exclaiming, that was out of character? For me human nature is our unpredictability, the ability to do something that will surprise even ourselves... given a set of circumstances, we can do pretty much anything, but until we try we'll never know. Please reference some texts and I'll have a read.

Berries

10th December 2011, 00:08

Fireworks and tents...?
Sorry. It said Lord of the Rings. They should be burnt as well.

Oscar

10th December 2011, 10:25

I give up.
You are either stupid as mud to think this would work, walking around with a rose tinted glassed view of human nature or just trolling, either way I'm done.

Your first conclusion is correct.
He really is that stupid.

RDJ

10th December 2011, 10:28

All the Idealism and Pragmatism have in common is the ism.

And from a pragmatic point of view - why when someone goes to uni and / or professional 'school' for up to an additional 10 years after high school, knowingly incurring a mountain of personal loan debt and forgoing the opportunity to earn $ along the way, to get a doctorate in civil engineering or a commercial airline pilot's licence or a medical qualification, why would anyone expect they have not earned the right to collect a 6-figure salary.

Same rationale applies for someone who starts a business and succeeds after many years of long hours and high (financial) risk.

And how does this in any way deprive others who have not chosen the path of physical and skull sweat, of anything?

BoristheBiter

10th December 2011, 11:59

I'd love to ask the whole of NZ :yes:. We can do better, I have no doubt (or at least not many) and see progress as being hampered by the pursuit of money and also constrained by the use of money... which leads me to believe that we can do better.

I'm sorry that it appears as though I'm describing a hive culture. I FULLY understand how individual we are, which is the main reason I don't believe that equality is attainable, I'm not looking at "my" solution in terms of true equality. By default I would expect hierarchies to form as the "like" minded/skilled cross each others paths during their work day, as "gurus" (leaders/innovators/managers/"workers") identify themselves through action and people attach themselves to their presence to learn etc... (hopefully passing on the knowledge without the worry of IP and law suits) We need all levels of capability to be able to function... but our current mechanism for creating these hierarchies is financial, which really isn't beneficial in my eyes. It brings out the worst in us.

As you name and describe those creatures I can name people that I have met and know that fit those animal traits. Off the top of my head... whilst Tigers are predominantly solo, they can be in each others company for prolonged periods of time given a certain set of circumstances, like a zoo or circus. Poor argument perhaps, but animals can change and do change their behaviour given a particular set of circumstances don't they? I have no doubt that if it was in their best interests they'd rip each other to pieces, and I believe that they do this where territory in dispute? but either way, where beneficial they will work together? I dare say the same can be said for Crocs, Lions etc... given a set of circumstances they will probably change their predominant behaviour to ensure their survival.

As for us, I don't see us as reacting too differently to animals, sheep mainly (snigger)... but our capacity for being able to adapt to change is under rated imho. Take a look at the abilities of kids these days, picking up technology easier than their parents in many cases and accept the differences in other children as nothing more than that. Where do adults go so wrong? As individuals we probably do look after ourselves before others, wife, kids, friends etc... but that doesn't mean that there aren't those who don't put others first. Again I guess that's situational, amongst other things. Thing is though, not everyone can look after themselves can they? I don't for one and I'm sure caregivers/charity workers, amongst others, realise that too... but I do accept that there are people that don't feel the same way as me. I used to be one :yes:.

Hopefully I've illustrated that I understand the fundamental difference between us and hive culturs above... individuality. I'll try a question. How can a person accept another persons point of view, consider it, not agree with it and post an alternative (their belief perhaps) without being told that they are being dismissive or closed minded? (I'm learning all the time, changing my perspectives all the time, to the point where I hardly recognise myself these days, especially the last 3/4 years). You mean go and read research that has been undertaken by reputable scientists, then "debunked" by rfeputable scientists, only to be replaced by a new "scientific" understanding, to be scientifically "debunked" etc... The internet is full of confusion from that perspective. I have no doubt that we share traits that can be packaged up and labelled, but how do you explain people exclaiming, that was out of character? For me human nature is our unpredictability, the ability to do something that will surprise even ourselves... given a set of circumstances, we can do pretty much anything, but until we try we'll never know. Please reference some texts and I'll have a read.

:facepalm:so basically the status quo but with no money:facepalm:

RDJ

10th December 2011, 12:06

:facepalm:so basically the status quo but with no money:facepalm:

Yes, and with worse prospects, more defeatism, less optimism, and no reserves if natural or man-made disasters (continue to) happen.

What could possibly go wrong!

mashman

10th December 2011, 12:38

:facepalm:so basically the status quo but with no money:facepalm:

Perhaps I'm being too positive for ya :shifty:. To a large degree yes, absolutely... but what does not having money "buy" you that having money doesn't? with free education (10 years, no debt and you still get to be a doctor), free healthcare, free housing (perhaps we'll build/rebuild smarter i.e. Domes, communal solar panels (they do this in Germany currently :yes:), communal wind turbines), free research and development, free labor, free local resources etc... so no poverty, no budget constraint (build it once, build it right), free earthquake proofing, a drastic cut in bureaucracy (no need to "manage" costs) and potentially equity where inequality can exist without envy... amongst other benefits.

mashman

10th December 2011, 12:47

Yes, and with worse prospects, more defeatism, less optimism, and no reserves if natural or man-made disasters (continue to) happen.

What could possibly go wrong!

I'd say more prospects (after all you can still take your skills overseas if you want to live within the constraints of money, or travel etc...), why more defeatism?, more optimism (the world is your oyster, train in NZ for free, practice in NZ for free, go overseas if you wish, all but avoid the worlds financial bubbles, the sky will be the limit not the amount of money you have to spend etc...), more reserves than we have ever known so that disasters can be reacted to without having to wait on insurance companies selling assets to raise capital to pay off the their claimants and potentially with enough trained part-timers available, that you can keep the essential services ticking over whilst a fair sized portion of your workforce help out dealing with the disaster.

Not much if you're not subject to money needing to be in place before anything gets done. All of the local resources are available, much of the wait and logistics of disaster recovery are money related.

RDJ

10th December 2011, 12:50

Perhaps I'm being too positive for ya :shifty:. To a large degree yes, absolutely... but what does not having money "buy" you that having money doesn't? with free education (10 years, no debt and you still get to be a doctor), free healthcare, free housing (perhaps we'll build/rebuild smarter i.e. Domes, communal solar panels (they do this in Germany currently :yes:), communal wind turbines), free research and development, free labor, free local resources etc... so no poverty, no budget constraint (build it once, build it right), free earthquake proofing, a drastic cut in bureaucracy (no need to "manage" costs) and potentially equity where inequality can exist without envy... amongst other benefits.

Again, and with respect, there is no such thing as "free education, free healthcare and free housing". Those things may be free to you, but someone has to pay for them. Some people have to sit around doing the "evil capitalist" tango earning money and paying taxes so the government takes money in, so said money can be re-distributed (after Govt employees take their very substantial 'share') to fund the receipt by other people of the so-called "free education, free healthcare and free housing". If you have time, look up the meaning and origins of the acronym TANSTAAFL.

mashman

10th December 2011, 13:01

Again, and with respect, there is no such thing as "free education, free healthcare and free housing". Those things may be free to you, but someone has to pay for them. Some people have to sit around doing the "evil capitalist" tango earning money and paying taxes so the government takes money in, so said money can be re-distributed (after Govt employees take their very substantial 'share') to fund the receipt by other people of the so-called "free education, free healthcare and free housing". If you have time, look up the meaning and origins of the acronym TANSTAAFL.

Sorry, my context is in regards to a free NZ economy. heh@TANSTAAFL...

Big Dave

10th December 2011, 13:06

Survival of the fittest. The primal drive to secure the best mate and trappings and advance the species. What mashy wants to replace is that evolution from 2 Bucks banging antlers in a meadow.

Maybe it can be done without coin - but something else equally competitive will replace it. Inherent nature of the beast.

Look at the recent examples of 'flat' societies - absolute power becomes the currency and the despots rise to the top. Probably no different to capitalism in some ways, but at least more have a shot at it.

RDJ

10th December 2011, 13:15

Sorry, my context is in regards to a free NZ economy. heh@TANSTAAFL...

Fair enough! However, if an evil capitalist overseas pharmaceutical company (but I repeat myself :-) ) develops a new treatment that saves children, puppies and unicorns, but the free New Zealand economy doesn't have overseas exchange to buy it in, is that overall good or bad for the free New Zealanders? Just a thought - YMMV... and thanks for the discussion, it's always educational to have preconceptions challenged.

Big Dave

10th December 2011, 13:19

Yeah Mashy - re message - I agree - if we 'could' all go John Lennon on it - it would be grand. Problem is there are too many right fuckers in the world. :-)

mashman

10th December 2011, 13:43

Fair enough! However, if an evil capitalist overseas pharmaceutical company (but I repeat myself :-) ) develops a new treatment that saves children, puppies and unicorns, but the free New Zealand economy doesn't have overseas exchange to buy it in, is that overall good or bad for the free New Zealanders? Just a thought - YMMV... and thanks for the discussion, it's always educational to have preconceptions challenged.

Like Herceptin perhaps? Not every woman gets access to it because the NZ govt can't afford it (uber fuckin fail). I'm aware that a "free" NZ would have to operate in a financial economy... as you point out 1 of the things we'd need to buy is medicine, there's also fuel and no doubt a few other necessities... In regard to that I have an "idea". Part will be that we will still export and hopefully will be importing less and less cheap crap (on the premise that we've made it to a free NZ we still need to be financially wise) but those exports, even though there will be no financial overheads (no wages, feed costs, transport costs etc...), those exports may not be enough. So to top up the NZ communal bank (:rofl:, best description I have at the mo), Kiwibank, we would "hire" out trained members our free workforce to large companies (the 99% will be spitting, heh) that want to save costs and want to setup in NZ. An almost tax haven I guess, no need to be greedy about it, as long as it pays the bills and allows us to import useful "stuff".

That's just an idea... the flight of fancy being, IF our crime stats, poverty stats, education levels, healthcare levels, equity index measure (fooked if I know what you'd call it, happined index???), but if they all point to the "experiment" having been a marked success, if we have built the society with think globally act locally in mind... do you reckon any other countries would consider trying something similar? Could changing NZ change the world, cuckoo cuckoo :blink:.

mashman

10th December 2011, 13:48

Yeah Mashy - re message - I agree - if we 'could' all go John Lennon on it - it would be grand. Problem is there are too many right fuckers in the world. :-)

heh, enough with the succinct shit. Was that Right fuckers, or right fuckers :shifty:... apparently it would only need a majority :innocent:... I'd include kids 13+ in the "vote" too... or would that be classed as loading the dice?

Oscar

10th December 2011, 14:09

Yeah Mashy - re message - I agree - if we 'could' all go John Lennon on it - it would be grand. Problem is there are too many right fuckers in the world. :-)

You called?:innocent:

Big Dave

10th December 2011, 14:29

Denial is a river in Africa.

Ocean1

10th December 2011, 16:42

Like Herceptin perhaps? Not every woman gets access to it because the NZ govt can't afford it (uber fuckin fail).

You really, really have no idea about that.

Tell you what; do some reading for a change about the economic drivers behind pharmac's funding policy at the time. Get back to me when you understand how health funding is supposed to work and let me know what you've found. Then, perhaps I'll take some notice of your similes, eh?

mashman

10th December 2011, 17:19

You really, really have no idea about that.

Tell you what; do some reading for a change about the economic drivers behind pharmac's funding policy at the time. Get back to me when you understand how health funding is supposed to work and let me know what you've found. Then, perhaps I'll take some notice of your similes, eh?

I remember the stories of women who were being denied the treatment on the basis of cost.

I am three years behind the times... National where as good as their word and implemented a guarantee for everyone to receive the 12 months course... fuckin good on 'em...

I am eating the humble pie, thanks for settin me right.

RDJ

10th December 2011, 17:47

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.-- G. Gordon Liddy

Ocean1

10th December 2011, 21:51

I remember the stories of women who were being denied the treatment on the basis of cost.

I am three years behind the times... National where as good as their word and implemented a guarantee for everyone to receive the 12 months course... fuckin good on 'em...

I am eating the humble pie, thanks for settin me right.

The policy... you reading this, at least? was based on a protocol that, (amongst other things) assumes there's a limit to funding resources and that you want to make that budget work as hard for you as possible. So you start with a list of procedures, interventions, drugs etc that figure in the supply of a health service and you order the lists so that the best "bang for your buck" items are at the top.

You supply the items starting from the top, you keep spending until you run out of money. Existing, traditional use of Herceptin was on the list, and it was funded. What wasn't on the list was a new use for the drug that used much higher doses for slightly different diagnosis which produced benefits that was less certain.

So, much noise from the crowd, pitchforks and flaming torches etc, and the new use for the drug is funded. Here's the thing: what treatment that represented better use of the health budged got knocked off the list to make it happen? And how many people are today affected by that lack of treatment?

This is what politicians and one-cause advocates do to perfectly fair and rational systems: they make them more fair for some people than for others, and they waste budget in doing so.

mashman

10th December 2011, 22:37

The policy... you reading this, at least? was based on a protocol that, (amongst other things) assumes there's a limit to funding resources and that you want to make that budget work as hard for you as possible. So you start with a list of procedures, interventions, drugs etc that figure in the supply of a health service and you order the lists so that the best "bang for your buck" items are at the top.

You supply the items starting from the top, you keep spending until you run out of money. Existing, traditional use of Herceptin was on the list, and it was funded. What wasn't on the list was a new use for the drug that used much higher doses for slightly different diagnosis which produced benefits that was less certain.

So, much noise from the crowd, pitchforks and flaming torches etc, and the new use for the drug is funded. Here's the thing: what treatment that represented better use of the health budged got knocked off the list to make it happen? And how many people are today affected by that lack of treatment?

This is what politicians and one-cause advocates do to perfectly fair and rational systems: they make them more fair for some people than for others, and they waste budget in doing so.

That's pretty fucked up. The medicine is available but only if there's enough money and that trade-offs, in terms of lives (potentially), have to be made. Kinda 1 of the reasons I don't like money... especially if the medicine is available.

Winston001

10th December 2011, 22:57

I'd love to ask the whole of NZ :yes:. We can do better, I have no doubt...

As for us, I don't see us as reacting too differently to animals...

Humans have been developing civilisation for 6000 years, so answer me this:

Germany, the home of Proust, Goethe, Kant, Beethoven, Holbein, Druer, - one of the most intellectual and educated nations on the planet, rivalling England for science and philosophy....only seventy years ago murdered 6 million people in factories.

Pol Pot much more recently carried out the same murderous acts on an innocent population.

Idi Amin did the same in Uganda.

And even more up to date, the Hutu in Rwanda embarked on a chilling slashing attack against the Tutsi killing 500,000 of them over a four month period.

Have you ever killed someone? One person. Can you imagine that? Yet here we have groups of civilised (certainly the Germans fit that description) people deliberately murdering hundreds of thousands of bewildered human beings.

This had nothing to do with money, or wealth, or banks, or financiers, or fractional banking etc etc: it was pure primal power. Kill them because I can.

What chance has humanity of developing a communal culture when the evidence is we are only a blink away from genocide?

mashman

10th December 2011, 23:55

Humans have been developing civilisation for 6000 years, so answer me this:

Death by civilised people.

What chance has humanity of developing a communal culture when the evidence is we are only a blink away from genocide?

How many people die across the globe as the result of human inaction/corruption etc...? 20, 30, 1000, millions? and aid is only going to shrink as we tighten our global purse strings. Poverty amidst plenty.

Sure there have been maniacs, there still are and they are ignored for the most part. How many has Mugabe murdered over how long? yet nothing has been done... priceless.

What evidence? I'm not trying to be awkward, but you can probably name 1000 maniacs out of billions who have been on the planet. How did they maintain their armies? Did the armies do the job for free or did they receive payment for fulfilling some nutcases blood lust? Would they have done the same if they weren't getting paid? I hope I never have to kill anyone, perhaps I won't be able to if the time comes, I never want to find out.

I don't see why we shouldn't try something different, just because history says it can't be done. What do you see that I am trying to deny? Human nature? Human beings are ugly, I agree, I've seen enough of it thanks, but that doesn't mean they are incapable of doing anything they set their minds to... including a "communal" culture. We're a blink away from a lot of things... how likely is genocide these days? given that we have the UN etc...

Ocean1

11th December 2011, 07:58

That's pretty fucked up. The medicine is available but only if there's enough money and that trade-offs, in terms of lives (potentially), have to be made. Kinda 1 of the reasons I don't like money... especially if the medicine is available.

You can't avoid trade-offs in terms of lives unless you have infinite resources. That's never going to happen whether you're describing available resources in $NZ or potatoes.

In the real world you've just got to accept that and spend what you've got wisely. I can assure you health professionals are sick and fucking tired of politicians writing policy that promises to supply most things for everybody when we patently can't afford it. That's what caused the blowout in waiting lists a couple of years ago. What was the response? Mandate minimum waiting times. With no further resources.

That's no more possible than the last set of rules, though. So what's happening now? Some nasty tweaking of the eligibility criteria for certain health services. That's right, instead of deciding what to spend based on how worthwhile the procedure/drug is we're starting to decide what to spend based on who needs it. We've gone from a system that provided a limited (but pretty impressive) list of services to everyone to one where we supply damn near everything to a limited number of people.

The people doing the choosing of best value services and drugs were genuinely professional experts in their field. Who's now doing the choosing of who gets it?

Next election vote, eh? Vote for the crowd behaving least like they're chucking lollies to 5 year olds.

avgas

11th December 2011, 10:13

OCCUPY DUNEDIN!!!!
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.gadling.com/media/2011/04/hashima-hell-1303852309.jpg
If you don't they will close the town!

mashman

11th December 2011, 10:31

You can't avoid trade-offs in terms of lives unless you have infinite resources. That's never going to happen whether you're describing available resources in $NZ or potatoes.

In the real world you've just got to accept that and spend what you've got wisely. I can assure you health professionals are sick and fucking tired of politicians writing policy that promises to supply most things for everybody when we patently can't afford it. That's what caused the blowout in waiting lists a couple of years ago. What was the response? Mandate minimum waiting times. With no further resources.

That's no more possible than the last set of rules, though. So what's happening now? Some nasty tweaking of the eligibility criteria for certain health services. That's right, instead of deciding what to spend based on how worthwhile the procedure/drug is we're starting to decide what to spend based on who needs it. We've gone from a system that provided a limited (but pretty impressive) list of services to everyone to one where we supply damn near everything to a limited number of people.

The people doing the choosing of best value services and drugs were genuinely professional experts in their field. Who's now doing the choosing of who gets it?

Next election vote, eh? Vote for the crowd behaving least like they're chucking lollies to 5 year olds

I agree trade-offs are needed in the face of finite resources and I understand the need for the list in the real world. The fact that the treatments are available shows that the resources aren't finite and that the finite part is $$$ related... if there was enough $$$ we could have everything on the list.

I have no doubt that it drives health professionals around the twist, being front line having to tell people that something isn't available, or that it is but it'll be expensive, or that they're gonna have to wait, or just a plain no, it isn't available in NZ, especially as they know what the likely outcomes are gonna be for "denied" treatment.

:rofl:@next election... Do you know what's happening with Pharmac and the TPPA? I've only seen the odd new snip, Goff and Norman... but they raised concerns that the governance that you highlight above (non health professional led decisions), could potentially be open to overseas influences?

Ocean1

11th December 2011, 11:17

I agree trade-offs are needed in the face of finite resources and I understand the need for the list in the real world. The fact that the treatments are available shows that the resources aren't finite and that the finite part is $$$ related... if there was enough $$$ we could have everything on the list.

Resources are represented by money. It’s the same thing. I know you don’t think it should work like that but it does, get used to it, no other system in history has ever worked. So saying the fact that treatments are available shows that resources are infinite is drivel. As is blaming the commonly accepted unit of value for the absence of infinite resources.

I have no doubt that it drives health professionals around the twist, being front line having to tell people that something isn't available, or that it is but it'll be expensive, or that they're gonna have to wait, or just a plain no, it isn't available in NZ, especially as they know what the likely outcomes are gonna be for "denied" treatment.

No. By and large they’re realists, they know there’s necessary constraints to what they can do. What drives them around the twist is people subverting resources assigned for health care for other purposes and wasting them on populist promotional vote buying sprees.

:rofl:@next election... Do you know what's happening with Pharmac and the TPPA? I've only seen the odd new snip, Goff and Norman... but they raised concerns that the governance that you highlight above (non health professional led decisions), could potentially be open to overseas influences?

Yes. So you’ll be voting for whichever party says they’ll structure health policy so that as much budget as practically possible is spent helping patients?

Let me make one thing clear: Pharmacs’ mandate is ALL about providing best value for the drug budget money. Those “overseas influences” have been seriously pissed at NZ for some time because Pharmac is effectively parallel-importing drugs far less expensive than the mainstream producers supply them for. That’s fairly non-capitalist behaviour for a branch of a western government, (and it's tantimount to refusing to pay for the R&D that made the drugs available in the first place) but it extends the range of treatments we can offer dramatically.

Yes, it’s possible that some health bureaucrat might accept a “free” trip to a conference, or a senior consultant might accept a free pen. But if you leave the structure of health funding to politicians it’s a dead set certainty that they won’t be doing anywhere near as well, or spending what’s not wasted “fairly” for everyone.

FJRider

11th December 2011, 12:01

All hospital boards have a budget ... not a bottomless pit of money. More money spent on one patient, means less spent on another ..

Where the money gets spent is usually decided on by panels made up from those board members ... (often ... but not always ... doctors)

Cost/effect of extra funding is taken into account. With factors such as ... if it will be required long term, or a one-off expense ...

Board policys are seldom ignored ... (note seldom ... exceptions do occur) and a right of redress is available ... Never take first answer without question.

mashman

11th December 2011, 12:30

Resources are represented by money. It’s the same thing. I know you don’t think it should work like that but it does, get used to it, no other system in history has ever worked. So saying the fact that treatments are available shows that resources are infinite is drivel. As is blaming the commonly accepted unit of value for the absence of infinite resources.

Heh, does it show... I've been used to it for too long, so I've decided to change my mind and shovel shit up hill and piss in the wind for the rest of my time on this spinning rock, get used to it (even better, join us :shifty:). Has anyone ever tried what I am suggesting? I know I'm not the first or only one that believes a non-financial system could work. So why haven't we tried it? The vested interests of TPTB? The fact that no other system in history (all financially based) has worked (sorry, epic copout)? Is that really a reason not to try something entirely different? Are you that much of a defeatist?

No. By and large they’re realists, they know there’s necessary constraints to what they can do. What drives them around the twist is people subverting resources assigned for health care for other purposes and wasting them on populist promotional vote buying sprees.

By and large isn't everyone, yes hairsplitting, who woulda thunk it... your point is taken... last thing I'd want is wound healthcare professionals providing "treatment" by the clock and acting within the confines of a budget.

Yes. So you’ll be voting for whichever party says they’ll structure health policy so that as much budget as practically possible is spent helping patients?

Let me make one thing clear: Pharmacs’ mandate is ALL about providing best value for the drug budget money. Those “overseas influences” have been seriously pissed at NZ for some time because Pharmac is effectively parallel-importing drugs far less expensive than the mainstream producers supply them for. That’s fairly non-capitalist behaviour for a branch of a western government, (and it's tantimount to refusing to pay for the R&D that made the drugs available in the first place) but it extends the range of treatments we can offer dramatically.

Yes, it’s possible that some health bureaucrat might accept a “free” trip to a conference, or a senior consultant might accept a free pen. But if you leave the structure of health funding to politicians it’s a dead set certainty that they won’t be doing anywhere near as well, or spending what’s not wasted “fairly” for everyone.

Only healthcare? Not enough, I want everyone out of poverty, no homeless and a free education system, at the very least, before I'd even consider ticking a box so that my "views" can be take more seriously.

Fair enough. I'll keep my fingers crossed that they can keep the politicians out of it... but I won't hold my breath.

Ocean1

11th December 2011, 14:18

Has anyone ever tried what I am suggesting? I know I'm not the first or only one that believes a non-financial system could work. So why haven't we tried it? The vested interests of TPTB? The fact that no other system in history (all financially based) has worked (sorry, epic copout)? Is that really a reason not to try something entirely different? Are you that much of a defeatist?

In order for any system to work it needs negative feedback. No, that’s not a acronym for bad parenting, it’s the first requirement for any workable control system. It means you need to organise things so that bad shit causes a change that reduces bad shit, and so that good shit causes a change that causes more good shit.

So no, nobody’s secret agenda is being protected, it’s just that without some form of reward / disincentive effect an economy, (like any other piece of machinery) will either spin out of control or do absolutely nothing. Feel free to play with concepts that don’t involve money, but if they don’t involve some proportional reward for value received you’re effectively trying to invent perpetual motion.

Oh, and yes, alternatives to “value tokens” have been tried numerous times throughout history. They only work if you want to carry your cows around with you as items of exchange. Because y'see, it's just not true that everybody's daily produce is worth anyone else's.

Not enough, I want everyone out of poverty, no homeless and a free education system, at the very least, before I'd even consider ticking a box so that my "views" can be take more seriously.

Then I suggest that you talk to those poor and homeless, ‘cause from vast experience nobody else can ever make for them what they won’t make for themselves. In today’s western world being homeless, (for an adult) basically means you’re dropping successive heavily discounted opportunities each time they’re place into your hands. You’ve really got to make a special effort to be actually hungry.

mashman

11th December 2011, 17:17

In order for any system to work it needs negative feedback. No, that’s not a acronym for bad parenting, it’s the first requirement for any workable control system. It means you need to organise things so that bad shit causes a change that reduces bad shit, and so that good shit causes a change that causes more good shit.

So no, nobody’s secret agenda is being protected, it’s just that without some form of reward / disincentive effect an economy, (like any other piece of machinery) will either spin out of control or do absolutely nothing. Feel free to play with concepts that don’t involve money, but if they don’t involve some proportional reward for value received you’re effectively trying to invent perpetual motion.

Oh, and yes, alternatives to “value tokens” have been tried numerous times throughout history. They only work if you want to carry your cows around with you as items of exchange. Because y'see, it's just not true that everybody's daily produce is worth anyone else's.

I'm all for negative feedback... as you say it's the only way to highlight and mitigate the bad shit and turn it into not so bad shit, or even better, turn it into good shit... and indeed saying it can't be done is a good start.

The main reason we haven't gotten to a higher state of society (fuckit, felt like a little hippy was needed) is because people value things... and over millenia have been told that we need to value things, because, erm, because you earned it and you're worth it. It's up there with the concept of ownership, or should I say long term lease as we aren't here forever. Those concepts, ihmo, are outdated given the current environment we live in. It can't last forever and it's only speeding the process up and that doesn't give us a chance to think things through a little more clearly. To that end, the value system is going to have to go as it causes more problems than it solves, and people will just have to get used to their new roles... which I reckon they will. Overly confident maybe, but if they're willing to suffer the current array of shit, I would think that they'll accept something "better", especially if it removes the worry of having to make their payment schedule for the month so as not to lose everything.

Everyone's contribution is as valuable as the next persons, that's not just my perspective. Take away any workforce and we have nothing. You may be the best of the best, but without people manufacturing your components, think production line, then the best can't do what they need to. If you remove the mail boy from the mail room, no mail gets delivered and vital documents may be lost. If you remove the binman, then rats infestation will probably ensue with their associated diseases etc... Just because some fat flappy arsed idiot doesn't see these required contributions as valuable, doesn't mean that they aren't. Try not having the "service" the menial laborers provide and see what happens. Don;t pay them enough and they strike. All contributions are required and are all contributions are valuable, because they interlink.

Then I suggest that you talk to those poor and homeless, ‘cause from vast experience nobody else can ever make for them what they won’t make for themselves. In today’s western world being homeless, (for an adult) basically means you’re dropping successive heavily discounted opportunities each time they’re place into your hands. You’ve really got to make a special effort to be actually hungry.

Very true.