View Full Version : The value of money has dropped by two thirds in 30 years
mashman
26th February 2013, 07:43
"A three-fold increase in prices has seen the spending power of money fall by two-thirds over the past 30 years, meaning a pound today can only buy as much as 33p could in 1982." (http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/a-pound-now-%E2%80%98worth-33p%E2%80%99-114714460.html)
Wonder what the average salary increase has been. It'd be interesting to see similar stats for NZ. Although to be fair, I'm sure the economists of this world have got it covered... even if the employers won't have the money to pay those types of wages. Hey ho... come onnnnnnnnnn system, shiteth thyself.
spookytooth
26th February 2013, 08:20
i know gib stoppers are working for 1980 rates in Tauranga due to ass holes under cutting in a big way
Zedder
26th February 2013, 09:04
"A three-fold increase in prices has seen the spending power of money fall by two-thirds over the past 30 years, meaning a pound today can only buy as much as 33p could in 1982." (http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/a-pound-now-%E2%80%98worth-33p%E2%80%99-114714460.html)
Wonder what the average salary increase has been. It'd be interesting to see similar stats for NZ. Although to be fair, I'm sure the economists of this world have got it covered... even if the employers won't have the money to pay those types of wages. Hey ho... come onnnnnnnnnn system, shiteth thyself.
It's little wonder a growing number of economists are calling for a return to the Gold Standard.
ducatilover
26th February 2013, 09:49
Nah it's okay because the average wage in NZ has gone up so much since...
Fuck.
Road kill
26th February 2013, 17:19
A tinnie was $20 in 1980,,,it's still $20 today.
So what's the fringin' problem,,,,,,,oh yeah drug dealers are the dishonest ones,,,right:whistle:
Danzano
26th February 2013, 17:24
A tinnie was $20 in 1980,,,it's still $20 today.
So what's the fringin' problem,,,,,,,oh yeah drug dealers are the dishonest ones,,,right:whistle:
I'm pretty sure that used to be a very vague measurement eg hand full or mates rates or feeling generous
Today if it's out by a gram is half an ounce!!!!!! :-P
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
Ocean1
26th February 2013, 17:27
So, pretty much in line with inflation, then? :scratch:
And not a single mention of comparitive incomes. :confused:
Akzle
26th February 2013, 18:14
the "value of money" has been exactly fuckall since newton overvalued gold.
the "value of money" is the gauge by which you can work out how hooked on bank an person is.
"inflation" and "quantative easing" are fucking scams in which the only people profiting are the people printing the currency.
a tinny in 1980 was the width of my thumb and lasted at least until saturday arvo, a tinny today is a small joint and hardly gets through breakfast.
the problem with "going back to gold" is the premise that scarcity creates value.
it doesn't
the same as, evidently, backing "money" by the "faith of the sheep" ("GDP") doesn't.
Akzle
26th February 2013, 18:18
i know gib stoppers are working for 1980 rates in Tauranga due to ass holes under cutting in a big way
chinese assholes. cos 50 of them are happy living in an apartment, and 50 of them will get the job done faster than you and your bro, and for about the same rate.
it's all about profit mate. if you're not profitable, then GTFO the planet. modern democratic capitalistic socialist consumeristic society doesn't need your whinging kind round here.
davereid
26th February 2013, 18:59
"A three-fold increase in prices has seen the spending power of money fall by two-thirds over the past 30 years, meaning a pound today can only buy as much as 33p could in 1982." (http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/a-pound-now-%E2%80%98worth-33p%E2%80%99-114714460.html)
Quantitative easing, printing money, social credit, whatever you call it, it is the cause.
Its a pretty simple concept. Money merely measures output - it is not on its own production or the storage of wealth.
So when I plant potatoes and grow potatoes I produce new wealth.
The potatoes have a value that reflects the cost of seed, land, fertiliser, irrigation and my skill and effort.
But when I sell my spuds, the tax man will arrive.
Say I get $100 profit for my spuds. The tax man wants a share. He usually, or at least what we see is he does it by taking a lump sum, say 50%.
So now my $100 gives me $50 of spending power.
But social credit, Quantitative easing, printing money, gives government another tool. Its sees I made $100. It simply prints $100 to match.
Sane result, my spending power is halved. But great for the government. Its takes a while, sometimes decades for people to notice, and ask more (inflation) for their efforts.
Its suits the rich as its a tax on the poor - its doesn't affect those who control assets as much as those who do not.
Its a tax on labour based income - its lowers its value, but it doesn't hurt those whos income is based on asset value, like large companies, who can simply ask for a rate of return on burgeoning asset value.
Governments were all quick to write social credit off as a system. And then to implement it without saying so !
Quantitative easing is the new school. Its a tax on the poor. And as usual, it will do its stuff.
Oblivion
26th February 2013, 19:00
"inflation" and "quantitative easing" are fucking scams in which the only people profiting are the people printing the currency.
Speaking of people profiting on printing money, Thats exactly what is happening in the USA right now and why the debt just keep increasing. The US government has to pay the federal reserve to print money. Effectively they pay money to get money, increasing inflation even more. All because the American Government does not have the power to print its own money. Little tidbit there.
The USA would be better off if they didnt have to have the permission of the Federal reserve to print money.
Also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwquHAdRmhI
puddytat
26th February 2013, 19:43
And what the fucks up with provisional Tax,wanting money off ya before you even make any....:killingme
Akzle
26th February 2013, 20:57
the problem that the us has, is that the fed never print the interest, only the capital. I'll leave it to you to work out how well it goes.
mashman
26th February 2013, 21:15
Yup
If the money that was "printed" wasn't interest bearing, there would be no need for inflation... but alas, the printers need their money. Essentially that's all QE/CE are, just another mechanism to create an interest bearing debt from thin air. After all, the bonds that QE/CE buys are merely interest bearing promises. Interest, in my eyes, is what drives inflation. If there's not enough being paid back, up inflation goes, and if there's too much being paid back, down it goes. However, $1 is still $1 and it's the inflation that forces the price of goods/services up. To that end the value of money is bound to look as though it has changed, even though it hasn't really. Tis just the way I look at it though.
mashman
26th February 2013, 21:19
It's little wonder a growing number of economists are calling for a return to the Gold Standard.
Pointless. Value is value is value. You may as well use grains of sand.
ducatilover
26th February 2013, 21:43
I am now confused.
Zedder
26th February 2013, 21:54
Pointless. Value is value is value. You may as well use grains of sand.
Historically, having the Gold Standard has stopped inflation. That isn't pointless.
Using grains of sand as an analogy for value is wrong. Why is gold expensive and sand cheap?
mashman
26th February 2013, 22:03
I am now confused.
Just polish something and it'll all matter much less ;).
Historically, having the Gold Standard has stopped inflation. That isn't pointless.
Using grains of sand as an analogy for value is wrong. Why is gold expensive and sand cheap?
Well, it wasn't as inflationary... but it is still pointless.
Because someone decided that gold was more valuable than sand, that and you can pick sand up off the beach if you like. Yes we could all mine gold, but then who's going to farm etc... It's a perfect analogy for value. Value is attributed by man and we could use anything we liked, and have done in the past i.e. pigs, cows etc... and sand is a lot lighter than gold too ;).
Zedder
26th February 2013, 22:18
Well, it wasn't as inflationary... but it is still pointless.
Because someone decided that gold was more valuable than sand, that and you can pick sand up off the beach if you like. Yes we could all mine gold, but then who's going to farm etc... It's a perfect analogy for value. Value is attributed by man and we could use anything we liked, and have done in the past i.e. pigs, cows etc... and sand is a lot lighter than gold too ;).
How can it be pointless if it stops inflation? The only times there's been big inflation in recent history is without the Gold Standard. Sure it's man made but it's a control device like brakes on a vehicle.
mashman
26th February 2013, 22:24
How can it be pointless if it stops inflation? The only times there's been big inflation in recent history is without the Gold Standard. Sure it's man made but it's a control device like brakes on a vehicle.
The Great Depression? It's not a control device, it's a run away train. Throw the money in and watch the plebs fight over it before they hand it straight back again leaving a trail of social destruction ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Zedder
26th February 2013, 22:36
The Great Depression? It's not a control device, it's a run away train. Throw the money in and watch the plebs fight over it before they hand it straight back again leaving a trail of social destruction ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
During the Great Depression there wasn't anything that could be called a banking system/Gold Standard /fiscal policy 'cos it was the result of a number of stupid actions and policies by the USA.
It wasn't actually caused by the 1929 Stock Market crash but by events leading up to and including it.
Brian d marge
27th February 2013, 01:03
A tinnie was $20 in 1980,,,it's still $20 today.
So what's the fringin' problem,,,,,,,oh yeah drug dealers are the dishonest ones,,,right:whistle:
loads more THC in it now days
making it even BETTER value !
Stephen
Brian d marge
27th February 2013, 01:16
Quantitative easing, printing money, social credit, whatever you call it, it is the cause.
Its a pretty simple concept. Money merely measures output - it is not on its own production or the storage of wealth.
So when I plant potatoes and grow potatoes I produce new wealth.
The potatoes have a value that reflects the cost of seed, land, fertiliser, irrigation and my skill and effort.
But when I sell my spuds, the tax man will arrive.
Say I get $100 profit for my spuds. The tax man wants a share. He usually, or at least what we see is he does it by taking a lump sum, say 50%.
So now my $100 gives me $50 of spending power.
But social credit, Quantitative easing, printing money, gives government another tool. Its sees I made $100. It simply prints $100 to match.
Sane result, my spending power is halved. But great for the government. Its takes a while, sometimes decades for people to notice, and ask more (inflation) for their efforts.
Its suits the rich as its a tax on the poor - its doesn't affect those who control assets as much as those who do not.
Its a tax on labour based income - its lowers its value, but it doesn't hurt those whos income is based on asset value, like large companies, who can simply ask for a rate of return on burgeoning asset value.
Governments were all quick to write social credit off as a system. And then to implement it without saying so !
Quantitative easing is the new school. Its a tax on the poor. And as usual, it will do its stuff.
can I just insert in there , that in an equal system ( which I think is what the gold standard is , as gold is being itroduced into the system at the same rate , more or less, as population growth) monetary supply , circulation and the rate of circulation all pans out , more or less ( making Money , which has been said a nice wee trading ticket convenient ! it is )
but ( and you cant blame them ) when banks introduce Fiat money ,at any rate above real growth , now we IMHO get Inflation. If real population growth ( assuming production constant per person ) at 2% and fiat money rate at 7% , then we have inflationary growth of 5 % and thats not sustainable
Stephen
Akzle
27th February 2013, 06:35
During the Great Depression there wasn't anything that could be called a banking system/Gold Standard /fiscal policy 'cos it was the result of a number of stupid actions and policies by the USA.
It wasn't actually caused by the 1929 Stock Market crash but by events leading up to and including it.
yeha. the stupid action/policy that is "money".
"the depression" was a needed reset to a fucked up system that needs a reset every now and then to balance the books (and remind the plebs to get back to work). of course, the scheming jews don't get reset, they're rich.
we're techinically in a fiscal depression now. but the good old us is so kindly printing the "money" to get us out of it.
it'll be interesting to see how this one rides out, i'm hoping china takes over america, properlike.
jonbuoy
27th February 2013, 07:49
I don't think that's breaking news, everyone must remember their grandparents going all misty eyed over how they could have a great night out for tuppence and still have change at the end if the night. We will always have some inflation as de-flation is generally viewed to be undesirable.
Zedder
27th February 2013, 08:41
I don't think that's breaking news, everyone must remember their grandparents going all misty eyed over how they could have a great night out for tuppence and still have change at the end if the night. We will always have some inflation as de-flation is generally viewed to be undesirable.
Yes, in some ways inflation is inevitable.
However, some form of deflation usually follows a period of increased inflation or recession, as a correcting measure. Too much deflation is certainly bad though.
sidecar bob
27th February 2013, 08:51
A tinnie was $20 in 1980,,,it's still $20 today.
So what's the fringin' problem,,,,,,,oh yeah drug dealers are the dishonest ones,,,right:whistle:
Supply & demand.
Weed is so 1983.
slofox
27th February 2013, 11:25
"The value of money has dropped by two thirds in 30 years."
No wonder I'm so fucking poor!
mashman
27th February 2013, 18:09
During the Great Depression there wasn't anything that could be called a banking system/Gold Standard /fiscal policy 'cos it was the result of a number of stupid actions and policies by the USA.
It wasn't actually caused by the 1929 Stock Market crash but by events leading up to and including it.
According to the interwebz there was a gold standard during the great depression and moving away from the gold standard dragged the world out of the mire. Some of my reading blames bank runs for the great depression itself... something I'm more than happy to agree with, coz they is a bunch of fucketty fuck fuck psychopaths.
At the end of the day it's as Akzle says. At some point in time TPTB (the real shady fuckers who issue the money etc...) decide to have a stocktake. Have you eve heard of a code freeze? Meh, a code freeze is when you don't produce another fuckin thing until you know where you're at. That's what my money is on in regards to a cause for this GFC.
But on-topic, money hasn't changed value, goods/services have, so money actually isn't the issue (not its value anyway), it's the interest on that money and the inflation required to get that interest back. I find it hard to conceive of a reason as to why we would want to value effort/goods/services etc... if we ever went for some form of minimal inflation economy. Eventually the result will be the same i.e. not enough money for the level of essential services required by everyone (including bum wipers and their needs etc...). There's only 1 way to achieve that and it just so happens that that 1 way also solves a myriad of problems that we have today. It makes sense to do it and half arsing it with valuing effort/goods/services is no different than we have today... even if inflation is slow and grows slowly. I just wanna see shit get done right first time for a change (amongst many many other things). So shove your value up one jacksie, coz that all it's really good for :Punk:
Zedder
27th February 2013, 21:09
According to the interwebz there was a gold standard during the great depression and moving away from the gold standard dragged the world out of the mire. Some of my reading blames bank runs for the great depression itself... something I'm more than happy to agree with, coz they is a bunch of fucketty fuck fuck psychopaths.
At the end of the day it's as Akzle says. At some point in time TPTB (the real shady fuckers who issue the money etc...) decide to have a stocktake. Have you eve heard of a code freeze? Meh, a code freeze is when you don't produce another fuckin thing until you know where you're at. That's what my money is on in regards to a cause for this GFC.
But on-topic, money hasn't changed value, goods/services have, so money actually isn't the issue (not its value anyway), it's the interest on that money and the inflation required to get that interest back. I find it hard to conceive of a reason as to why we would want to value effort/goods/services etc... if we ever went for some form of minimal inflation economy. Eventually the result will be the same i.e. not enough money for the level of essential services required by everyone (including bum wipers and their needs etc...). There's only 1 way to achieve that and it just so happens that that 1 way also solves a myriad of problems that we have today. It makes sense to do it and half arsing it with valuing effort/goods/services is no different than we have today... even if inflation is slow and grows slowly. I just wanna see shit get done right first time for a change (amongst many many other things). So shove your value up one jacksie, coz that all it's really good for :Punk:
What I wrote earlier still stands though Masho. The banking system was a joke (many under funded small to medium banks) the gold standard wasn't used as a means of controlling inflation which it was meant to do and President Hoover did nothing positive to fix the problem. Countries stopped using the gold standard because there was massive deflation.
The reasons for the Great Depression were: A credit boom, too much buying shares on the margin, irrational overconfidence in general, production demand outstripped supply, and agriculture was in recession already. The scene was set and the sharemarket crash just added to it. Incidently, the sharemarket made a comeback after only a few months but the downward spiral had bitten too deep by then. But yeah, Akzle's right...
mashman
27th February 2013, 21:21
What I wrote earlier still stands though Masho. The banking system was a joke (many under funded small to medium banks) the gold standard wasn't used as a means of controlling inflation which it was meant to do and President Hoover did nothing positive to fix the problem. Countries stopped using the gold standard because there was massive deflation.
The reasons for the Great Depression were: A credit boom, too much buying shares on the margin, irrational overconfidence in general, production demand outstripped supply, and agriculture was in recession already. The scene was set and the sharemarket crash just added to it. Incidently, the sharemarket made a comeback after only a few months but the downward spiral had bitten too deep by then. But yeah, Akzle's right...
I agree, it does stand. The banking system still is a joke even though they can pluck the stuff out of thin air when they'd like to. That probably is the case, but inflationary and deflationary mechanisms will always exist given that those in charge of money production believe, well they know, that they can fuck around with people's lives whilst they figure out where they went wrong with their economic model :rofl:.
heh... and they say we learn from history :laugh:. It does my head in. We need a global EMP :angry2:
Zedder
27th February 2013, 21:41
I agree, it does stand. The banking system still is a joke even though they can pluck the stuff out of thin air when they'd like to. That probably is the case, but inflationary and deflationary mechanisms will always exist given that those in charge of money production believe, well they know, that they can fuck around with people's lives whilst they figure out where they went wrong with their economic model :rofl:.
heh... and they say we learn from history :laugh:. It does my head in. We need a global EMP :angry2:
Well, solar flares are meant to be rather potent this year...
Brian d marge
28th February 2013, 02:24
Gold standard ,
in 1933 roostervelt , blamed the hording of gold as one of the reasons for Amerika downfall , so envoked the #6102? act ,bill? under trading with the enemies of the state act , this banned the saving of gold by private people only by governments
before that (1917) the us dollar had been a classical gold standard , untill washington dc , for good of king and country asked people to transfer their gold to the fed . safe keeping dont ya know ...!
you could see where FDR was coming from .....
The gold standard appeared briefly after the war ( until Bretton woods ) but England was broke and its gold was in America anyway , so they tied currencies to the us dollar at an fixed exchange rate ,35 dollars an ounce ??? all good until Vietnam and Nixons final nail in the coffin ( of the gold standard , when he started to print money to pay for the war , the french demanded their gold back all hell broke loose but that was the end of the gold standard , and allowed gold to be freely traded since august 15th 1971 the US has operated on a fiat money system
The reasons the gold is good , is that the rate at which new gold enters the system is roughly inline with growth , but if as per industrial revolution production increases , then there are larges booms and busts as gold enters and leaves the system ( see charles dickens oliver twist) also its a byatch to buy tea with ,
I think Lysander Spooner had it right , Fk you , I am me own man living by my own means , I didnt ask to be part of you gang , I dont wat to be , but due to the way it is I kinda have to , but if you dont bother me I wont bother u ,,,and I aint joining no war ( or something like that !)
Stephen
Zedder
28th February 2013, 07:58
Gold standard ,
in 1933 roostervelt , blamed the hording of gold as one of the reasons for Amerika downfall , so envoked the #6102? act ,bill? under trading with the enemies of the state act , this banned the saving of gold by private people only by governments
before that (1917) the us dollar had been a classical gold standard , untill washington dc , for good of king and country asked people to transfer their gold to the fed . safe keeping dont ya know ...!
you could see where FDR was coming from .....
The gold standard appeared briefly after the war ( until Bretton woods ) but England was broke and its gold was in America anyway , so they tied currencies to the us dollar at an fixed exchange rate ,35 dollars an ounce ??? all good until Vietnam and Nixons final nail in the coffin ( of the gold standard , when he started to print money to pay for the war , the french demanded their gold back all hell broke loose but that was the end of the gold standard , and allowed gold to be freely traded since august 15th 1971 the US has operated on a fiat money system
The reasons the gold is good , is that the rate at which new gold enters the system is roughly inline with growth , but if as per industrial revolution production increases , then there are larges booms and busts as gold enters and leaves the system ( see charles dickens oliver twist) also its a byatch to buy tea with ,
I think Lysander Spooner had it right , Fk you , I am me own man living by my own means , I didnt ask to be part of you gang , I dont wat to be , but due to the way it is I kinda have to , but if you dont bother me I wont bother u ,,,and I aint joining no war ( or something like that !)
Stephen
I'm not sure if Roosevelt blamed the "hoarding of gold" for the problem, but he did more in 100 days to sort out the USA during in the Great Depression than Hoover had ever done. Don't forget though, that Executive order 6102 was changed to the Gold Reserve Act a year later and the price of gold was raised from $20 to $35 per oz.
However, the suspension of the gold standard was only one of measures Roosevelt implemented to revive the US economy.
Akzle
28th February 2013, 15:49
both the uk and the us did a gold snatch.
the uk had the graciousness to use the term "commonwealth"
being that (at "law") common means universal, and universal means everyone. and wealth means well, wealth, it literally means "the wealth of the people",
and since you choose to have dicatotrs //err, leaders, make decisions for you, they're happy to decide to take your wealth,
and look after it,
because you obviously can't be trusted with it.
"government represents the people"
the us i think were a bit more blunt, and actually called it a gold snatch. it was a criminal offence for a private person (private corporation) to retain anything of value //err, i mean, gold. people did get arrested and jailed for failing to hand in family jewellery, old coinage etc.
at any rate, it's irrelevant, i can fill a box with sand and tell you it's full of gold, as long as you believe me, i have (what's an oz now, 1800$?) a lot of "value" in a box. if you trusted me (and really, who wouldn't) then you'd give me lots of your shit to get my box of gold.
FOOLS GOLD muaahhhahahaha.
mashman
28th February 2013, 17:27
I'm not sure if Roosevelt blamed the "hoarding of gold" for the problem, but he did more in 100 days to sort out the USA during in the Great Depression than Hoover had ever done. Don't forget though, that Executive order 6102 was changed to the Gold Reserve Act a year later and the price of gold was raised from $20 to $35 per oz.
However, the suspension of the gold standard was only one of measures Roosevelt implemented to revive the US economy.
Meh. It'll be water soon, oh, it looks like it already is :eek:
Economies revived so that they can fail with regular monotony. Plenty of little recessions according to the wiki folk... there has to be a way to avoid the misery that the money men inflict. NOW how do the money men inflict misery on populations around the world... ohhhh yeah, they use money. So if we got rid of money, hmmmmmmm, NOW that requires a little more thought ;)
mashman
28th February 2013, 17:31
Well, solar flares are meant to be rather potent this year...
I wish it'd hurry the fuck up... I'm dying to watch every fucker running around like headless chickens. Should be fun.
Zedder
28th February 2013, 18:16
Meh. It'll be water soon, oh, it looks like it already is :eek:
Economies revived so that they can fail with regular monotony. Plenty of little recessions according to the wiki folk... there has to be a way to avoid the misery that the money men inflict. NOW how do the money men inflict misery on populations around the world... ohhhh yeah, they use money. So if we got rid of money, hmmmmmmm, NOW that requires a little more thought ;)
"Economies revived so..." Of course Masho, the rich have to get richer, it's just one of their ways of doing it.
Zedder
28th February 2013, 18:18
I wish it'd hurry the fuck up... I'm dying to watch every fucker running around like headless chickens. Should be fun.
I'll keep ya posted.
Akzle
28th February 2013, 18:40
I'll keep ya posted.
you'll notice by the static on the radio and sudden drop in cellphone "bars"
Zedder
28th February 2013, 19:43
you'll notice by the static on the radio and sudden drop in cellphone "bars"
Nah, the early warning system gives 18 hours notice.
mashman
28th February 2013, 20:23
"Economies revived so..." Of course Masho, the rich have to get richer, it's just one of their ways of doing it.
Why don't they just print their own then. I've done it again eh... they do, then they invest it is us and call it an economy.
I'll keep ya posted.
S'alright, I watch the odd solar site... although the radio "issues" will be noticed in ?8 minutes?. I kinda like solar filaments, they're pretty and explode well, and flares are so 70's :eek:
Akzle
1st March 2013, 07:08
i'm sure the EME boys will have a good headsup...
was neat watching this morning's sunrise... with the full moon going down on the other side.
i'm kinda thinking the moon's gonna get stuck between the erth and snu. it'll be cold. and shit won't grow.
mashman
1st March 2013, 07:49
i'm kinda thinking the moon's gonna get stuck between the erth and snu. it'll be cold. and shit won't grow.
I like the cold. I miss it dearly. Fortunately shit will be growing elsewhere.
mashman
1st March 2013, 07:59
And when they fuck it up (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rbs-bad-practice-drives-5-16bn-loss-070142515--finance.html) ... someone has to pay for it (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/thousands-face-mortgage-rate-rise-185917411.html#iXsmwUl). That's gonna come as a pleasant surprise on top of every other rate, water, electricity etc... rise v's stagnant wage growth. I may have to revisit my guess that the US will be the place that goes tits first.
Zedder
1st March 2013, 10:12
And when they fuck it up (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rbs-bad-practice-drives-5-16bn-loss-070142515--finance.html) ... someone has to pay for it (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/thousands-face-mortgage-rate-rise-185917411.html#iXsmwUl). That's gonna come as a pleasant surprise on top of every other rate, water, electricity etc... rise v's stagnant wage growth. I may have to revisit my guess that the US will be the place that goes tits first.
They're Celtic descendants, no surprises there.
scumdog
1st March 2013, 10:23
Who cares? - it's not like any of you can do anything about it eh...:rolleyes:
imdying
1st March 2013, 10:35
Bit like Jews getting gassed eh Scummy :clap:
mashman
1st March 2013, 11:07
Who cares? - it's not like any of you can do anything about it eh...:rolleyes:
:rofl:... stop measuring us by your yardstick fucko. It's because of you that nothing is done mr take it up the arse roll me over then dip me in negativity whilst I play dead with my head in a bucket of sand :motu:
Akzle
1st March 2013, 12:47
I like the cold. I miss it dearly. Fortunately shit will be growing elsewhere.
like.... not on earth?
Who cares? - it's not like any of you can do anything about it eh...:rolleyes:
i can! i had a brilliant idea - i'd get on a rocketship with a nuclear weapon and fly to the asteroid, drill to the core, deposit the nuke, take off and remote detonate it!
fucken genius or what? i've been collecting hemp oil and twigs, and nearly have enough twine to build the rocket.... if i could just stop smoking all the oil...
davereid
1st March 2013, 13:28
And when they fuck it up, someone has to pay for it
Sadly that person is always the working class. The rich can dodge it. The truly poor have no more to give. But there is always someone who can pay.
mashman
1st March 2013, 14:30
like.... not on earth?
Toadally duuuude... Mars has some seasonal growings and fortunately mushies lubs the dark. If all else fails we can go out in a technicoloured dream. Hey man, check out my telescope coz I coulda sworn I just saw a rocket that looked like it was made of hemp oil and twigs carrying a nuclear device and a big fuckoff drill bit. Ooooo, rainbow pony
Sadly that person is always the working class. The rich can dodge it. The truly poor have no more to give. But there is always someone who can pay.
Aye that's a bitter pill to swallow. I guess it kinda goes hand in hand with your Credit Reporting thread. We know how much you have, we know how frivolously you live, we think you can pay more and will dream up any number of approaches to eek that cash outta ya. War on the middle classes will no doubt have business casualties, but that's progress for ya eh ;).
oldrider
1st March 2013, 14:31
Historically, having the Gold Standard has stopped inflation. That isn't pointless.
Using grains of sand as an analogy for value is wrong. Why is gold expensive and sand cheap?
Call it what you like, the true wealth of any society is its ability to produce goods and services coupled with it's ability to consume them.
An individual's true wealth is their ability to consume the available goods and services that it creates.
It is therefore the current purchasing power of your dollar, relative to the cost of production that is important.
The problems faced with monetary system failings are man made therefore the solutions are man made also.
What is missing is the "human will" to front up and solve the problem, mainly due to fear of losing perceived "personal advantage" created along with the problem!
Create a need and then exploit the greed ... it is knowledge and ignorance that allows any faulty system to exist and prevail! :brick:
mashman
1st March 2013, 14:35
Call it what you like, the true wealth of any society is its ability to produce goods and services coupled with it's ability to consume them.
An individual's true wealth is their ability to consume the available goods and services that it creates.
It is therefore the current purchasing power of your dollar, relative to the cost of production that is important.
The problems faced with monetary system failings are man made therefore the solutions are man made also.
What is missing is the "human will" to front up and solve the problem, mainly due to fear of losing perceived "personal advantage" created along with the problem!
Create a need and then exploit the greed ... it is knowledge and ignorance that allows any faulty system to exist and prevail! :brick:
Far too simplistic I'm afraid. Can you complicate the above a bit further please so that it makes less sense and then I can dismiss is as not being true.
scumdog
1st March 2013, 14:38
:rofl:... stop measuring us by your yardstick fucko. It's because of you that nothing is done mr take it up the arse roll me over then dip me in negativity whilst I play dead with my head in a bucket of sand :motu:
So...lemme guess, you and imdying are full on doing something that will make a big change and make life better for all of us?
Well good on YOU guys, tell me how it all works out eh!
mashman
1st March 2013, 14:48
So...lemme guess, you and imdying are full on doing something that will make a big change and make life better for all of us?
Well good on YOU guys, tell me how it all works out eh!
I can't speak for imdying, and the mere thought kinda leave me feeling unclean, not full on (I have to work for a living) so more semi-part-time, but yes, I'm actually doing something. You?
You'll see how it works out... just be sure to tick my box ok sunshine.
scumdog
1st March 2013, 14:50
I can't speak for imdying, and the mere thought kinda leave me feeling unclean, not full on (I have to work for a living) so more semi-part-time, but yes, I'm actually doing something. You?
You'll see how it works out... just be sure to tick my box ok sunshine.
I just hope the disappointment isn't too crushing...
mashman
1st March 2013, 14:55
I just hope the disappointment isn't too crushing...
Just because you find it hard to handle failure doesn't mean that others do. Gotta try first.
scumdog
1st March 2013, 14:59
Just because you find it hard to handle failure doesn't mean that others do. Gotta try first.
Too true.
If you don't try? - you will never know failure eh!
And when you DO find failure let me know how you handle it.
(And I'm not sure what failure you think I found hard to handle...)
mashman
1st March 2013, 15:04
Too true.
If you don't try? - you will never know failure eh!
And when you DO find failure let me know how you handle it.
(And I'm not sure what failure you think I found hard to handle...)
I've failed at a few things thanks... some of them biggies. Meh, live and learn.
Failure is easy to handle. Learn what you can then try again. Rinse and repeat.
(you assumed that I couldn't handle failure, I assumed you knew what failure was based on that assumption)
Ocean1
1st March 2013, 15:08
We know how much you have, we know how frivolously you live, we think you can pay more and will dream up any number of approaches to eek that cash outta ya. War on the middle classes will no doubt have business casualties, but that's progress for ya eh ;).
Perhaps if they stopped voting for political entities that promise more spending it'd improve the situation, eh?
Or are the majority so retarded that they don't see the link between what govt spends and what it taxes?
mashman
1st March 2013, 15:12
Perhaps if they stopped voting for political entities that promise more spending it'd improve the situation, eh?
Or are the majority so retarded that they don't see the link between what govt spends and what it taxes?
There is some merit to that. As they say, it only encourages them.
Most definitely, although they'd have to care first.
Ocean1
1st March 2013, 15:22
Most definitely, although they'd have to care first.
Don't matter a fuck whether they care or not. They need >50% votes, have you noticed how many voters recieve more from the govt than they pay in tax?
55%.
You can fix it easy enough.
You get to vote only if you were one of the 45% who generated a positive contribution last year.
What sort of government do you suppose those who actually pay the bills might elect?
imdying
1st March 2013, 15:34
So...lemme guess, you and imdying are full on doing something that will make a big change and make life better for all of us?
Well good on YOU guys, tell me how it all works out eh!Nope, I'm on the other end... the current problems benefit me so I'm hardly likely to want to change the status quo am I. Having said that, your attitude is typical, and half the reason I can get away with rorting the system in perfectly legal and legitmate manner... All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing etc etc
Given what Mashie does for a living, I dare say he too is rolling in it and in reality could give two fucks if you peasants suffer.
Akzle
1st March 2013, 15:44
(And I'm not sure what failure you think I found hard to handle...)
the IQ test to do anything other than eat donuts and write tickets?
Akzle
1st March 2013, 16:43
and today i hear, just now, that only 8% of the world's "money" exists... go figure.
Zedder
1st March 2013, 16:43
Call it what you like, the true wealth of any society is its ability to produce goods and services coupled with it's ability to consume them.
An individual's true wealth is their ability to consume the available goods and services that it creates.
It is therefore the current purchasing power of your dollar, relative to the cost of production that is important.
The problems faced with monetary system failings are man made therefore the solutions are man made also.
What is missing is the "human will" to front up and solve the problem, mainly due to fear of losing perceived "personal advantage" created along with the problem!
Create a need and then exploit the greed ... it is knowledge and ignorance that allows any faulty system to exist and prevail! :brick:
All I was writing about was supply and demand in terms of fixing a value of something. Gold is short in supply and high in demand, sand is the opposite. Hence the value of gold is higher.
Zedder
1st March 2013, 16:49
Nope, I'm on the other end... the current problems benefit me so I'm hardly likely to want to change the status quo am I. Having said that, your attitude is typical, and half the reason I can get away with rorting the system in perfectly legal and legitmate manner... All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing etc etc
Given what Mashie does for a living, I dare say he too is rolling in it and in reality could give two fucks if you peasants suffer.
The law/situation has provided a "rortable" situation and you're exploiting it. I suppose it's about subjective morals.
mashman
1st March 2013, 17:10
Don't matter a fuck whether they care or not. They need >50% votes, have you noticed how many voters recieve more from the govt than they pay in tax?
55%.
You can fix it easy enough.
You get to vote only if you were one of the 45% who generated a positive contribution last year.
What sort of government do you suppose those who actually pay the bills might elect?
True. Currently it doesn't matter.
It is easy enough to fix. Preferably my way but...
Blame the employers form not paying enough in the way of wages for those 55% to be in the position where they need to claim for assistance. then they can all have a vote.
The sort of govt that gives them stuff for free :innocent:.
Given what Mashie does for a living, I dare say he too is rolling in it and in reality could give two fucks if you peasants suffer.
Not rolling in it, certainly have been in a position to structure my affairs in such a way as to save a fuckload more than I have, but didn't re: social conscience. I see no reason to burn my time and effort in the pursuit of money where the jobs pays ok money ;). I'd rather work for free and receive what I wanted for free though :yes:.
and today i hear, just now, that only 8% of the world's "money" exists... go figure.
Less than I thought, but not unexpected. Only 8% to go before it's all handled digitally through our iFarts eh. Can't wait for the day when people are kidnapped whilst nasty men live it up large using their phones to run up large bills. Should be fun
All I was writing about was supply and demand in terms of fixing a value of something. Gold is short in supply and high in demand, sand is the opposite. Hence the value of gold is higher.
If it was illegal to take sand off the beach and try to use it in a system where sand was the currency (counterfeiting), then sand would be seen as scarce... we'd also have beach police (my kinda job) and very full jails. Given that there is an unlimited amount of money available to the money men of the world, we may as well use sand instead of gold or money or precious rocks etc... as it's all about perception and the law and not about economic value, supply and demand, scarcity etc... now is it? It's all a crock of overly complicated horse shit given that the ultimate goal is to do things better than we did before. Took me plenty of years to realise that, but NOW I'm here, I'm glad I'm not where I was.
Zedder
1st March 2013, 17:34
If it was illegal to take sand off the beach and try to use it in a system where sand was the currency (counterfeiting), then sand would be seen as scarce... we'd also have beach police (my kinda job) and very full jails. Given that there is an unlimited amount of money available to the money men of the world, we may as well use sand instead of gold or money or precious rocks etc... as it's all about perception and the law and not about economic value, supply and demand, scarcity etc... now is it? It's all a crock of overly complicated horse shit given that the ultimate goal is to do things better than we did before. Took me plenty of years to realise that, but NOW I'm here, I'm glad I'm not where I was.
It's about perception to a certain extent but it's mainly about structure. The "system" has come up with a means of exchange (money) which is unfortunately (to some) very changeable/tradeable while the earlier gold standard was reasonably set in comparison. The overridng intent is to make things stable.
As I wrote earlier gold is more rare than sand so it makes it more naturally precious. It could equally be the other way 'round due to some geological quirk.
The other end of the spectrum is someone like Lysander Spooner, who incidently I admire for his stand on natural justice, but like all radicals or extremists, made himself unpopular due to his abrasive attitude and actions. He had some very valid points though.
scumdog
1st March 2013, 17:44
the IQ test to do anything other than eat donuts and write tickets?
Too many here take stuff too seriously.
Being bucks-up ain't all it's made out to be.
Have you seen the price of custom billet wheels lately? - enough to make you cry...and don't tell me about the service in Palms Spring restaurants, they won't get THIS guy back!:mad:
mashman
1st March 2013, 17:51
It's about perception to a certain extent but it's mainly about structure. The "system" has come up with a means of exchange (money) which is unfortunately (to some) very changeable/tradeable while the earlier gold standard was reasonably set in comparison. The overridng intent is to make things stable.
As I wrote earlier gold is more rare than sand so it makes it more naturally precious. It could equally be the other way 'round due to some geological quirk.
The other end of the spectrum is someone like Lysander Spooner, who incidently I admire for his stand on natural justice, but like all radicals or extremists, made himself unpopular due to his abrasive attitude and actions. He had some very valid points though.
It's ALL about perception. Take my position for instance. I see no need for money to exist at all. Granted that no financial system is better than any financial system, but the perception is that money does more harm than good, and contrary to the advert, it's not what you do with it that counts. I understand why the system is there and why it is set up the way it is (powerful men being fucktards immediately springs to mind), but the medium of exchange for goods is conducted using a token. If that token is perceived to be precious and therefore worth more value, then it will be so. If that token wasn't, then the opposite would be so. The quantity and form of that token is irrelevant as it is the perception that gives it its state. You perceive money against gold as a better way to do things, I perceive that you're full of shit and that you really haven't though things though :innocent:. The market i.e. the value of every good and service is set by perception... even to the point where a CEO can leave their position and their share value will either rise or drop depending on the perception of how well he was doing at his job.
Mr Spooner was likely telling the truth that no one liked hearing and therefore they perceived his attitude and actions as abrasive... where someone like myself may well have considered him to be thoughtful and well reasoned. Perception is EVERYTHING.
Zedder
1st March 2013, 18:25
It's ALL about perception. Take my position for instance. I see no need for money to exist at all. Granted that no financial system is better than any financial system, but the perception is that money does more harm than good, and contrary to the advert, it's not what you do with it that counts. I understand why the system is there and why it is set up the way it is (powerful men being fucktards immediately springs to mind), but the medium of exchange for goods is conducted using a token. If that token is perceived to be precious and therefore worth more value, then it will be so. If that token wasn't, then the opposite would be so. The quantity and form of that token is irrelevant as it is the perception that gives it its state. You perceive money against gold as a better way to do things, I perceive that you're full of shit and that you really haven't though things though :innocent:. The market i.e. the value of every good and service is set by perception... even to the point where a CEO can leave their position and their share value will either rise or drop depending on the perception of how well he was doing at his job.
Mr Spooner was likely telling the truth that no one liked hearing and therefore they perceived his attitude and actions as abrasive... where someone like myself may well have considered him to be thoughtful and well reasoned. Perception is EVERYTHING.
Perception is subjective Masho. Therein lies the problem, and if left to take its natural course, it ultimately leads to anarchy and threatens society. TPTB can't let that happen.
Spooner advocated anarchy which people in general, couldn't allow. Do you blame them? I know you can't wait for the end of "the system" but until there's a much better replacement that ticks all the boxes, yer bums oot ra windae.
Ocean1
1st March 2013, 18:35
Blame the employers form not paying enough in the way of wages for those 55% to be in the position where they need to claim for assistance. then they can all have a vote.
Why? are you not aware that for the vast majority of employers their wage bill is not only by far their largest cost but several orders of magnitude larger than their profit?
The sort of govt that gives them stuff for free :innocent:.
In which case they wouldn't qualify to vote, would they?
mashman
1st March 2013, 18:38
Perception is subjective Masho. Therein lies the problem, and if left to take its natural course, it ultimately leads to anarchy and threatens society. TPTB can't let that happen.
Spooner advocated anarchy which people in general, couldn't allow. Do you blame them? I know you can't wait for the end of "the system" but until there's a much better replacement that ticks all the boxes, yer bums oot ra windae.
I guess history has proven that time and time again... yet they haven't learned. Imparting more and more restrictions and controls on people generally leads to the afore mentioned anarchy and I don't think TPTB are trying to avoid it happening. If it's that inevitable, then the rules of the game need to be changed. I've got brand new shiny rules just waiting for a country that's willing to put the good of their entire country to the fore above their demands of their economy.
I agree in regards to anarchy. There may well have been a time where I was happy to watch a govt fall, but as you say, what do you replace it with... given that where one "party" is removed, there's always another there to take its place and reap the rewards instead of change things for the better. I have a replacement that ticks all of the boxes, I just need funding to explain it to the population so that they can have a chance to vote on it. That way the transition can be managed, transgressions forgotten (yup including bankers etc...), prisoners released that haven't really done anything wrong in the eyes of the "new laws" etc... essentially a clean slate for just about all concerned with which to do and be the best they can... ommmmmmmmmm. Otherwise, why bother and why not just let history repeat itself. the next revolution should be a stonker given the weapons that TPTB have at their beckon call and given that our "defence" forces are such good lapdogs for their masters.
mashman
1st March 2013, 18:40
Why? are you not aware that for the vast majority of employers their wage bill is not only by far their largest cost but several orders of magnitude larger than their profit?
In which case they wouldn't qualify to vote, would they?
How do they survive?
Why not?
Ocean1
1st March 2013, 18:43
How do they survive?
By earning more than they spend, same as eveyone else.
Why not?
Because if the gubmint gave them shit for free they'd immediately disqualify themselves, having failed to contribute more than they took.
mashman
1st March 2013, 18:47
By earning more than they spend, same as eveyone else.
Because if the gubmint gave them shit for free they'd immediately disqualify themselves, having failed to contribute more than they took.
You lost me there. How can the wage bill be several magnitudes larger than their profit and yet they earn more than they spend?
When I said "them" getting stuff for free, I meant everyone... not just the 55%. Perhaps, a govt that values any and all contributions that are not based on financial return, would have been more apt for current day economics. That would also include the unemployed as they help to keep inflation down and therefore save the country and its citizens billions of $$$.
Ocean1
1st March 2013, 19:06
You lost me there. How can the wage bill be several magnitudes larger than their profit and yet they earn more than they spend?
It's simple, where's the problem?
Profit's what's left AFTER you've paid for materials, services, wages... and like I said, in a typical business wages and salaries are much more than any eventual profit.
When I said "them" getting stuff for free, I meant everyone... not just the 55%. Perhaps, a govt that values any and all contributions that are not based on financial return, would have been more apt for current day economics. That would also include the unemployed as they help to keep inflation down and therefore save the country and its citizens billions of $$$.
They can only "value" contributions by "devaluing" them in the first place. Why on earth would you take money from the productive secton of your population and give it to the unproductive? It's effectively a positive feedback loop, not a viable control strategy.
As for your take on the the unemployed's "contribution"? Let's allow those who pay for their lunch to decide if their contribution is worthwhile, eh?
Zedder
1st March 2013, 19:07
I guess history has proven that time and time again... yet they haven't learned. Imparting more and more restrictions and controls on people generally leads to the afore mentioned anarchy and I don't think TPTB are trying to avoid it happening. If it's that inevitable, then the rules of the game need to be changed. I've got brand new shiny rules just waiting for a country that's willing to put the good of their entire country to the fore above their demands of their economy.
I agree in regards to anarchy. There may well have been a time where I was happy to watch a govt fall, but as you say, what do you replace it with... given that where one "party" is removed, there's always another there to take its place and reap the rewards instead of change things for the better. I have a replacement that ticks all of the boxes, I just need funding to explain it to the population so that they can have a chance to vote on it. That way the transition can be managed, transgressions forgotten (yup including bankers etc...), prisoners released that haven't really done anything wrong in the eyes of the "new laws" etc... essentially a clean slate for just about all concerned with which to do and be the best they can... ommmmmmmmmm. Otherwise, why bother and why not just let history repeat itself. the next revolution should be a stonker given the weapons that TPTB have at their beckon call and given that our "defence" forces are such good lapdogs for their masters.
Anarchy is not inevitable if a certain mix of controls are in place.
Why is NZ such a stable country? In a nut shell, there's just enough of everything to keep it that way plus Kiwis are known to be "laid back".
Your conviction for change is obvious but as you say lack of funding is the major issue. However, your obstacle is an ingrained old boys network/dynastic system in a county with no real axes to grind as opposed to some third world country which is in dire need of a revolution.
mashman
1st March 2013, 19:26
It's simple, where's the problem?
Profit's what's left AFTER you've paid for materials, services, wages... and like I said, in a typical business wages and salaries are much more than any eventual profit.
They can only "value" contributions by "devaluing" them in the first place. Why on earth would you take money from the productive secton of your population and give it to the unproductive? It's effectively a positive feedback loop, not a viable control strategy.
As for your take on the the unemployed's "contribution"? Let's allow those who pay for their lunch to decide if their contribution is worthwhile, eh?
Yes, yes, the penny has dropped :facepalm:... in which case, share the profits :rofl:.
It's already a positive feedback loop as there is no viable control strategy. Otherwise we wouldn't have recession innit.
You mean let's allow the ones who don't pay enough to decide what rights those who are underpaid are allowed to have? I'm pretty feckin sure that's the way things are currently going and it isn't working out too well. Go ahead and force them all to work and see what happens (hyperinflation according to economic textz on the webz). DOH, sorry, there aren't enough jobs, unless of course you lower the minimum wage to $3 per hour or something like that. But then there'd be more claiming off of the state. So we'd have to pay them mor... oh hang on.
mashman
1st March 2013, 19:38
Anarchy is not inevitable if a certain mix of controls are in place.
Why is NZ such a stable country? In a nut shell, there's just enough of everything to keep it that way plus Kiwis are known to be "laid back".
Your conviction for change is obvious but as you say lack of funding is the major issue. However, your obstacle is an ingrained old boys network/dynastic system in a county with no real axes to grind as opposed to some third world country which is in dire need of a revolution.
You mean a policed state? Irrespective of what controls are in place, where the people are being forced into a financial corner, the outcome is likely to be anarchy. It's in the post as more and more people realise that govts are ineffective and are full of hollow promises.
Everyone has their breaking point... but you're probably right, NZ will likely wait for the dust to settle and follow the herd.
Oh I dunno. I think there's plenty of people in NZ that are looking for some form of change that would offer more positives than the current system can offer. I'd love to find out. The old boys network won't get a look in when it's up to the people to decide for themselves and to vote on. It may not happen the first time around, maybe not even the second... but with the cost of living only ever really going in one direction in regards to wages, at some point people will start to want something that isn't red or blue as they will be seen as ineffective. I'd rather it happened sooner rather than later.
oldrider
1st March 2013, 19:40
279245
All I was writing about was supply and demand in terms of fixing a value of something. Gold is short in supply and high in demand, sand is the opposite. Hence the value of gold is higher.
OK, fair nough!
My hobby is gold prospecting and I can attest to the difference in value of sand and gold!
Have you any idea how many tonnes of sand gravel etc I have to move and wash to recover an ounce of fine (like pepper and salt) gold? :eek5:
Oops: attachment was supposed to be below the writing but you get my drift!
Ocean1
1st March 2013, 19:41
It's already a positive feedback loop as there is no viable control strategy. Otherwise we wouldn't have recession innit.
Dude. A recession is the control in action.
You mean let's allow the ones who don't pay enough to decide what rights those who are underpaid are allowed to have?
I generally say what I mean. Those you consider not to be paying enough are leaving the country in droves, asking more is of them is frankly ridiculous. And what's more the unproductive have just one natural right: to die. They do better than that because "those who don't pay enough" work harder to make that happen.
mashman
1st March 2013, 19:51
Dude. A recession is the control in action.
I generally say what I mean. Those you consider not to be paying enough are leaving the country in droves, asking more is of them is frankly ridiculous. And what's more the unproductive have just one natural right: to die. They do better than that because "those who don't pay enough" work harder to make that happen.
I agree, but you did say viable.
Leaving? even after they have been given a tax break? that's a bit ungrateful. So would they had have stayed if their employers had offered them more money ;)? Hang on, you said they left the country... and believing that working harder is going to make a difference is really rather amusing. It may earn them a few dollars more, but that'll soon be removed from them in some form or another. Likely when taxes go back up (maybe stealth taxes, fuel etc...) to pay for that huge amount of debt that the nats have borrowed that hasn't really done anything positive in regards to protecting the economy. Now where did I misplace that extra $40 billion.
Ocean1
1st March 2013, 20:12
I agree, but you did say viable.
What's non-viable about a recession a a control function, it's been working for as long as records were made.
Leaving? even after they have been given a tax break? that's a bit ungrateful. So would they had have stayed if their employers had offered them more money ;)? Hang on, you said they left the country... and believing that working harder is going to make a difference is really rather amusing. It may earn them a few dollars more, but that'll soon be removed from them in some form or another. Likely when taxes go back up (maybe stealth taxes, fuel etc...) to pay for that huge amount of debt that the nats have borrowed that hasn't really done anything positive in regards to protecting the economy. Now where did I misplace that extra $40 billion.
What tax break?
Rest is awfully waffly. What's wrong with hard work as a method of improving one's options? Again, it's worked for our ancestors for millenia, and that's the problem in a nutshell: When hard work stops being an effective strategy to improve one's life then you've just lost that negative control function. Shit ensueth.
Zedder
1st March 2013, 20:13
279245
OK, fair nough!
My hobby is gold prospecting and I can attest to the difference in value of sand and gold!
Have you any idea how many tonnes of sand gravel etc I have to move and wash to recover an ounce of fine (like pepper and salt) gold? :eek5:
Oops: attachment was supposed to be below the writing but you get my drift!
Alluvial mining, cool. Otago or the West Coast?
mashman
1st March 2013, 20:23
What's non-viable about a recession a a control function, it's been working for as long as records were made.
What tax break?
Rest is awfully waffly. What's wrong with hard work as a method of improving one's options? Again, it's worked for our ancestors for millenia, and that's the problem in a nutshell: When hard work stops being an effective strategy to improve one's life then you've just lost that negative control function. Shit ensueth.
The damage it does.
The one JK gave them at the start of his first term.
Hard working is no substitute for working smarter... being able to improve your lot will only take you so far where the rest, who also work hard but still have to claim some form of govt assistance, end up being pushed to the point where they're more financially stable on the dole. Hard work is not always an effective strategy and seems to be becoming more and more of a norm these days. Great where your employer can afford to reward that hard work, not so much where they can't. Working smarter i.e. pooling resources will alleviate much of the need to work harder, even though people will still work hard.
Ocean1
1st March 2013, 20:25
My hobby is gold prospecting and I can attest to the difference in value of sand and gold!
I once met an old guy, must have been 80, out behing the coronet, somewhere up long gully. He hadn't been in to town for months and wanted nothing more than to talk. He took me and my father 100yds back off the track to his bivy and made us a cupa. He showed us an AG jar full of gold, had been just sitting up on a shelf. I could hardly lift it. Reckoned he had almost enough to retire, was getting too old to do it any more anyway. Sometimes wonder how he got on.
Ocean1
1st March 2013, 20:31
The damage it does.
The one JK gave them at the start of his first term.
Hard working is no substitute for working smarter... being able to improve your lot will only take you so far where the rest, who also work hard but still have to claim some form of govt assistance, end up being pushed to the point where they're more financially stable on the dole. Hard work is not always an effective strategy and seems to be becoming more and more of a norm these days. Great where your employer can afford to reward that hard work, not so much where they can't. Working smarter i.e. pooling resources will alleviate much of the need to work harder, even though people will still work hard.
Waffle. Pooling resources doesn't actually produce anything. I am my employer, and both of our income is directly dependant on the value of my work. That's the real world. Any arangement that deems productive effort an ineffective strategy is going to be a short arangement. If you see a future "correction" in a system that rewards mediocrity I see one where productivity reaps it's own rewards.
Edit: The damaage a recession does is a nescessary element of the correction. In an ideal world the damage is mostly restricted to the entities who's behaviour drove the need for that correction. Publicly funded bailouts are anathema to any fiscally fair and rational system.
mashman
1st March 2013, 20:40
Waffle. Pooling resources doesn't actually produce anything. I am my employer, and both of our income is directly dependant on the value of my work. That's the real world. Any arangement that deems productive effort an ineffective strategy is going to be a short arangement. If you see a future "correction" in a system that rewards mediocrity I see one where productivity reaps it's own rewards.
Edit: The damaage a recession does is a nescessary element of the correction. In an ideal world the damage is mostly restricted to the entities who's behaviour drove the need for that correction. Publicly funded bailouts are anathema to any fiscally fair and rational system.
Of course it's waffle where you can only see as far as you. Good luck to ya. Oddly enough I see the current real world as rewarding mediocrity because it refuses to wait for people to be ready to be what they want to be and do the best that they can. All culled by budget constraint an the impatience of old men measuring others by their own yard stick. That real world is full of entrenchment, jobs for the boys, lack of qualifications, lack of experience and various other memes that keep better candidates for certain positions away from those positions. That breeds mediocrity. Right people right job will allow society to excel and move at a pace that too many don't believe is possible. Isolated productivity isn't going to work is it?
Sorry, but I don't see it as necessary at all. Remove the obstacle that's causing the damage and you won't have the damage any more. Just in case you hadn't noticed, that's the financial system. You want fair and rational, then level the playing field and do things for a reason other than making money i.e. because they need to be done. It ain't hard and it'll do more good than not.
Ocean1
1st March 2013, 20:54
Of course it's waffle where you can only see as far as you. Good luck to ya. Oddly enough I see the current real world as rewarding mediocrity because it refuses to wait for people to be ready to be what they want to be and do the best that they can. All culled by budget constraint an the impatience of old men measuring others by their own yard stick. That real world is full of entrenchment, jobs for the boys, lack of qualifications, lack of experience and various other memes that keep better candidates for certain positions away from those positions. That breeds mediocrity. Right people right job will allow society to excel and move at a pace that too many don't believe is possible. Isolated productivity isn't going to work is it?
You have an unfortunate propensity, when pressed to chuck words together exactly as if they were a defense against the facts. As a political characteristic it's common. Common as muck. As a viable debating tactic it's all fail.
As for isolated productivity, surely the problem is more redily solved by rewarding productive behaviour rather than blaming it for failing to be more widespread.
Sorry, but I don't see it as necessary at all. Remove the obstacle that's causing the damage and you won't have the damage any more. Just in case you hadn't noticed, that's the financial system. You want fair and rational, then level the playing field and do things for a reason other than making money i.e. because they need to be done. It ain't hard and it'll do more good than not.
Dude, amongst the thousands of people I know aproximately none believe society would be better without a financial system. Probably because they're not silly enough to believe that either everyone's contribution is of equal value or that there's no need to quntify the value of either that contribution or any other asset society encompasses.
mashman
1st March 2013, 21:25
You have an unfortunate propensity, when pressed to chuck words together exactly as if they were a defense against the facts. As a political characteristic it's common. Common as muck. As a viable debating tactic it's all fail.
As for isolated productivity, surely the problem is more redily solved by rewarding productive behaviour rather than blaming it for failing to be more widespread.
Dude, amongst the thousands of people I know aproximately none believe society would be better without a financial system. Probably because they're not silly enough to believe that either everyone's contribution is of equal value or that there's no need to quntify the value of either that contribution or any other asset society encompasses.
:rofl: I'm not defending against the facts at all. I'm denying that the facts, as you offer them, are correct. You say that if you don't reward you get mediocrity. That's absolute bullshit. Money isn't everything to an awful lot of people and yet they'll still slog their guts out. They're facts, yet you choose to deny them as a political jibber jabber because they don't fit your world view. Kudos, bravo, way to stick to your guns etc... I'm wanting to let our potential off the leash and by fuck if even 1% of that potential kicks into gear it'll be 1% more than we currently have and it will be stunning.
:facepalm: sure, go ahead, throw more money at the problem, after all, as long as you're productive in specific valued areas, where's the problem? Oh yeah, everyone else that is working just as hard in jobs that aren't deemed worthy of being afforded similar rewards. After all, according to your yard stick, they should be rewarded but only if they are deemed to be productive. You rely on these people whether you like it or not.
:killingme... so they all have tickets on themselves too eh. They can't be very smart people either.
Brian d marge
1st March 2013, 21:28
and today i hear, just now, that only 8% of the world's "money" exists... go figure.
I thought it was less than that
3%
stephen
Brian d marge
1st March 2013, 22:19
The other end of the spectrum is someone like Lysander Spooner, who incidently I admire for his stand on natural justice, but like all radicals or extremists, made himself unpopular due to his abrasive attitude and actions. He had some very valid points though.
He was a character !!!
and there was another character like him , name escapes me for a moment !
Stephen
Akzle
2nd March 2013, 16:18
and there was another character like him , name escapes me for a moment !
did he have green font?
Brian d marge
2nd March 2013, 21:22
did he have green font?
not a font as such more a shrubbery
Stephen
mashman
4th March 2013, 17:44
bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa... desperate times call for desperate measures (http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2013/02/07/a-breakthrough-speech-on-monetary-policy/). I had tears after reading this... of laughter. Fuckin Morons, still missing the point entirely.
Ocean1
4th March 2013, 18:18
Fuckin Morons, still missing the point entirely.
Exactly, there's no alternative to living within your means.
davereid
4th March 2013, 19:24
Exactly, there's no alternative to living within your means.
Yeah, maybe through the fog, we are getting to the bottom of this. Possibly there are more than four corners, but here goes.
Right from the beginning of time, we lived within our means or we died. Couldn't get enough berries or a pig in the bush... demise ensured.
But it wasnt long before the concept of trade, and instantly credit arrived. I would swap my fish for your vegetables. If I had a bad day, you would still let me have my veges. If the frost was hard, I'd still give you fish, in anticipation of the veges spring would give.
thus (1), we create credit all the time. Its a measure of future production.
Then we discovered leaders and government. Well actually they discovered us, and wanted tax. There was invented currency. The king didnt actually want my rotting fish, or putrid potato, so currency was forced on us.
then (2), money is a medium of exchange, which is effectively measured by its ability to pay tax, and thus not be put to death by the crown. It has value because we need it, or we suffer.
Money needs to be introduced to the community. Mashmans link implied print it, and drop it from helicopter, or bury it in a cave and pay the poor to dig it up as the preferred modern method. The old method was, create a project, take workers and slaves, take food and land to support the slaves, and "pay" for what you took with your currency.
so (3) government can't create wealth, but it can take wealth, and create currency.
(4) Slaves make affordable what commerce otherwise couldn't. Once we took the slave, relocated him to our farm and worked him for a wage comprising enough clothing, food and shelter to ensure he could work tomorrow. As long as that was more economic than taking another slave, he would be given his minimum wage.
Same now, except we use border control. We let the slave work in his own country, we just ensure he is trapped there, and cant come here.
And I guess that's quantitative easing, and credit growth in a nutshell. Nothing we haven't seen before. The same tools and principles applied with EFTPOS instead of round coins with square holes.
Except the same problem exists. My fish is still worth swapping for a potato. But how much is the money worth ? Its values depends entirely on how much tax I need to pay. That's why quantitative easing will eventually fail.
mashman
4th March 2013, 19:25
Exactly, there's no alternative to living within your means.
Even though we'd likely be coming at that one from different points of view, I agree with that.
flyingcrocodile46
4th March 2013, 19:59
As long as we allow the bankers to print currency (for FA cost and charge interest on it) and release it to the market the dollar has no option but to be devalued because ultimately the value of the dollar is linked to the amount of product available (the money is used to buy product - the real wealth). When the rate of release of new (worthless money) outstrips the level of product growth the value of product appreciates (due to demand/dollar availability). The inflationary effect of the product price increase then very rapidly degrades the value (purchasing power) of the dollar.
The only winners are the bankers who are collecting interest from the taxpayers on the whole (but reduced value) dollar that they plucked out of their arses for a few peanuts and those that receive the new dollars straight off the mint as they are able to take advantage of the old purchasing power of the dollar before it depreciates. This is one of the oldest and most effective method of real wealth (product ownership not dollar ownership) transfer. The govts don't care because it's the taxpayer who is enslaved to the bankers.
This is what really drives true inflation. It is basicaly very greedy and clever people with shameless morals sucessfully manipulating politics and countries laws over the last few centuries on the pretext of providing govts surety by underwriting their ledgers (printing fiat money) and charging the masses via tax to pay interest. All so they can take over all the worlds real wealth. It ain't complicated, it ain't a conspiracy, it is the very simple truth of what is happening to the great majority of the world.
Lincoln and kennedy were both assassinated because they tried to stop it from happening by printing their own interest free money.
Fucking shameless manipulation of the sheeple
Ocean1
4th March 2013, 20:10
As long as we allow the bankers to print currency (for FA cost and charge interest on it) and release it to the market the dollar has no option but to be devalued because ultimately the value of the dollar is linked to the amount of product available (the money is used to buy product - the real wealth). When the rate of release of new (worthless money) outstrips the level of product growth the value of product appreciates (due to demand/dollar availability). The inflationary effect of the product price increase then very rapidly degrades the value (purchasing power) of the dollar.
The only winners are the bankers who are collecting interest from the taxpayers on the whole (but reduced value) dollar that they plucked out of their arses for a few peanuts and those that receive the new dollars straight off the mint as they are able to take advantage of the old purchasing power of the dollar before it depreciates. This is one of the oldest and most effective method of real wealth (product ownership not dollar ownership) transfer. The govts don't care because it's the taxpayer who is enslaved to the bankers.
Fucking shameless manipulation of the sheeple
Banks don't print money, govt does, but yes that's the problem in a nutshell.
It's an easy fix, really. Banks in NZ have to have 17% of their funds in real cash, just change the ratio slightly. To 100%.
'Course, you'd struggle to get a mortgage, but you'd be living within your means, eh?
mashman
4th March 2013, 20:15
Yeah, maybe through the fog, we are getting to the bottom of this. Possibly there are more than four corners, but here goes.
Right from the beginning of time, we lived within our means or we died. Couldn't get enough berries or a pig in the bush... demise ensured.
But it wasnt long before the concept of trade, and instantly credit arrived. I would swap my fish for your vegetables. If I had a bad day, you would still let me have my veges. If the frost was hard, I'd still give you fish, in anticipation of the veges spring would give.
thus (1), we create credit all the time. Its a measure of future production.
Then we discovered leaders and government. Well actually they discovered us, and wanted tax. There was invented currency. The king didnt actually want my rotting fish, or putrid potato, so currency was forced on us.
then (2), money is a medium of exchange, which is effectively measured by its ability to pay tax, and thus not be put to death by the crown. It has value because we need it, or we suffer.
Money needs to be introduced to the community. Mashmans link implied print it, and drop it from helicopter, or bury it in a cave and pay the poor to dig it up as the preferred modern method. The old method was, create a project, take workers and slaves, take food and land to support the slaves, and "pay" for what you took with your currency.
so (3) government can't create wealth, but it can take wealth, and create currency.
(4) Slaves make affordable what commerce otherwise couldn't. Once we took the slave, relocated him to our farm and worked him for a wage comprising enough clothing, food and shelter to ensure he could work tomorrow. As long as that was more economic than taking another slave, he would be given his minimum wage.
Same now, except we use border control. We let the slave work in his own country, we just ensure he is trapped there, and cant come here.
And I guess that's quantitative easing, and credit growth in a nutshell. Nothing we haven't seen before. The same tools and principles applied with EFTPOS instead of round coins with square holes.
Except the same problem exists. My fish is still worth swapping for a potato. But how much is the money worth ? Its values depends entirely on how much tax I need to pay. That's why quantitative easing will eventually fail.
Why not, if I want veges, veges are there to be eaten. If I want fish, fish are there to be eaten? Why the need to trade? The reason QE will fail is because consumerism will only go so far. This is the reason that the economy if flailing. I think the Morons underestimated just how much money has been squirreled away by the big boys and how little is left for people to consume. Even at that people will only consume so much. Sure some people will consume in our upgrade age, but as less and less of us are able to afford it and as less and less of us actually give a crap in regard to having the new stuff, the economy will fail. I get the feeling, as I reckon the economists do, that this is what's happening. If there's no consumption, how do the shareholders get paid? I have to laugh at the money drop idea. Let's all settle for being paid what our jobs are worth eh and just wait for the cheque to be able to afford our necessities. Company employees will be paid by the Fed and the managers/CEO's will be paid according to their station. Talk about breeding mediocrity.
As soon as a potato was valued over a fish and wasn't given away without needing to have something in return, we were fucked. We're in a golden age and we're wasting it BIG TIME.
flyingcrocodile46
4th March 2013, 20:17
Banks don't print money, govt does, but yes that's the problem in a nutshell.
It's an easy fix, really. Banks in NZ have to have 17% of their funds in real cash, just change the ratio slightly. To 100%.
'Course, you'd struggle to get a mortgage, but you'd be living within your means, eh?
Actually most of the western worlds govts do not own their own reserve banks through which all currencies are issued (the worlds biggest bankers own them) so they pretty much own everything that comes out of the mints. Which is paid for by interest to the bankers. Govts can't maintain their own reserves because they keep spending them and going bankrupt so they accepted bankers offers to hold gold reserves for them on the agreement that they get paid interest on both existing and new money that they release. The real shame is that it seems likely that most of the reserve banks have very little real reserve left (gold) and it's all getting very shakey.
New money can be introduced by way of loans without causing any inflation as long as the rate of release is aligned to the level of new product made available. I.e not much.
Btw I edited my first post to add a lot more info......... if you are interested.
mashman
4th March 2013, 20:27
Banks don't print money, govt does, but yes that's the problem in a nutshell.
It's an easy fix, really. Banks in NZ have to have 17% of their funds in real cash, just change the ratio slightly. To 100%.
'Course, you'd struggle to get a mortgage, but you'd be living within your means, eh?
Maybe not in physical format, but they do use fractional reserve banking to "print" 9 times that which they have "borrowed".
It is an easy fix, but if money is involved, it'll never be fixed. What about the Oz banks?
That's only because people are too stupid/stubborn to realise that they don't actually need to use money at all, more it slows down progress... hence you wouldn't have a mortgage, just a roof over your head.
Why complicate it?
Ocean1
4th March 2013, 20:50
Maybe not in physical format, but they do use fractional reserve banking to "print" 9 times that which they have "borrowed".
That's what I said. But it's not 9 times, and it's not what they've "borrowed" it's cold hard investment cash. I also said they should be required to stump up with more, not sure what level is good but as it's an inherently inflationary practice it needs to represent a ballance that maintains inflation at GDP.
It is an easy fix, but if money is involved, it'll never be fixed. What about the Oz banks?
So it's an easy fix, but it's not an easy fix because it involves shit you don't like?
And what about the Oz banks?
That's only because people are too stupid/stubborn to realise that they don't actually need to use money at all, more it slows down progress... hence you wouldn't have a mortgage, just a roof over your head.
Why complicate it?
Sounds way more complicated your way to me. But I'm not a dirty communist hippie.
flyingcrocodile46
4th March 2013, 20:58
That's what I said. But it's not 9 times, and it's not what they've "borrowed" it's cold hard investment cash. I also said they should be required to stump up with more, not sure what level is good but as it's an inherently inflationary practice it needs to represent a ballance that maintains inflation at GDP.
That is simple enough (but not regarded as expedient). You reverse the link and let the increase in GDP drive the process. Add and subtract :lol: to suit.
In other words... no pay no play. But the problem with doing this is that much needed wealth transfer to the few would have to stop in order to be able to operate an economy on such a fragile margin of stimulus and error. No fat for the fat cats
mashman
4th March 2013, 21:06
That's what I said. But it's not 9 times, and it's not what they've "borrowed" it's cold hard investment cash. I also said they should be required to stump up with more, not sure what level is good but as it's an inherently inflationary practice it needs to represent a ballance that maintains inflation at GDP.
cold hard investment cash, in what sense? that money is plucked from thin air at some ratio. Got a source for that required reserve ratio of 17%? Had a look see and can't find it.
So it's an easy fix, but it's not an easy fix because it involves shit you don't like?
And what about the Oz banks?
It's nothing to do with shit that I don't like. It's holds us back, simple. It creates silos... and competition isn't always a good thing.
Well they're the main banks in the country, what's their required reserve ratio?
Sounds way more complicated your way to me. But I'm not a dirty communist hippie.
In which case, put your trust in me and I'll see you right comrade... don't sweat the detail, I got dat shit for ya.
mashman
4th March 2013, 21:10
No fat for the fat cats
but but but, they'll leave the planet and take all of the money with them.
neels
4th March 2013, 21:17
All of this will continue while the trading in the theroetical value of things continues.
The US financial crisis was caused in part by the trading on the theoretical value of debts taken out by people who would never have the means to pay them back, much like investing in a NZ finance company lending people money for cars they couldn't afford.
You only need to look at the share market and the valuing of companies based entirely on what the return on investment will be (assuming things continue as they are), and the value of assets they actually own when it all turns to shit and the receivers are called in.
SPman
4th March 2013, 21:34
but but but, they'll leave the planet and take all of the money with them.
Please.......:woohoo:
flyingcrocodile46
4th March 2013, 21:36
All of this will continue while the trading in the theroetical value of things continues.
The US financial crisis was caused in part by the trading on the theoretical value of debts taken out by people who would never have the means to pay them back, much like investing in a NZ finance company lending people money for cars they couldn't afford.
You only need to look at the share market and the valuing of companies based entirely on what the return on investment will be (assuming things continue as they are), and the value of assets they actually own when it all turns to shit and the receivers are called in.
The days of expectation that companies equity comes anywhere near the value of their shares is long gone. If they weren't bought, stripped and sold three decades ago it was because their share value was already well in excess of any assets they had.
neels
4th March 2013, 21:59
The days of expectation that companies equity comes anywhere near the value of their shares is long gone. If they weren't bought, stripped and sold three decades ago it was because their share value was already well in excess of any assets they had.
Yep, which leaves us with this....
http://youtu.be/vhe_mQVIWVI
Zedder
4th March 2013, 22:12
All of this will continue while the trading in the theroetical value of things continues.
The US financial crisis was caused in part by the trading on the theoretical value of debts taken out by people who would never have the means to pay them back, much like investing in a NZ finance company lending people money for cars they couldn't afford.
You only need to look at the share market and the valuing of companies based entirely on what the return on investment will be (assuming things continue as they are), and the value of assets they actually own when it all turns to shit and the receivers are called in.
What has changed a lot also is peoples wants and needs. They have become more sophisticated and there's no longer a place for a one on one barter system in the so called civilised world. What was once a worker from the fields bartering his grain for other food is now a multi layered process of exchange.
In order to change the financial system then, people would need to become less refined and that's a very hard concept for many, who have been "spoiled" for so long, to accept.
Ocean1
5th March 2013, 07:45
That is simple enough (but not regarded as expedient). You reverse the link and let the increase in GDP drive the process. Add and subtract :lol: to suit.
It's a good control philosophy. I'd be looking at ways to rigidly define GDP, it's the only weakness I can see.
But the problem with doing this is that much needed wealth transfer to the few would have to stop in order to be able to operate an economy on such a fragile margin of stimulus and error. No fat for the fat cats
For those fat cats money is an asset, if it doesn't return interest nobody would lend it, no investment capital for SMEs and no mortgages. Outside of that, yes some people make a tidy sum from manipulating systems designed to regulate the economy and, in some cases redistribute wealth. But almost all of the fat cats I know are simply succesful businessmen, they didn't invent the system, they're honestly just trying to maximise the return on any capital they've managed to accumulate. The inequitable shit we're both bleating about is mostly related to the govt practice of using public money to prevent the loss of that capital in poor or dishonest investments. The public didn't take that risk, the loss belongs with the investor as much as any income an investment might return. As for banking, you can only try to make sure that regulatory measures have negative feedback control inputs that maintain a stable environment which represent a socially desirable goal.
The other inequitable shit I was bleating about is the govt practice of simply printing money to fund election bribes. Or anything else. For every 1% of the value of the economy they print my assets and savings shrink 1% in value. So do yours. And man, do they have a lot of fucking expensive votes to pay for.
cold hard investment cash, in what sense? that money is plucked from thin air at some ratio. Got a source for that required reserve ratio of 17%? Had a look see and can't find it.
In the sense that it's actual cash, deposited with the bank by individuals in exchange for the interest it generates. The bogymen don't get to keep all of that extra money you pay off your mortgage mate. The money plucked from thin air is in fact govt generated, and as I said while the practice is inflationary I don't have a problem with it as long as it's control is linked to inflation.
And no, I don't have time, but I found it, so you can,
It's nothing to do with shit that I don't like. It's holds us back, simple. It creates silos... and competition isn't always a good thing.
Hoe does it hold us back?
What's a silo?
And no, you're correct, in a healthy modern society small children and sick adults are exempt from some forms of competition. Our society's definition of sick represents a societal contagen, we're no longer healthy enough to shelter the genuinely sick from Darwin's law.
Well they're the main banks in the country, what's their required reserve ratio?
17%. Don't matter who owns them, they all have to play by NZ rules.
In which case, put your trust in me and I'll see you right comrade... don't sweat the detail, I got dat shit for ya.
Fuck that's well generous of you, dude. Just send cash, cheque are so 60's, I'll be at home.
mashman
5th March 2013, 08:20
It's a good control philosophy. I'd be looking at ways to rigidly define GDP, it's the only weakness I can see.
When you live in a world that's financial and you have a country that has internal economy that does not use a financial system, then you can regidly define GDP :yes:.
In the sense that it's actual cash, deposited with the bank by individuals in exchange for the interest it generates. The bogymen don't get to keep all of that extra money you pay off your mortgage mate. The money plucked from thin air is in fact govt generated, and as I said while the practice is inflationary I don't have a problem with it as long as it's control is linked to inflation.
And no, I don't have time, but I found it, so you can,
Where do individuals get the cash from? Are you saying that private banking institutions do not pluck money out of thin air? What's the point of having inflation if the money that is linked to it matches inflation?
Hoe does it hold us back?
What's a silo?
And no, you're correct, in a healthy modern society small children and sick adults are exempt from some forms of competition. Our society's definition of sick represents a societal contagen, we're no longer healthy enough to shelter the genuinely sick from Darwin's law.
Consider 2 cancer research companies. They both have their own research and are both doing things slightly differently, however their intermediate results aren't shared between each other because there's money to be made, I mean economic advantage in having the cure. I'd rather they were cooperating instead of working in silo's for financial advantage. Money is holding back cooperation and associated with that, the silo's stop IP from being shared and advancing the understanding of others. Now apply that model to shampoo, technology, food prep, chemicals, drugs, footwear etc... it's SLOOOOOOOOOOOW and holding us back due to a lack of knowledge sharing.
heh... I'm all for competition when it's in regards to sport, but not where profit is the motive. It's counter-productive, see the above examples.
17%. Don't matter who owns them, they all have to play by NZ rules.
Must be an admin nightmare.
Fuck that's well generous of you, dude. Just send cash, cheque are so 60's, I'll be at home.
No problem, glad to help. I doubt you'll like the conditions attached as cash and cheques won't be required... but in the short term, it'll essentially be helicopter money wired to your account. Granted that's not cash, but it'll be digi cash in hand as we'll deal with tax for ya.
Ocean1
5th March 2013, 10:37
When you live in a world that's financial and you have a country that has internal economy that does not use a financial system, then you can regidly define GDP :yes:.
Yep. As far as the real world’s concerned it’ll be zero.
Where do individuals get the cash from?
I know this always seems to be hard for you to assimilate, but they earn it.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/earn
earned, earn•ing, earns
1. To gain especially for the performance of service, labor, or work: earned money by mowing lawns.
2. To acquire or deserve as a result of effort or action: She earned a reputation as a hard worker.
3. To yield as return or profit: a savings account that earns interest on deposited funds.
Are you saying that private banking institutions do not pluck money out of thin air?
Almost certain there’s no private banks in NZ. I think they’re all publicly listed companies. Possible exception of PSIS and any of the old co-ops.
As for where fiat money comes from, it depends on the country but it’s always controlled by the govt.
What's the point of having inflation if the money that is linked to it matches inflation?
The point of matching currency to GDP is to eliminate inflation. That, in turn makes it impossible for govt to simply print money to pay for shit, they’d have to actually attempt to stick to the budget they were hired to implement.
Consider 2 cancer research companies. They both have their own research and are both doing things slightly differently, however their intermediate results aren't shared between each other because there's money to be made, I mean economic advantage in having the cure. I'd rather they were cooperating instead of working in silo's for financial advantage. Money is holding back cooperation and associated with that, the silo's stop IP from being shared and advancing the understanding of others. Now apply that model to shampoo, technology, food prep, chemicals, drugs, footwear etc... it's SLOOOOOOOOOOOW and holding us back due to a lack of knowledge sharing.
So, where do the resources come from to do the research? In fact how would you even fabricate the company in the first place? Ask a bunch of really clever people around for a nice cuppa and a talk about cancer cures? I think you’d find that every single person you asked would have a dozen better offers the next day, they didn’t sweat their ring out getting those qualifications and subsequent experience for nothing and they’re not about to start because someone thinks it a nice idea that they don’t get paid.
Nope, the only system in history that’s ever been as effective in sustaining growth as the commercial competitive model is that same economy under the extreme competition of war.
heh... I'm all for competition when it's in regards to sport, but not where profit is the motive.
If it wasn’t for profit nobody would get paid, nobody would invest in anything. Profit isn’t evel and competition isn’t the bogyman. The only viable motive for the common dislike of both profit and money itself is the need to shift the blame for a lack of personal performance.
Must be an admin nightmare.
Dunno, I think it’s probably reasonably straightforward. I suspect the complicated bit is pandering to all of the many and diverse interested parties who expect to tweak the system in their favour.
No problem, glad to help. I doubt you'll like the conditions attached as cash and cheques won't be required... but in the short term, it'll essentially be helicopter money wired to your account. Granted that's not cash, but it'll be digi cash in hand as we'll deal with tax for ya.
So, no real help then? Just more pretend shit.
Brian d marge
5th March 2013, 13:25
As for where fiat money comes from, it depends on the country but it’s always controlled by the govt.
this is true to an extent , the problem is what happens after the money is created , its based on perceived value so can flow in and out at a drop of a hat , go up or down etc
One of the biggest problems is the fractional rate , mean watch how quickly a bank can turn 10 dollars in to 80 dollars , remember that the newly formed 80 dollars is all on the computer ! ( more or less) and now will be looking to do some work i.e be lent out again !
take 10 , keep 17% in the bank ala da rulz , leaves you with 8.3 , now lend this out at the fractional rate of say 9 PLUS added interest of say 6% and bingo 80
(( 8.3+(8.3x6%) x 9 = 79.1 not bad eh , now that 80 dollars is in turn lent out at the same rate , , 718 dollar , from the original 10
Now this is a little simplistic , as there are taxes and stuff banks have to pay , but it show how much worthless money is entering the system and by making it move , ie lending it out , profits , taxes and investment happen ,,all good ...except
A; you now have a large debt ( savings... bad ....debt good )
B ; you now have a shit load of money in the system all looking for work and driving the prices of everything up , eg houses
If something is broken or doesnt work , dont do it
Stephen
Ocean1
5th March 2013, 15:14
As for where fiat money comes from, it depends on the country but it’s always controlled by the govt.
this is true to an extent , the problem is what happens after the money is created , its based on perceived value so can flow in and out at a drop of a hat , go up or down etc
One of the biggest problems is the fractional rate , mean watch how quickly a bank can turn 10 dollars in to 80 dollars , remember that the newly formed 80 dollars is all on the computer ! ( more or less) and now will be looking to do some work i.e be lent out again !
take 10 , keep 17% in the bank ala da rulz , leaves you with 8.3 , now lend this out at the fractional rate of say 9 PLUS added interest of say 6% and bingo 80
(( 8.3+(8.3x6%) x 9 = 79.1 not bad eh , now that 80 dollars is in turn lent out at the same rate , , 718 dollar , from the original 10
Now this is a little simplistic , as there are taxes and stuff banks have to pay , but it show how much worthless money is entering the system and by making it move , ie lending it out , profits , taxes and investment happen ,,all good ...except
A; you now have a large debt ( savings... bad ....debt good )
B ; you now have a shit load of money in the system all looking for work and driving the prices of everything up , eg houses
If something is broken or doesnt work , dont do it
Stephen
I find myself agreeing. Mostly. Disturbing.
Except I believe that 17% is net, the bank's not allowed to have debts exceeding 83% of current deposits at all times, not simply before outgoings somewhere near the begining of the fiscal year.
Still sounds like a lot don't it? Except the real effects aren't negative enough to nescessarilly ban the practice outright. After all most people wouldn't get a mortgage otherwise, and inflation's not so high that you can point the bone squarely at fractional reserve practices for the world's fiscal plight.
I don't understand what the consequences of a radical drop are. Whatever, I'm not convinced house prices would plummet to more "reasonable" levels just because you've made made cash scarcer.
On a related note I was pleased to hear some grumbles of dissatisfaction amongst the front benches last month at the performance of local body's costs wrt new residential developments. Mutterings of changes to territorial authorities statutes, no less. I've been sharpening my pitchfork.
mashman
5th March 2013, 16:40
I know this always seems to be hard for you to assimilate, but they earn it.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/earn
earned, earn•ing, earns
1. To gain especially for the performance of service, labor, or work: earned money by mowing lawns.
2. To acquire or deserve as a result of effort or action: She earned a reputation as a hard worker.
3. To yield as return or profit: a savings account that earns interest on deposited funds.
As for where fiat money comes from, it depends on the country but it’s always controlled by the govt.
:rofl: no fuckin way man.
Some would beg to differ with you.
http://tvnz.co.nz/seven-sharp/paying-interest-loan-never-existed-video-5336329
So, no real help then? Just more pretend shit.
Only whilst people like yerself have yer heads up yer arses :)
mashman
5th March 2013, 16:55
So, where do the resources come from to do the research? In fact how would you even fabricate the company in the first place? Ask a bunch of really clever people around for a nice cuppa and a talk about cancer cures? I think you’d find that every single person you asked would have a dozen better offers the next day, they didn’t sweat their ring out getting those qualifications and subsequent experience for nothing and they’re not about to start because someone thinks it a nice idea that they don’t get paid.
Nope, the only system in history that’s ever been as effective in sustaining growth as the commercial competitive model is that same economy under the extreme competition of war.
My sister used to do cancer research and left due to similar feelings on the subject. The real brainy boys are like the coders in the basement. Leave them the fuck alone to produce and keep what they do away from everyone else.
Resources are born, resources are dug up, resources grow in fields, resources are manufactured etc... all of which would continue without a financial system as a financial system it not a necessity. Resources will still be born, dug up, grown, manufactured... but on a societal need basis and not coz you can fool the idiots into buying anything as long as you push the right buttons. People believe any crap apparently. I've heard tell that money can only come into existence where the govt says that it's ok.
Has any system in history not be run using a financial system? If no, then it's time to give it a whirl, coz according to some simple analysis, it'll do more for this country than money ever could.
mashman
5th March 2013, 17:07
And this is the sort of shit people get away with (nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-advisers-shock-taxman-wins-235340680.html) ... It's moderately amusing when scanning te web that there are specialist company's for hire that'll help you test the tax system. Those tax rules will still exist of the Gold Standard is reapplied... in fact any financially based system will encourage this sort of practice. :killingme@but but but NZ won;t be seen as business friendly and we won't attract foreign investment. Nothing like a little fear mongering and if these fuckers are gonna stiff the tax payer, I'd rather they weren't allowed to do business here. It's fraud, jail the bastards, make an example of them like the ACC guy that was recently banged up.
Akzle
5th March 2013, 18:13
It's an easy fix, really. Banks in NZ have to have 17% of their funds in real cash, just change the ratio slightly. To 100%.
and here's the problem with that theory:
"real cash" doesn't exist
dun.dun.duuuuun. (you know the sound...ominous)
what you're mistaking for something worth anything is legal tender or currency...
I have to laugh at the money drop idea.
someone worked out (they called it "operation penny drop") that if america hadn't bought an army and staged an occupation of iraq, instead cashing in the same budget for pennies, then flying over 'raq dropping them out of B52s they would have a) done more damage b) caused less civilian casualties c) boosted the iraqi economoney and d) saved a whole lot of derp-yank lives.
Those tax rules will still exist of the Gold Standard is reapplied... in fact any financially based system will encourage this sort of practice.
ursury, give unto caeser etc etc. it goes back to roman cannon law (ironically and relevantly, so too the census, which was for the purpose of evaluating property holdings for tax porpoises)
the problem is the scheming jews... no shit on this one, they invented interest. since then, "money" has been fucked. i think it's their revenge for us putting them on the waiwai express through the desert for 40 years. and they're jealous of bacon.
mashman
5th March 2013, 18:55
someone worked out (they called it "operation penny drop") that if america hadn't bought an army and staged an occupation of iraq, instead cashing in the same budget for pennies, then flying over 'raq dropping them out of B52s they would have a) done more damage b) caused less civilian casualties c) boosted the iraqi economoney and d) saved a whole lot of derp-yank lives.
ursury, give unto caeser etc etc. it goes back to roman cannon law (ironically and relevantly, so too the census, which was for the purpose of evaluating property holdings for tax porpoises)
the problem is the scheming jews... no shit on this one, they invented interest. since then, "money" has been fucked. i think it's their revenge for us putting them on the waiwai express through the desert for 40 years. and they're jealous of bacon.
ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa... worked out by stoners, ignored by congress... now there's a bumper sticker.
Is that only as far back as it goes? I woulda thought it went back further for some reason.
I could give a fuck who is at the helm... remove their toys and it won't matter innit.
Zedder
5th March 2013, 19:14
And this is the sort of shit people get away with (nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-advisers-shock-taxman-wins-235340680.html) ... It's moderately amusing when scanning te web that there are specialist company's for hire that'll help you test the tax system. Those tax rules will still exist of the Gold Standard is reapplied... in fact any financially based system will encourage this sort of practice. :killingme@but but but NZ won;t be seen as business friendly and we won't attract foreign investment. Nothing like a little fear mongering and if these fuckers are gonna stiff the tax payer, I'd rather they weren't allowed to do business here. It's fraud, jail the bastards, make an example of them like the ACC guy that was recently banged up.
Hoi, don't disrespect the gold dude.
But seriously, my understanding of the article was the deal got structured using interpretation of the tax legislation by "experts". However, according to the IRD, they got it wrong. It would have happened under any system.
Ocean1
5th March 2013, 19:42
:rofl: no fuckin way man.
Some would beg to differ with you.
http://tvnz.co.nz/seven-sharp/paying-interest-loan-never-existed-video-5336329
Only whilst people like yerself have yer heads up yer arses :)
I was explaining how private individuals acquire money, and why they bank it.
And you disagree by posting a link to seven-sharp bitching about fractional rates?
Think that's match, dude.
mashman
5th March 2013, 20:00
I was explaining how private individuals acquire money, and why they bank it.
And you disagree by posting a link to seven-sharp bitching about fractional rates?
Think that's match, dude.
I decided to cut it short and let the experts explain where the money came from before it becomes wages. I earn a wage, I know how "private" individuals (corporations apparently) "earn" money.
There is no match. The financial system, and by extension your team, doesn't have what it takes to make it even close to a competition. Best we just cooperate ;)
Akzle
5th March 2013, 20:25
Is that only as far back as it goes? I woulda thought it went back further for some reason.
ung poke og with one stick this sun-up-downing, ung poke og with two stick next sun-up-downing. interesting eh?
mashman
5th March 2013, 20:41
Hoi, don't disrespect the gold dude.
But seriously, my understanding of the article was the deal got structured using interpretation of the tax legislation by "experts". However, according to the IRD, they got it wrong. It would have happened under any system.
A fool and his gold, erm, no a fool and his... ah same shit.
Not under "mine" ;).
ung poke og with one stick this sun-up-downing, ung poke og with two stick next sun-up-downing. interesting eh?
lolz... not really, quite uninteresting in too many ways, but mainly as it's looking in completely the wrong direction.
jonbuoy
5th March 2013, 20:48
Mashman - can you say why you personally are not happy with the money system we have. Is it because other people are struggling or because you personally are struggling? Or are your not struggling but don't like the fact that some people are still acquiring/acquired more wealth than you are?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17543356
mashman
5th March 2013, 21:15
Mashman - can you say why you personally are not happy with the money system we have. Is it because other people are struggling or because you personally are struggling? Or are your not struggling but don't like the fact that some people are still acquiring/acquired more wealth than you are?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17543356
I'm alright, I'll always be alright. If I want more, I'll try different things. Hopefully in the next wee while I'll launch one of those things that's been on the burner for a while and see iffen I can fund the assault on the financial system :rofl:... gonna have to try. I don't care what people have, not any more, maybe 18 months ago I would have answered that differently, but not any more.
Why eh. Not been asked that before, just usually labelled and that's that. Essentially I see where it's going to lead. It's everything from someone working 16 hours a day in 2 jobs and still needing assistance to make ends meet, to teachers not getting paid properly, to people harming others in the pursuit of a few $, to people warring and killing over resources for profit, to silo'd research disguised as being done for the common good, to a serious waste of resources, to poverty in general, to having enough for all but only if you have $ (where logistics solve that), to the mistrust of conspiracy, to relationships being soured by financial concerns, to teens having kids for cash, to country's being thrown into recession, to education/healthcare to a budget, to the realisation that where someone has lots someone else has to have none, to Chch still needing to be started with a vengeance, to if I want to grow my own tobacco and give it away I shouldn't face jail for wanting to share, to not being truly prepared for any disaster, to burying the future of coming generations in debt, to raping the earth for profit, to the realisation that money really isn't solving the big issues of the day and that I should actually give a shit about that etc... to where I see our generation and future generations ending up. We're headed for something really rather nasty and I believe we can avoid it, or at least make an attempt at doing things for the right reasons for a change in an effort to avoid collapse. Imagine that the financial system is turned off tomorrow and go from there. It may not happen in my lifetime, but I'd say that it's in the post somewhere along the track and I finally give a shit and am prepared to be a part of the changes that are required to give us a shot at a real future. I'm curious how many others would be too.
There's nothing doomsday about that. It's merely an observation over the last 42 years and a wake up call 4/5 years ago that that observation could well come true. I don't see why people need to be at the shitty end, even those who put in zero effort coz they are a minority. Just because we aren't equal, doesn't mean that we shouldn't be allowed to be treated that way. Equity for everyone to be the best that they can without the financial system getting in the way. blah blah blah
Hope that's an answer that you'll understand. What's the point of a financial system?
Edit: just checked your link and 2 years ago pro rata I was off the scale by a factor of just over 2. This year, pre-tax, I'm at the end of the initial scale
Zedder
5th March 2013, 21:34
[QUOTE=mashman;1130510392]A fool and his gold, erm, no a fool and his... ah same shit.
Not under "mine" ;).
In any system, whether it's based on gold/money/beads/fish, the rules or legislation are the words that describe it and provide procedures for people to follow.
So are you saying the NOW system would never have a situation whereby some rules (call them what you like) could get misinterpreted by some "rule" experts and things go wrong?
mashman
5th March 2013, 21:44
In any system, whether it's based on gold/money/beads/fish, the rules or legislation are the words that describe it and provide procedures for people to follow.
So are you saying the NOW system would never have a situation whereby some rules (call them what you like) could get misinterpreted by some "rule" experts and things go wrong?
I'm not saying that NOW won't have "rules"... but it won't have many. The 10 commandments would probably suffice to an extent... and to supplement that, we'd still have courts/peer groups to weigh up people's actions should they come under scrutiny. Yup there's an inherent danger there that innocent people will get shafted by nasty bastards, but some things won't change, some will.
jonbuoy
6th March 2013, 06:37
But you want to see everyone on the planet having the same standard of living?
mashman
6th March 2013, 06:56
But you want to see everyone on the planet having the same standard of living?
Not overly sure how to answer that. We'll all have different standards of living. However I see no reason that people in poverty or who work like mad to eek out the basics shouldn't have equal rights to that "lifestyle" due to their effort not being deemed worthy of being rewarded similarly to someone who can do the bare minimum. It's unjust and makes a mockery of the mantra of hard work equalling reward.
Edit: What is the point of a financial system?
jonbuoy
6th March 2013, 07:09
Isn't that the same reason it won't work on a Country scale? People have different standards of living and different expectations? A company director might earn 10x the salary of the company cleaner- just as a rich western country like NZ might have a living standard 10x that of a small African nation.
Ocean1
6th March 2013, 07:23
I decided to cut it short and let the experts explain where the money came from before it becomes wages.
That's your revelation? Money's not real because it costs next to nothing to print?
C'mon, dude, surely you can figure the difference between the token and the value it represents.
I earn a wage, I know how "private" individuals (corporations apparently) "earn" money.
You got me, I have no idea what your talking about. What the fuck has "corporations apparently" got to do with wages?
And you obviously don't believe workers "earn" their wages. I'm not sure how you can bring yourself to soil your hands with your criminal employers stipend.
It does reveal the basis of your fetish regarding money, though. With no understanding of the ethical means whereby people improve their lot it must seem a very arbitrary world.
PS: Those fucking evel corporate researchers are at it again I see: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/8386071/Scientists-long-term-collaboration-with-NYC
oldrider
6th March 2013, 07:51
Edit: What is the point of a financial system?
The financial system is nothing more or less than a means of distribution of goods and services between the producers and the consumers.
It is only faulty when unnecessary charges for it's operation and maintenance are added to the system for ill-gotten gain and personal control.
Control really means power and as such it is the rice bowl of the unscrupulous people that currently have it! The real 1%!
Like a savage dog with it's bone they will not relinquish it without a fight to the death!
They depend on our (the other 99%) ignorance and stupidity and use it to their advantage, actually we give it to them free gratis! .... :brick:
jonbuoy
6th March 2013, 08:09
The financial system is nothing more or less than a means of distribution of goods and services between the producers and the consumers.
It is only faulty when unnecessary charges for it's operation and maintenance are added to the system for ill-gotten gain and personal control.
Control really means power and as such it is the rice bowl of the unscrupulous people that currently have it! The real 1%!
Like a savage dog with it's bone they will not relinquish it without a fight to the death!
They depend on our (the other 99%) ignorance and stupidity and use it to their advantage, actually we give it to them free gratis! .... :brick:
Nicely put, but we are part of the global 1% even if we don´t like admitting it - we don´t want to give up our 1% of wealth to developing nations any more than the members of top 10 rich list want to give away their wealth to us.
Ocean1
6th March 2013, 08:35
we are part of the global 1% even if we don´t like admitting it.
http://youtu.be/AYvMeT2GC14
mashman
6th March 2013, 10:22
That's your revelation? Money's not real because it costs next to nothing to print?
C'mon, dude, surely you can figure the difference between the token and the value it represents.
That and the damage that it does being unnecessary... you kinda gloss over that bit. It was more in response to you saying
As for where fiat money comes from, it depends on the country but it’s always controlled by the govt.
and that that is not the case... dats all. That money comes from somewhere before private individuals get their little mitts on it.
I do understand the repesentation of value and it's a stupid way of doing things. You don't agree, go figure.
You got me, I have no idea what your talking about. What the fuck has "corporations apparently" got to do with wages?
And you obviously don't believe workers "earn" their wages. I'm not sure how you can bring yourself to soil your hands with your criminal employers stipend.
It does reveal the basis of your fetish regarding money, though. With no understanding of the ethical means whereby people improve their lot it must seem a very arbitrary world.
PS: Those fucking evel corporate researchers are at it again I see: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...ation-with-NYC
Ask Akzle about the corporation thing, or failing that, use the internet and look up Legal Personality.
Not all people earn their wages as you're very fond of pointing out... so no, I don't believe that some workers earn their wages. I don't have much choice if I want to provide for my family given the current situation. Once that changes, I'll be much happier.
It doesn't reveal anything of the sort. It might do for you, but it's certainly not the perspective I have. Oh I get the ethical means, I've done things by the book, this is what shit costs, so therefore I've "earned" what I am due thing... but yes, on certain levels I do see the world as being quite arbitrary.
Perhaps the key part of that link was that they hard formed a partnership. Is that the norm across the board is it?
Ocean1
6th March 2013, 11:00
That and the damage that it does being unnecessary... you kinda gloss over that bit. It was more in response to you saying
and that that is not the case... dats all. That money comes from somewhere before private individuals get their little mitts on it.
I do understand the repesentation of value and it's a stupid way of doing things. You don't agree, go figure.
Of course money came from somewhere before private individuals got their mitts on it, their employers EARNED it.
I do understand the repesentation of value and it's a stupid way of doing things. You don't agree, go figure.
I don’t agree because the alternative is having farmers carting cows around to exchange for their paint, you obviously figure that’s a great idea.
Not all people earn their wages as you're very fond of pointing out... so no, I don't believe that some workers earn their wages. I don't have much choice if I want to provide for my family given the current situation. Once that changes, I'll be much happier.
Of course not everyone earns their wages, there’s plenty that fuck around on kiwibiker all day and produce fuck all of marketable value. There’s also plenty that produce more than they’re paid to, but the rationale is still valid, you SHOULD aspire to provide your market/employer with product/work equal to the cash value he’s paying you, and they/he SHOULD reimburse you accordingly.
Just because that’s often not the case doesn’t come anywhere near reason enough to abandon a process in favour of not having one at all, an option that’s never worked in any civilisation in recorded history.
It doesn't reveal anything of the sort. It might do for you, but it's certainly not the perspective I have. Oh I get the ethical means, I've done things by the book, this is what shit costs, so therefore I've "earned" what I am due thing... but yes, on certain levels I do see the world as being quite arbitrary.
If, as seems likely from the above you genuinely can’t see the link between productive performance and the deserved, quantifiable and agreed rewards for those efforts by those who benefit from them then I’m not surprised you see the world as quite arbitrary.
As I’ve said before; paying everyone the same based on the simplistic notion that they all deserve the same no matter how much they produce benefits only those who aren’t actually producing anything worth what they expect in payment. And even if that were a sterling idea simply banning the use of money is not a particularly effective way of doing it.
mashman
6th March 2013, 11:53
Of course money came from somewhere before private individuals got their mitts on it, their employers EARNED it.
And before that? ad infinitum. The source of the money that is.
I don’t agree because the alternative is having farmers carting cows around to exchange for their paint, you obviously figure that’s a great idea.
So ditch the value and work on the basis that, this cow is needed somewhere, I shall take it there. Along with, I need veges, good job the vege guy is doing the same thing that I am with my cow. So not obviously at all. Do what you need to do and you'll get what you need/want to have because everyone else is producing something irrespective of value.
Of course not everyone earns their wages, there’s plenty that fuck around on kiwibiker all day and produce fuck all of marketable value. There’s also plenty that produce more than they’re paid to, but the rationale is still valid, you SHOULD aspire to provide your market/employer with product/work equal to the cash value he’s paying you, and they/he SHOULD reimburse you accordingly.
Just because that’s often not the case doesn’t come anywhere near reason enough to abandon a process in favour of not having one at all, an option that’s never worked in any civilisation in recorded history.
Marketable value does not equate to useful and required "product" to me. Yes that's not true across the board. However that useless "product" is a waste of resources imho.
That's because it has never been tried at a country level in the past 2000+ years. Things have changed since, including us, I believe it will work and will work by far better than a financial system could ever dream of achieving.
If, as seems likely from the above you genuinely can’t see the link between productive performance and the deserved, quantifiable and agreed rewards for those efforts by those who benefit from them then I’m not surprised you see the world as quite arbitrary.
As I’ve said before; paying everyone the same based on the simplistic notion that they all deserve the same no matter how much they produce benefits only those who aren’t actually producing anything worth what they expect in payment. And even if that were a sterling idea simply banning the use of money is not a particularly effective way of doing it.
Ahhh yes, you are the captain of your destiny and rely upon noone. The system is false as it is manipulated at every turn. It is not a self sustaining mechanism, it does not produce that which is required due to budget constraint. It does not value what it decides not to value. To that end it treats people unfairly, because irrespective of effort no binman could earn as much as me, even though their job is much more important than mine. The value system is fucked and the financial system is the mechanism used. Kill the mechanism and redefine that which is of value.
Noone will be getting paid the same, because noone will be getting paid at all. Currently the financial system supports those who don't work... under the guise of them being an economic requirement. Nothing will change other than they may get access to goods/services that you wouldn't want them to. Which again they already do... we call it crime. They're going to get it anyway, why bother fighting them for it? If all that tiny minority are after is stuff, fuck it, they can have it as there's plenty more stuff to go around. I reckon that they'd be happy to chukc in 4 hours a day given the right incentive :yes:. Banning money, well, removing it entirely as the mechanism of value for the local economy, is about as effective as you're ever going to get.
mashman
6th March 2013, 16:29
The financial system WAS nothing more or less than a means of distribution of goods and services between the producers and the consumers.
It is COMPLETELY faulty AND unnecessary AS charges for it's operation and maintenance are added to the system for ill-gotten gain and personal control.
Control really means power and as such it is the rice bowl of the unscrupulous people that currently have it! The real 1%!
Like a savage dog with it's bone they will not relinquish it without a fight to the death!
They depend on our (the other 99%) ignorance and stupidity and use it to their advantage, actually we give it to them free gratis! .... :brick:
Just a couple of changes :eek:. I'd like to remove their toys to give us all a shot at whatever, at whatever age we decide we know what we'd like to have a shot at.
mashman
6th March 2013, 16:33
Nicely put, but we are part of the global 1% even if we don´t like admitting it - we don´t want to give up our 1% of wealth to developing nations any more than the members of top 10 rich list want to give away their wealth to us.
I don't mind admitting it if I am in that 1%, but if I am then it's a sad reflection on the country that it values my all but pointless effort over that of a Nurse or Binman or Sewerage worker etc... You may not want to give up your position, but with any luck the majority of NZ might. I'd like to know... and if not, then hope it turns out like the attitudes towards gay people in that that perception changes over time and we finally get there.
jonbuoy
6th March 2013, 19:16
I don't mind admitting it if I am in that 1%, but if I am then it's a sad reflection on the country that it values my all but pointless effort over that of a Nurse or Binman or Sewerage worker etc... You may not want to give up your position, but with any luck the majority of NZ might. I'd like to know... and if not, then hope it turns out like the attitudes towards gay people in that that perception changes over time and we finally get there.
Not sure what your saying - that you earn less than a binman, nurse or sewerage worker? (I always thought they were reasonably well paid jobs). The job you have has the same stigma as being gay?? Your a stay at home dad?
Ocean1
6th March 2013, 19:18
And before that? ad infinitum. The source of the money that is.
The reserve bank. Like I said, the Govt. What’s your point?
So ditch the value and work on the basis that, this cow is needed somewhere, I shall take it there. Along with, I need veges, good job the vege guy is doing the same thing that I am with my cow. So not obviously at all. Do what you need to do and you'll get what you need/want to have because everyone else is producing something irrespective of value.
And you genuinely believe this is a viable option?
Fuck, the chasms you’re prepared to paper over so that a few minor holes in a functional existing system get plugged is amazing.
Marketable value does not equate to useful and required "product" to me. Yes that's not true across the board. However that useless "product" is a waste of resources imho.
What, some shit’s no worth the asking price? Fuck me I had no idea that could ever happen. Nonetheless, If you should find yourself in the extraordinary position of being faced with demands for prices you feel aren’t representative of the value in any given product then I suggest that you refrain from buying that shit. In fact, now that I think of it I’ve had occasion before now myself to decline to pay for shit I couldn’t afford. And on further in depth investigation I now discover it’s a phenomena facing perfectly normal people every day. Fuck knows how we all survive.
Of course, we could just blame money for this horrible misunderstanding and ban that shit altogether.
That's because it has never been tried at a country level in the past 2000+ years. Things have changed since, including us, I believe it will work and will work by far better than a financial system could ever dream of achieving.
It has been tried before. You just haven’t heard about it because the invention of exchange tokens falls on the level of civilisation somewhere between the use of antelope leg bones to smack dinner about the head and the development of a coherent written history. It’s one of the first conceptual tools civilisations develop. To date, all of them.
Ahhh yes, you are the captain of your destiny and rely upon noone. The system is false as it is manipulated at every turn. It is not a self sustaining mechanism, it does not produce that which is required due to budget constraint. It does not value what it decides not to value. To that end it treats people unfairly, because irrespective of effort no binman could earn as much as me, even though their job is much more important than mine. The value system is fucked and the financial system is the mechanism used. Kill the mechanism and redefine that which is of value.
If economic machinery fails it’s ALWAYS because the machine isn’t programed to produce stable negative feedback outputs. Yes, we have numerous instances of people and commercial and state entities dipping their fingers in the till. That’s no reason to abandon any attempt at control altogether, (and yes failing to have a viable financial system would absolutely guarantee failure) the machine simply requires editing to ensure that public spending returns commensurate value to the public. You’re dangerously close to pushing me onto my pet rant re monopolies, here.
As for you dislike of budget constraints? My wife agrees. Both of you can suck it up. It’s called living within your means.
Ah, and as for who decided what’s of value? That’s the dude that’s paying for it. With the money he earned expressly for that purpose. It’s not you.
Noone will be getting paid the same, because noone will be getting paid at all. Currently the financial system supports those who don't work... under the guise of them being an economic requirement. Nothing will change other than they may get access to goods/services that you wouldn't want them to. Which again they already do... we call it crime. They're going to get it anyway, why bother fighting them for it? If all that tiny minority are after is stuff, fuck it, they can have it as there's plenty more stuff to go around. I reckon that they'd be happy to chukc in 4 hours a day given the right incentive :yes:. Banning money, well, removing it entirely as the mechanism of value for the local economy, is about as effective as you're ever going to get.
Sure. If your objective is complete and immediate economic collapse. That, and pushing civilisation back to the level of that antelope thigh bone.
Ocean1
6th March 2013, 19:33
Oh, and this:
Perhaps the key part of that link was that they hard formed a partnership. Is that the norm across the board is it?
I supply tech consult services to developers accessing public grants. From that background I can assure you that publicly funded research is colaberative far more often than otherwise.
So yes, where it's public money that absolutely is the norm.
NEXT BOGYMAN!
mashman
6th March 2013, 20:35
Not sure what your saying - that you earn less than a binman, nurse or sewerage worker? (I always thought they were reasonably well paid jobs). The job you have has the same stigma as being gay?? Your a stay at home dad?
:killingme... Their jobs aren't in comparison to mine. No, I'm not a stay at home dad, although I wish I could be.
SPman
6th March 2013, 20:38
Isn't that the same reason it won't work on a Country scale? People have different standards of living and different expectations? A company director might earn 10x the salary of the company cleaner- just as a rich western country like NZ might have a living standard 10x that of a small African nation.
If only it were 10x the cleaner, people wouldn't be so pissed off.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/worklife/mind-blowing-chart-on-the-richest-americans/story-fn7kjxsd-1226589884653
A HARVARD Professor and economist asked more than 5000 Americans how they thought wealth was distributed in the United States and what would be the ideal distribution.
Their answers are starkly different to the reality.
The actual distribution of wealth is far removed from what survey respondents thought and is shockingly skewed from perceptions.
The bottom 40 per cent of Americans barely have any of the wealth at all and the middle class is barely distinguishable from the poor.
The top two to five per cent of Americans are so rich they go off the chart, and the top one per cent are so rich they get a chart of their own.
The best way to imagine it is that 80 per cent of Americans only have seven per cent of the wealth between them. Not seventy - seven.
More than 90 per cent of survey respondents said they believe wealth should be more evenly distributed.
But instead, it's only gotten worse in the last 30 years. In 1976 the richest one per cent only took home nine per cent of the wealth – now they take home 24 per cent.
************************************************** ****************
Ideally Americans believe that the richest people in the country should be 10-15 times richer than the poorest folk with hardly any poverty.
Instead the average CEO is earning 380 times more than the average employee (not the lowest paid employee – the average one).
And - for all the so-called egalitarian predisposition of New Zealanders, it's going that way here as well - at an ever increasing rate.
mashman
6th March 2013, 20:56
The reserve bank. Like I said, the Govt. What’s your point?
In this country yes. Who owns the US Federal Reserve Bank? The IMF? The World Bank? Ya know, the bigger fish in the pond?
And you genuinely believe this is a viable option?
Fuck, the chasms you’re prepared to paper over so that a few minor holes in a functional existing system get plugged is amazing.
I do believe it's a genuinely viable option.
What chasms? and those few minor holes in this system cost the lives of people and cost people their livelihoods.
What, some shit’s no worth the asking price? Fuck me I had no idea that could ever happen. Nonetheless, If you should find yourself in the extraordinary position of being faced with demands for prices you feel aren’t representative of the value in any given product then I suggest that you refrain from buying that shit. In fact, now that I think of it I’ve had occasion before now myself to decline to pay for shit I couldn’t afford. And on further in depth investigation I now discover it’s a phenomena facing perfectly normal people every day. Fuck knows how we all survive.
Of course, we could just blame money for this horrible misunderstanding and ban that shit altogether.
Yes. Bit I'm likely thinking of a different price to you. There's a fuckload of product that we don't need upgrades of, or upgrades of at the rate we're churning the shit out at. I don't buy what I can't afford. I have 1 debt, my mortgage. See this post for my motivation (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/156945-The-value-of-money-has-dropped-by-two-thirds-in-30-years?p=1130510418#post1130510418) and then try to move on eh.
:rofl: monetary gain certainly drives the need for shit and needless product.
It has been tried before. You just haven’t heard about it because the invention of exchange tokens falls on the level of civilisation somewhere between the use of antelope leg bones to smack dinner about the head and the development of a coherent written history. It’s one of the first conceptual tools civilisations develop. To date, all of them.
In the last 2000 years? With our technology? On a country wide scale? Well I have a new conceptual tool that beats yours hands down :bleh:.
If economic machinery fails it’s ALWAYS because the machine isn’t programed to produce stable negative feedback outputs. Yes, we have numerous instances of people and commercial and state entities dipping their fingers in the till. That’s no reason to abandon any attempt at control altogether, (and yes failing to have a viable financial system would absolutely guarantee failure) the machine simply requires editing to ensure that public spending returns commensurate value to the public. You’re dangerously close to pushing me onto my pet rant re monopolies, here.
As for you dislike of budget constraints? My wife agrees. Both of you can suck it up. It’s called living within your means.
Ah, and as for who decided what’s of value? That’s the dude that’s paying for it. With the money he earned expressly for that purpose. It’s not you.
:killingme@controlling the financial system. The whole system is built on debt, always has been and always will be (hopefully not always will be) and that debt has to land somewhere. It doesn't just up and vanish like a fart in the wind (credit to Shawshank). Please rant away about monopolies, coz them that private banks listed above are to all intents and purposes monopolies.
I dislike budget constraint because it stops exceptional people doing exceptional things and all because of viability. Not knowledge viability or ability viability, but financial viability... and all because it won't make enough of a profit to receive funding. What an unbelievable fuckin waste.
Sure. If your objective is complete and immediate economic collapse. That, and pushing civilisation back to the level of that antelope thigh bone.
That won't happen. The idea is to take what he have, improve upon it, implement technology where it is required etc... and it will be fuckin superb because it'll be stuff that meets the needs of people, not the profiteers and not constrained by budget.
I supply tech consult services to developers accessing public grants. From that background I can assure you that publicly funded research is colaberative far more often than otherwise.
So yes, where it's public money that absolutely is the norm.
NEXT BOGYMAN!
Excellent to here. Shame the private monsters of this world, of which there are many, don't do things that way. IP is an oxymoron.
mashman
6th March 2013, 21:05
Isn't that the same reason it won't work on a Country scale? People have different standards of living and different expectations? A company director might earn 10x the salary of the company cleaner- just as a rich western country like NZ might have a living standard 10x that of a small African nation.
Essentially those who want to live the money lifestyle can fuck off to another part of the world. It's a big place and there are more opportunities for that kind of wealth elsewhere. Those who don't will stay and will enjoy as near as dammit a free life. I have a feeling that the brain drain from across the globe to NZ will be much larger than you'd give it credit for. As for the country comparison. You're poor, we're rich, get over yourselves. I don't care if your population dies in the millions each year, get over yourselves or move to a different country. Aye, civilised is the wrong word. Savages fits better.
mashman
6th March 2013, 21:24
It has been tried before. You just haven’t heard about it because the invention of exchange tokens falls on the level of civilisation somewhere between the use of antelope leg bones to smack dinner about the head and the development of a coherent written history. It’s one of the first conceptual tools civilisations develop. To date, all of them.
I saw this and thought of you ;)
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8310/8009305127_3e6b1e20e1_z.jpg
jonbuoy
6th March 2013, 23:24
:killingme... Their jobs aren't in comparison to mine. No, I'm not a stay at home dad, although I wish I could be.
So what were you saying?
mashman
7th March 2013, 07:05
So what were you saying?
Can you give me a context for that question please?
jonbuoy
7th March 2013, 09:28
I don't mind admitting it if I am in that 1%, but if I am then it's a sad reflection on the country that it values my all but pointless effort over that of a Nurse or Binman or Sewerage worker etc... You may not want to give up your position, but with any luck the majority of NZ might. I'd like to know... and if not, then hope it turns out like the attitudes towards gay people in that that perception changes over time and we finally get there.
This one......
mashman
7th March 2013, 09:55
This one......
Still not getting your point. Care to spell it out?
Akzle
7th March 2013, 13:59
guys, it's fucking easy:
http://ancienthistory.mrdonn.org/money.html
Ocean1
7th March 2013, 17:21
Essentially those who want to live the money lifestyle can fuck off to another part of the world..
I've got a better idea.
Hands up everybody that wants to give up money and use cows instead?
Make a queue over there.
Leave your passport at the airport.
And your wallet.
jonbuoy
7th March 2013, 17:41
I don't mind admitting it if I am in that 1%, but if I am then it's a sad reflection on the country that it values my all but pointless effort over that of a Nurse or Binman or Sewerage worker etc... You may not want to give up your position, but with any luck the majority of NZ might. I'd like to know... and if not, then hope it turns out like the attitudes towards gay people in that that perception changes over time and we finally get there.
Can you explain what your saying here, what have gay people got to do with this? Why do you think NZ values your contribution lower than a bin man or sewage worker?
mashman
7th March 2013, 17:42
I've got a better idea.
Hands up everybody that wants to give up money and use cows instead?
Make a queue over there.
Leave your passport at the airport.
And your wallet.
Why would we be using cows? No trade or barter will exist outwith that which people decide amongst themselves. S'ok though, I understand why the concept is beyond your ability to grasp.
Indeed, form an orderly queue, although how are you going to sell your assets to a country of people who are about to get everything they need for free? I know how, but do you?
"My" system allows you to take your wallet with you and keep your passport for when you would like to return for medical assistance that you can't afford overseas. Fuck you're an oppressive being.
mashman
7th March 2013, 17:48
Can you explain what your saying here, what have gay people got to do with this? Why do you think NZ values your contribution lower than a bin man or sewage worker?
The gay people thing is in regards to an idea growing on the population. Where once upon a time attitudes where more against gay people being married, these days the opposite is true. Similarly I was saying that if the majority don't initially understand the idea of living without a financial system, I hope it follows the trend of how gay marriage was viewed and that the majority are eventually for it.
The opposite is true. My effort is valued over and above that of the binman/sewerage worker/nurse etc... In comparison to the binman/sewerage worker/nurse, I was saying that my job is actually pointless in that it makes money and does not serve a real need of the people. I value their effort over mine even though I get paid more.
Ocean1
7th March 2013, 18:28
Why would we be using cows? No trade or barter will exist outwith that which people decide amongst themselves. S'ok though, I understand why the concept is beyond your ability to grasp.
What's difficult to grasp is how anyone with the cognitive horsepower to remember to breath could ever come to believe a civilisation could function without the most basic machinery to manage demand and supply.
Bazzar.
Indeed, form an orderly queue, although how are you going to sell your assets to a country of people who are about to get everything they need for free? I know how, but do you?
I'll use cash. The hippies that haven't bothered fucking off to Kansas as suggested will have starved inside a month, leaving the place substantially no worse off. And a fucking sight more effectively supplied with both cows and paint.
"My" system allows you to take your wallet with you and keep your passport for when you would like to return for medical assistance that you can't afford overseas.
I'm staying here, in the real world. If you want to fuck off to paradise where nobody uses money then don't bother coming back, with or without your pasport unless your wallet's full of the price of your hospital bill.
Fuck you're an oppressive being.
Yeah, if you're not bloody sick and your'e eating the lunch I paid for I'm as oppressive as all fuck.
TANSTAFL.
Outside of that I'm a pussycat.
jonbuoy
7th March 2013, 19:33
The gay people thing is in regards to an idea growing on the population. Where once upon a time attitudes where more against gay people being married, these days the opposite is true. Similarly I was saying that if the majority don't initially understand the idea of living without a financial system, I hope it follows the trend of how gay marriage was viewed and that the majority are eventually for it.
The opposite is true. My effort is valued over and above that of the binman/sewerage worker/nurse etc... In comparison to the binman/sewerage worker/nurse, I was saying that my job is actually pointless in that it makes money and does not serve a real need of the people. I value their effort over mine even though I get paid more.
So your partly against the current system because you feel bad that you contribute less than a nurse to society but take more from it in monetary value?
mashman
7th March 2013, 19:42
What's difficult to grasp is how anyone with the cognitive horsepower to remember to breath could ever come to believe a civilisation could function without the most basic machinery to manage demand and supply.
Bazzar.
Fortunately breathing is an involuntary action. It will function with the most basic machinery to manage demand and supply. nothing functions properly without logistics.
Don't you mean bazaar.
I'll use cash. The hippies that haven't bothered fucking off to Kansas as suggested will have starved inside a month, leaving the place substantially no worse off. And a fucking sight more effectively supplied with both cows and paint.
You won't be able to use cash in a financially free country because cash will mean fuck all... other than a poor substitute as toilet paper that is and you'll be able to get smoother from the shop for free. best thing about hippies is that they'll pitch in for the greater good instead of expecting to get something in return. A much more impressive breed of human being entirely.
I'm staying here, in the real world. If you want to fuck off to paradise where nobody uses money then don't bother coming back, with or without your pasport unless your wallet's full of the price of your hospital bill.
Not at all, I want NZ for the "testing" ground. You may want to fuck it up with your financial system, but I'd rather NZ and the people had a higher standard of, well, everything. Not hard without a financial system putting the stoppers on anything that it decides is of no value to the marketplace and ignoring the needs of the people. It may not be paradise, but it'd be a fucksite better than what we have... and it won't push NZers away just because they've upped and fucked off chasing a brighter future.
Yeah, if you're not bloody sick and your'e eating the lunch I paid for I'm as oppressive as all fuck.
TANSTAFL.
Outside of that I'm a pussycat.
That's not very nice given that the majority of those unemployed can't help being in that position... and all because the market that you revere so can't afford them, even though they can pluck money out of thin air. Ahhhhhhh the financial system. Stuffing things up for millenia whilst fooling people that it's really helping and that there's no other choice. (insert sheep sound here).
mashman
7th March 2013, 19:48
So your partly against the current system because you feel bad that you contribute less than a nurse to society but take more from it in monetary value?
bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa. Here's an extract from a response to one of your posts on Tuesday:
Why eh. Not been asked that before, just usually labelled and that's that. Essentially I see where it's going to lead. It's everything from someone working 16 hours a day in 2 jobs and still needing assistance to make ends meet, to teachers not getting paid properly, to people harming others in the pursuit of a few $, to people warring and killing over resources for profit, to silo'd research disguised as being done for the common good, to a serious waste of resources, to poverty in general, to having enough for all but only if you have $ (where logistics solve that), to the mistrust of conspiracy, to relationships being soured by financial concerns, to teens having kids for cash, to country's being thrown into recession, to education/healthcare to a budget, to the realisation that where someone has lots someone else has to have none, to Chch still needing to be started with a vengeance, to if I want to grow my own tobacco and give it away I shouldn't face jail for wanting to share, to not being truly prepared for any disaster, to burying the future of coming generations in debt, to raping the earth for profit, to the realisation that money really isn't solving the big issues of the day and that I should actually give a shit about that etc... to where I see our generation and future generations ending up.
I have underlined the parts that highlight my reasons for wanting rid of the financial system. You can also add the one you've just posted to it should you wish, but it is covered in there, just not in terms that you accept it would seem.
Ocean1
7th March 2013, 20:40
Fortunately breathing is an involuntary action. It will function with the most basic machinery to manage demand and supply.
Which is about all that’ll function without the basic unit that enables the demand and supply cycle.
Don't you mean bazaar.
You’re the expert.
You won't be able to use cash in a financially free country because cash will mean fuck all... other than a poor substitute as toilet paper that is and you'll be able to get smoother from the shop for free. best thing about hippies is that they'll pitch in for the greater good instead of expecting to get something in return. A much more impressive breed of human being entirely.
Y’know the very first thing your brave new hippies will invent?
Money.
Me? I won’t give a fuck, I’m staying here, in the real, functioning world.
Not at all, I want NZ for the "testing" ground. You may want to fuck it up with your financial system, but I'd rather NZ and the people had a higher standard of, well, everything. Not hard without a financial system putting the stoppers on anything that it decides is of no value to the marketplace and ignoring the needs of the people. It may not be paradise, but it'd be a fucksite better than what we have... and it won't push NZers away just because they've upped and fucked off chasing a brighter future.
You’re not listening, you can’t have NZ. The local dole bludgers require that it remain capable of supporting them, and that means if not actually supporting the productive sector then at least not bludgening it into extinction. We’re having enough trouble with that without you fucking it up altogether.
Not, as I’ve already suggested, that there’s the slightest chance of you attracting a very dim boy Friday let alone the numerical support required to make, say, the Ekatahuna congregation bi-annual broadsheet.
That's not very nice given that the majority of those unemployed can't help being in that position... and all because the market that you revere so can't afford them, even though they can pluck money out of thin air. Ahhhhhhh the financial system. Stuffing things up for millenia whilst fooling people that it's really helping and that there's no other choice. (insert sheep sound here).
This is the bit where I require you to substantiate the same unmitigated reeking waffle regarding whose fault it might be that dole bludgers aren’t earning their keep you’ve trundled out countless times before, and the very very tired conspiracy theory about the evel world bank, in collusion with the federal reserve and dem fuckers in that shiney big building up town that you owe money to having tricked us into paying them for nothing, and you reply with some utterly unrelated quote from someone associated with recycling tofu.
Although I have to admit that through the completely random generation of massive quantities of largely pointless words you’ve demonstrated that a single monkey typing for long enough can indeed write, if not the full works of Shakespeare then at least the single fact that we can’t afford dole bludgers.
Congratulations.
jonbuoy
7th March 2013, 21:06
bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa. Here's an extract from a response to one of your posts on Tuesday:
I have underlined the parts that highlight my reasons for wanting rid of the financial system. You can also add the one you've just posted to it should you wish, but it is covered in there, just not in terms that you accept it would seem.
I think its a fair question to ask - your very much against large salaries for people who you perceive to contribute very little to society and your very politically motivated so I think its fair to ask where you sit yourself in this scenario. Do you think your monetary return for your contribution to society/your workplace is over or under valued?
mashman
7th March 2013, 21:40
Which is about all that’ll function without the basic unit that enables the demand and supply cycle.
You’re the expert.
What unit is that? The resource? The people? noooooo, lemme have a real guess at that. Money right? As I'm the expert I say that money is no a prerequisite for things getting done. Unpaid volunteers are proof of that.
Y’know the very first thing your brave new hippies will invent?
Money.
Me? I won’t give a fuck, I’m staying here, in the real, functioning world.
No they won't. They won't be hippies either. And no problem with the amount of fuck given, you can sit and fester in your dazed and bemused state as the world goes whistling by without a hitch and not a whiff of money to be seen. You will be looked after, probably considered a bludger in some circles, but you will be looked after and you will receive your free breakfast, lunch and dinner.
You’re not listening, you can’t have NZ. The local dole bludgers require that it remain capable of supporting them, and that means if not actually supporting the productive sector then at least not bludgening it into extinction. We’re having enough trouble with that without you fucking it up altogether.
Not, as I’ve already suggested, that there’s the slightest chance of you attracting a very dim boy Friday let alone the numerical support required to make, say, the Ekatahuna congregation bi-annual broadsheet.
As I've said repeatedly, oh irony re:listening, it's not up to just you or me. Such 2 dimensional thinking. Of course we're having problems. We're relying on a financial system to solve a problem that a financial system can't handle... and that that financial system has created. That's unemployment just in case you hadn't guessed.
I'd like to put that to the test.
This is the bit where I require you to substantiate the same unmitigated reeking waffle regarding whose fault it might be that dole bludgers aren’t earning their keep you’ve trundled out countless times before, and the very very tired conspiracy theory about the evel world bank, in collusion with the federal reserve and dem fuckers in that shiney big building up town that you owe money to having tricked us into paying them for nothing, and you reply with some utterly unrelated quote from someone associated with recycling tofu.
Although I have to admit that through the completely random generation of massive quantities of largely pointless words you’ve demonstrated that a single monkey typing for long enough can indeed write, if not the full works of Shakespeare then at least the single fact that we can’t afford dole bludgers.
Congratulations.
Is unemployment higher or lower than it was before the GFC? Yes. Why? Just because you choose to ignore that which prominent economists, amongst other supposed professionals, have been saying for, at least, the last 5 years or so doesn't make it a conspiracy. And you say you live in the real world. A claim I find amusing given that inflation rises and falls, interest rate rises and falls are all accompanied by unemployment fluctuations. Why so those unemployment numbers fluctuate? BECAUSE THERE IS OR ISN'T ENOUGH MONEY AVAILABLE AT THE TIME, FACT! Ya know that shit they pluck out of thin air as and when they feel like it.
:rofl: it ain't easy for us monkeys to communicate simple concepts to single eye single cell organisms, especially when they expect things to be complicated or they just won't work. I'm surprised that you have the dextrous ability to thump keys on a keyboard in order to form words, given that you're obviously not far enough up the evolutionary ladder to have surpassed scribing on walls with rocks.
Congratulations
mashman
7th March 2013, 21:58
I think its a fair question to ask - your very much against large salaries for people who you perceive to contribute very little to society and your very politically motivated so I think its fair to ask where you sit yourself in this scenario. Do you think your monetary return for your contribution to society/your workplace is over or under valued?
It was and I've answered it. It's not a question with a yes or no answer. We can do better without a financial system, end of. Oddly enough, the amount of money that anyone has is really low on my list of reasons to get rid of the useless thing. Politics gets in the way and I am perceived as being political because of that. Do it right or don't fuckin bother is the short answer. After that, I have no choice but to be perceived as being political.
I see you've changed your question. Society and my workplace are 2 entirely different places. My monetary concern goes as far as, do my family have enough money to do what they'd like to do. When the answer is no, I do something about it. My job could potentially put people out of work as it is used to make businesses more efficient. My job does treat human being for illnesses. My job does not keep the streets clean. My job does not result in water treatment. However my job and my skills are valued by the marketplace at a higher $ rate than that of binmen, nurses and sewerage workers. It's not about how much I earn, that is not on the radar in regards to my "dislike" of the financial system.
jonbuoy
7th March 2013, 22:16
It was and I've answered it. It's not a question with a yes or no answer. We can do better without a financial system, end of. Oddly enough, the amount of money that anyone has is really low on my list of reasons to get rid of the useless thing. Politics gets in the way and I am perceived as being political because of that. Do it right or don't fuckin bother is the short answer. After that, I have no choice but to be perceived as being political.
I see you've changed your question. Society and my workplace are 2 entirely different places. My monetary concern goes as far as, do my family have enough money to do what they'd like to do. When the answer is no, I do something about it. My job could potentially put people out of work as it is used to make businesses more efficient. My job does treat human being for illnesses. My job does not keep the streets clean. My job does not result in water treatment. However my job and my skills are valued by the marketplace at a higher $ rate than that of binmen, nurses and sewerage workers. It's not about how much I earn, that is not on the radar in regards to my "dislike" of the financial system.
So for you personally the current system works? If you were just looking at your own finances not anyone else's? If you get short of money you do something about it. I disagree how much you personally earn is extremely important when discussing the value of money.
mashman
7th March 2013, 22:22
So for you personally the current system works? If you were just looking at your own finances not anyone else's? If you get short of money you do something about it. I disagree how much you personally earn is extremely important when discussing the value of money.
I am not an island. I rely on others. The financial system does not work on that basis for me personally. I have a family to provide for and I meet their needs. Too many of those needs are financial. You can disagree all you like, but how much I earn is irrelevant when discussing removing the financial system. After all, what I earn now will be worth nothing to me personally.
jonbuoy
7th March 2013, 22:23
I am not an island. I rely on others. The financial system does not work on that basis for me personally. I have a family to provide for and I meet their needs. Too many of those needs are financial. You can disagree all you like, but how much I earn is irrelevant when discussing removing the financial system. After all, what I earn now will be worth nothing to me personally.
What do mean rely on others? For financial aid?
mashman
7th March 2013, 22:37
What do mean rely on others? For financial aid?
Nope. I rely on binmen to keep the streets clean. I rely on nurses to patch me up. I rely on sewerage workers to get rid of my shit without it giving me an impromptu b-day experience etc...
jonbuoy
7th March 2013, 23:26
Nope. I rely on binmen to keep the streets clean. I rely on nurses to patch me up. I rely on sewerage workers to get rid of my shit without it giving me an impromptu b-day experience etc...
So how does the financial system not work for you? Rubbish gets collected, streets get cleaned, your health is looked after - you earn enough to have a comfortable life run a car/bike. So the crux is that you want more of a slice? What would change in your life if you went for a money-less system? Would you not go to work? Would you have a better bike/car/house? More food? Just trying to understand what you think the money less system would mean to someone like yourself who is "OK" in the current system?
mashman
8th March 2013, 12:02
So how does the financial system not work for you? Rubbish gets collected, streets get cleaned, your health is looked after - you earn enough to have a comfortable life run a car/bike. So the crux is that you want more of a slice? What would change in your life if you went for a money-less system? Would you not go to work? Would you have a better bike/car/house? More food? Just trying to understand what you think the money less system would mean to someone like yourself who is "OK" in the current system?
The financial system doesn't work for me on the basis that it does more damage than good and sometimes that means people pay with their lives and livelihoods.
I want no more of a slice.
Everything would change in my life, other than who I am. I wouldn't have to weigh up getting the car fixed against food/activities for the kids. My kids will have access to a higher standard of education/healthcare etc... live in a world with less crime... I may well stay in my job and perhaps we'd start doing things for the client instead of earning money for our business. I may retrain as something entirely different without having to worry that my family will suffer financially because I decided to do something different. The list of choices would almost be endless.
As for what it might mean for someone else in a similar position to me. No doubt they'd be as happy as a pig in shit to have my lifestyle and would be happy not to lose it. The ironic thing being that they wouldn't actually lose that lifestyle. They may indeed see the benefits of a financially free NZ and happily accept that too. Dunno. But I'd like to find out coz the benefits by far outweigh the negatives.
jonbuoy
8th March 2013, 20:08
You would like to think that people would treat each other differently if you take away the money but I´m not so sure. I assume you still have some sort of government in a moneyless system? At least someone in charge of distributing the goods/services making sure hospitals had enough food/medicines? Making sure the factories had enough raw materials and workers? This would be even more open to corruption than it is now - you would be expected to "work" provide a service in exchange for whatever the people in control deemed fit - they would decide what food you had - when you got a new car. How else could it work? It wont change human nature - you will still have murderers, rapists, thugs seeking control of others - they were there before money existed after all. It wont change human nature.
Ocean1
8th March 2013, 20:13
What unit is that? The resource? The people? noooooo, lemme have a real guess at that. Money right? As I'm the expert I say that money is no a prerequisite for things getting done. Unpaid volunteers are proof of that.
I don’t get paid for my recreational activities either. What’s your point?
No they won't
Will too.
As I've said repeatedly, oh irony re:listening, it's not up to just you or me. Such 2 dimensional thinking. Of course we're having problems. We're relying on a financial system to solve a problem that a financial system can't handle... and that that financial system has created. That's unemployment just in case you hadn't guessed.
I'd like to put that to the test.
We sometimes have problems with flooding also. We could ban water at the same time. And with precicely the same justification.
Test away. Send us your prospectus when you've got it hammered out, eh?
Is unemployment higher or lower than it was before the GFC? Yes.
Whadayamean yes? Unemployment through the last three years has been about 7%. A swift google tells me that’s 0.5% higher than its averaged since the mid eighties.
Why
Because successive governments have failed to foster the companies that generate jobs.
Just because you choose to ignore that which prominent economists, amongst other supposed professionals, have been saying for, at least, the last 5 years or so doesn't make it a conspiracy
And these multitudes of respected economists have been advocating the abolition of money, have they?
And you say you live in the real world. A claim I find amusing given that inflation rises and falls, interest rate rises and falls are all accompanied by unemployment fluctuations. Why so those unemployment numbers fluctuate? BECAUSE THERE IS OR ISN'T ENOUGH MONEY AVAILABLE AT THE TIME, FACT!
Perfectly correct. When times get hard employers can’t afford to carry quite the same number of staff. Of course, if a shortage of money causes more unemployment then eliminating money altogether will fix that problem immediately.
Ya know that shit they pluck out of thin air as and when they feel like it
That they don’t do. They fuck with the quantity of cash in circulation, certainly, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of a recession. Whether that’s wise or not I’m not quite sure. I know it effectively devalues savings, and I figure discouraging saving is a bad move.
What that specifically doesn’t mean is that someone other than you is creaming it by the simple expediency of printing money whereas you, for example aren’t.
On the other hand, if the reserve bank hadn’t been as open handed wrt banks use of that money for mortgages we’d probably have a lot fewer people owning their own home. Still, I could wish they’d made more of those loans available to business at somewhere near as friendly a rate, maybe some of those dole bludgers would still be employed, eh?
:rofl: it ain't easy for us monkeys to communicate simple concepts to single eye single cell organisms, especially when they expect things to be complicated or they just won't work. I'm surprised that you have the dextrous ability to thump keys on a keyboard in order to form words, given that you're obviously not far enough up the evolutionary ladder to have surpassed scribing on walls with rocks.
Congratulations
Cheers. It's taken me fucking ages to compile this shit from my slate.
mashman
8th March 2013, 20:52
You would like to think that people would treat each other differently if you take away the money but I´m not so sure. I assume you still have some sort of government in a moneyless system? At least someone in charge of distributing the goods/services making sure hospitals had enough food/medicines? Making sure the factories had enough raw materials and workers? This would be even more open to corruption than it is now - you would be expected to "work" provide a service in exchange for whatever the people in control deemed fit - they would decide what food you had - when you got a new car. How else could it work? It wont change human nature - you will still have murderers, rapists, thugs seeking control of others - they were there before money existed after all. It wont change human nature.
I think it'll change a lot of our priorities and there'll be less reasons for fucking someone over or causing household stress etc... So yeah, I think attitudes will change towards each other quite a lot. Although there'll still be people that we don't get on with, people will still fuck other people's missuses, people will still murder and rape, however ugly, bald, fat rich men probably won't end up marrying supermodels etc... in essence, everything that is non-financially related will stay relatively similar.
Yup there will still be a govt, not necessarily in charge, but certainly in charge in regards to logistics and facilitating communication between "councils". We'll still need medicine, hospitals, doctors, raw materials, workers etc... Control, as you put it, will be at "council" level i.e. the community needs X, can we find it in the country, talk to govt, do we need to provide it locally, just do it. Food will still be produced, why would we need to have a set menu? In regards to cars, yup, someone might want a really nice car. They're either going to have to get the fuck over it, or go on the waiting list like everyone else. No doubt there will be some form of "system" put in place to deal with that, potentially linked to what you had before we ended the financial system, who knows. Human nature is a bad joke. Circumstance is everything in regards to our reactions to situations and if you've ever heard of or have done anything that may be considered being out of character, then haven't you gone against your human nature? Without money people's motives and motivations will probably change. Certainly the generation that grows up without the concept of a financial system will reap the full benefits... or something like that.
mashman
8th March 2013, 21:14
I don’t get paid for my recreational activities either. What’s your point?
That you'll do something that's doesn't make money.
Will too.
Na har
We sometimes have problems with flooding also. We could ban water at the same time. And with precicely the same justification.
Test away. Send us your prospectus when you've got it hammered out, eh?
Or we could prepare for floods and make better use of it. Doh, that sort of shit doesn't have a good roi.
Will do.
Whadayamean yes? Unemployment through the last three years has been about 7%. A swift google tells me that’s 0.5% higher than its averaged since the mid eighties.
Sorry. Right before the GFC. (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/unemployment-rate). Was that 0.5% before or after the stock market crash of the 80's? Now why did unemployment suddenly rise?
Because successive governments have failed to foster the companies that generate jobs.
How have govts stopped them?
And these multitudes of respected economists have been advocating the abolition of money, have they?
Nope, they don't know seem to know what to do. Probably worried about job security.
Perfectly correct. When times get hard employers can’t afford to carry quite the same number of staff. Of course, if a shortage of money causes more unemployment then eliminating money altogether will fix that problem immediately.
Exactly. That and you can also employ as many people as you like... well those who wouldn't mind contributing that is. I say that'll be the vast majority. You don't... but it's a possibility.
That they don’t do. They fuck with the quantity of cash in circulation, certainly, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of a recession. Whether that’s wise or not I’m not quite sure. I know it effectively devalues savings, and I figure discouraging saving is a bad move.
What that specifically doesn’t mean is that someone other than you is creaming it by the simple expediency of printing money whereas you, for example aren’t.
On the other hand, if the reserve bank hadn’t been as open handed wrt banks use of that money for mortgages we’d probably have a lot fewer people owning their own home. Still, I could wish they’d made more of those loans available to business at somewhere near as friendly a rate, maybe some of those dole bludgers would still be employed, eh?
Again with the denial that they pluck money out of thin air. Did you watch the 7 sharp snip and then go and find the IMF document that says that they do? Sure you don't want to change your mind on that? So lots of effort mitigating the effects of recession whilst trying to mitigate recession entirely. Hmmmm, I wonder how they keep getting it wrong. Given the damage their failure causes, much better to just remove the mechanism entirely and carry on without the boom and bust cycle.
True. They're gaining billions per month given that they have trillions in assets. The money to pay for that interest has to come from somewhere. If you're not going to print it, where is it going to come from given that the main "producers" are the very same people who are creaming it?
You may have a point there. However some businesses sectors are now being subsidised by the govt, so hopefully that'll bring down lending rates for business loans... although that kinda makes them bludgers.
Cheers. It's taken me fucking ages to compile this shit from my slate.
You must have a serious printing press.
Winston001
8th March 2013, 21:42
Mashie - have you read Lord of the Flies by William Golding? Recommended. It might dissuade you from abandoning the protections of a civil society. Because that is what you'll get if you evaporate all concepts of calculating value.
mashman
8th March 2013, 21:58
Mashie - have you read Lord of the Flies by William Golding? Recommended. It might dissuade you from abandoning the protections of a civil society. Because that is what you'll get if you evaporate all concepts of calculating value.
I remember reading at school many moons ago. Slightly different situation though. For starters we're supposed to be real growd ups. I have considered that there could be down sides. Although each time I consider those down sides, I realise that they are all but mitigated by there not being a financial system in place. Most of those downsides are to do with us growd ups. Fortunately I think there'll be enough real growd ups to limit the "problems" until the next generation comes through. Without the financial system we can throw people into "helping" the "lost" generation. Hell they may even help themselves. A few studies in the US in regards to "peer courts" show that kids aren't that bad, they're generally just seriously bored.
Ocean1
8th March 2013, 22:27
That you'll do something that's doesn't make money.
I do fucking heaps of shit that doesn’t have any monetary value to anyone whatsoever. I’m not silly enough to believe I could make a living out of it.
Or we could prepare for floods and make better use of it.
The same way sane people prepare for fluctuations in the economy and prepare for them?
Sorry. Right before the GFC. (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/unemployment-rate). Was that 0.5% before or after the stock market crash of the 80's
From your reference:
Historically, from 1985 until 2012, New Zealand Unemployment Rate averaged 6.29 Percent reaching an all time high of 11.20 Percent in September of 1991 and a record low of 3.50 Percent in December of 2007
Which is exactly what I said, we’ve been running at around 7% for the last three years, and as I also said that’s roughly a metric smidgeon over the average since the mid eighties.
You no listen.
Now why did unemployment suddenly rise?
Why did it rise from the historic low of ‘07/’08 or why did it rise from the 6.5% average?
Don’t matter, same reason, the economy shrank because of variations in internal economic performance and external markets and with less income employers couldn’t afford to keep as many employees.
Y’know, dude, the various factors affecting an economy are fucking complicated and I don’t pretend to know most of the interconnected factors, but this shit’s really really simple and pretty self explanatory.
How have govts stopped them?
They haven’t so much stopped them as failed to encourage them. Like I said if they’d made loans available to start-up businesses in particular at the same terms they made mortgages available to you and me we’d have a healthier economy capable of riding out recessions better. Instead they're foisted with a tax system that does it’s very best to take out any new business at around 2 years old. And you’ve got the stones to blame business for the loss of jobs? Mate, you’ve got absolutely no idea.
Nope, they don't know seem to know what to do. Probably worried about job security.
SO, these experts you’re quoting in support of your argument don’t actually agree with you. Do they?
Exactly. That and you can also employ as many people as you like... well those who wouldn't mind contributing that is. I say that'll be the vast majority. You don't... but it's a possibility.
Nope. That encompasses so much logic fail I can’t actually understand the content let alone the intent.
Again with the denial that they pluck money out of thin air. Did you watch the 7 sharp snip and then go and find the IMF document that says that they do? Sure you don't want to change your mind on that? So lots of effort mitigating the effects of recession whilst trying to mitigate recession entirely. Hmmmm, I wonder how they keep getting it wrong. Given the damage their failure causes, much better to just remove the mechanism entirely and carry on without the boom and bust cycle.
True. They're gaining billions per month given that they have trillions in assets. The money to pay for that interest has to come from somewhere. If you're not going to print it, where is it going to come from given that the main "producers" are the very same people who are creaming it?
No, I don’t get my information from comic books. You’ve discovered that the reserve bank “gives” money to the commercial banks with conditions on it’s use and you can’t understand why. Let’s just leave it at that, eh?
You may have a point there. However some businesses sectors are now being subsidised by the govt, so hopefully that'll bring down lending rates for business loans... although that kinda makes them bludgers.
Indeed? Which business sectors? How? And do the subsidies amount to those automatically available to 55% of the public, in that they’re given more than they pay in tax?
Now that’d really make ‘em bludgers.
You must have a serious printing press.
Indeed, almost serious enough to print hundred dollar notes.
Almost.
Brian d marge
8th March 2013, 23:04
Ban ki moon openly stated they just plucked the money out of thin air to pay for the US meltdown , I have posted on here before
Stephen
mashman
8th March 2013, 23:24
I do fucking heaps of shit that doesn’t have any monetary value to anyone whatsoever. I’m not silly enough to believe I could make a living out of it.
Why would you need to make a living in an economy without a financial system?
The same way sane people prepare for fluctuations in the economy and prepare for them?
:rofl: yup, badly... and Einstein disagrees that those people are sane.
Which is exactly what I said, we’ve been running at around 7% for the last three years, and as I also said that’s roughly a metric smidgeon over the average since the mid eighties.
You no listen.
It is what you said, but I was asking about before the GFC which is why I posted the linky. I wasn't thinking of nearly 30 years before though and wasn't asking for an average.
Me listen, me stuck with my obviously ambiguous question.
Why did it rise from the historic low of ‘07/’08 or why did it rise from the 6.5% average?
Don’t matter, same reason, the economy shrank because of variations in internal economic performance and external markets and with less income employers couldn’t afford to keep as many employees.
Y’know, dude, the various factors affecting an economy are fucking complicated and I don’t pretend to know most of the interconnected factors, but this shit’s really really simple and pretty self explanatory.
07/08. The economy shrank because of money. No more no less. Goods were still there to be paid, yet there was no money to pay for them. T'would seem a little silly given that supply and demand for goods and services is supposed to provide that which sustains an economy. Cull the money, cull the economy.
Oh I get it. Granted not all of the ins and outs, but I get it. How else do you pay for growth if not with new money.
They haven’t so much stopped them as failed to encourage them. Like I said if they’d made loans available to start-up businesses in particular at the same terms they made mortgages available to you and me we’d have a healthier economy capable of riding out recessions better. Instead they're foisted with a tax system that does it’s very best to take out any new business at around 2 years old. And you’ve got the stones to blame business for the loss of jobs? Mate, you’ve got absolutely no idea.
Why should they encourage business? Surely there's demand to be met? If a business fails it's due to a lack of customer base. How can you blame the govt for that? Was I blaming business? If they didn't have enough customers, then it's the customers fault innit.
SO, these experts you’re quoting in support of your argument don’t actually agree with you. Do they?
I doubt they've considered what I'm proposing. Likely because they think similarly to yourself, but they know something needs to be done, they just don't seem to know what. Some dude in the US wants to take the $85 billion QE money and give it directly to the people instead because it hasn't trickled down. Moderately amusing that they thought it would. Although I'd be curious to find out what they thought of removing the financial system.
Nope. That encompasses so much logic fail I can’t actually understand the content let alone the intent.
If there's no financial system you can have as many teachers in a classroom as you'd like. In other words, it'll cost the same amount of money to have 5 teacher in a classroom as it would to have 1... i.e. nothing. Same with nurse, doctors, binmen, sewerage workers, farmers, call centre staff, engineers, builders, saw mill workers, programmers, lecturers etc...
No, I don’t get my information from comic books. You’ve discovered that the reserve bank “gives” money to the commercial banks with conditions on it’s use and you can’t understand why. Let’s just leave it at that, eh?
As highlighted above I understand why. I fail to see that system being more beneficial to society than a system that doesn't rely on money in just about every sector of society.
Indeed? Which business sectors? How? And do the subsidies amount to those automatically available to 55% of the public, in that they’re given more than they pay in tax?
Now that’d really make ‘em bludgers.
Oh the old tax back argument. In which case the people on the dole who's parents worked all of their lives and didn't dip into the taxes that they paid aren't really bludgers then? If a business can't make it without subsidy, then it shouldn't be in business. The $400 million irrigation project for the private sector. The part funding of employees for the private sector. The film industry. Agriculture. And from what I read govt subsidisation of various sectors around the world is a means of keeping them competitive. Granted NZ has some of the lowest subsidies, but again, if the business can't make it, it shouldn't be shored up with money that leaves the tax payer short on services. Yes it's much more complicated than that and we need exports to keep the economy healthy etc... but where does that end? Whereas if there were no financial system, we could sell our goods for as much or as little as we'd like.
Indeed, almost serious enough to print hundred dollar notes.
Almost.
Ooooooooo... bit heavy printed in slate though. "They" may catch on?
mashman
8th March 2013, 23:25
Ban ki moon openly stated they just plucked the money out of thin air to pay for the US meltdown , I have posted on here before
Stephen
His name is almost like a taunt innit. If the banks want to show you what they think of you, they pull a Banki Moon.
Akzle
9th March 2013, 06:35
Yup there will still be a govt, not necessarily in charge, but certainly in charge in regards to logistics and facilitating communication between "councils".
holy HTML-gasm thred!
red up on dung shopping's communism. (deng xiaopang)
he came up after mao went down , basically copied the ruski model, but it was as you say.
a reduction in "centralised collectivism"
private property and ownership was restored, decisions were made at the "village" level
We'll still need medicine, hospitals, doctors, raw materials, workers etc... Control, as you put it, will be at "council" level i.e.
hate to rain on your parade, but that sounds surprisingly like private enterprise...
Without money people's motives and motivations will probably change. Certainly the generation that grows up without the concept of a financial system will reap the full benefits... or something like that.
i reckon!
money is the motivating factor behin so much "evil" - greed, which is a sin in any religion, oneupmanship, which, as your analogy of horny old rich men, will take us back to evaluating what a man is actually worth.
IE, (no pun) windows is such shit software, that i don't feel bill gates deserves to be paid 220$ a second just for breathing.
monetary society has taken hoomans from a society that rewards individual physical prowess (bestest, fastest strongest hunter, ie) to one that rewards trickery and scheming, or "mental" prowess.
i don't reckon that's a good thing.
Mashie - have you read Lord of the Flies by William Golding? Recommended. It might dissuade you from abandoning the protections of a civil society. Because that is what you'll get if you evaporate all concepts of calculating value.
i'll suggest that the moral of the story was that happiness comes from within, a similar tale to garland's "the beach" - even in a "perfect/ idyllic" setting, shit still happens.
so why?
but i think a re-structure-rethink, and a collective conscious move toward it (which, being sentient adults we're capable of)
and that's based off my belief that central governance is the manifestation of a sickness, among the collective mind...
mashman
9th March 2013, 09:30
holy HTML-gasm thred!
red up on dung shopping's communism. (deng xiaopang)
he came up after mao went down , basically copied the ruski model, but it was as you say.
a reduction in "centralised collectivism"
private property and ownership was restored, decisions were made at the "village" level
Sounds like a mighty smart fella. "council" = "village"... whatever size it needs to be it can be.
hate to rain on your parade, but that sounds surprisingly like private enterprise...
OMFG no no no nooooooooooooooo... no rain there. As there's no cash it will be re-branded, lemme see now, yes, public enterprise. Yes it will still exist, just the reason for it existing will be different. The names have been changed to protect the innocent...
i reckon!
money is the motivating factor behin so much "evil" - greed, which is a sin in any religion, oneupmanship, which, as your analogy of horny old rich men, will take us back to evaluating what a man is actually worth.
IE, (no pun) windows is such shit software, that i don't feel bill gates deserves to be paid 220$ a second just for breathing.
monetary society has taken hoomans from a society that rewards individual physical prowess (bestest, fastest strongest hunter, ie) to one that rewards trickery and scheming, or "mental" prowess.
i don't reckon that's a good thing.
"Be a man of value rather than a man of success" - Berty Einy. Agreed on windeez. Still gonna use it though (it's kinda my job). With no financial system we could write WiNZdows and a suite of apps that streamline the entire country. We could all but ditch security entirely.
I reckon it's a great thing... although the reward mechanism is fooked.
Ocean1
9th March 2013, 09:39
Why would you need to make a living in an economy without a financial system?
You need to make a living no matter how you’re being remunerated. Otherwise you’re dead, innit?
As for an economy, if you don’t have a financial system then you don’t have an economy. More fail.
It is what you said, but I was asking about before the GFC which is why I posted the linky. I wasn't thinking of nearly 30 years before though and wasn't asking for an average.
Me listen, me stuck with my obviously ambiguous question.
07/08. The economy shrank because of money. No more no less. Goods were still there to be paid, yet there was no money to pay for them. T'would seem a little silly given that supply and demand for goods and services is supposed to provide that which sustains an economy. Cull the money, cull the economy.
Yes, I know you wanted me to “admit” that the GFC caused a rise in unemployment from ’07. The fact is ’07 was a very short anomaly fuelled by high spending. That’s what caused the GFC, remember? People spending money they didn’t have. Debt. So it’s far more accurate to say the GFC caused a correction in artificially low unemployment statistics back to pretty much normal.
As for the economy shrinking because of money, it’s nonsensical. Availability of money is driven by economic factors, not the other way around.
And the supply and demand cycle continued to function flawlessly throughout. As you observed, there were still goods available but less cash floating about, which immediately drove prices down and resulted in manufacturers lowering their costs. Perfect control loop.
Oh I get it. Granted not all of the ins and outs, but I get it. How else do you pay for growth if not with new money?
You don’t pay for growth at all. Growth is the result of higher levels of productive activity. End of.
If, however you want your currency to be valued at nominally the same rate you can inject more cash into the economy to compensate. Most countries didn’t bother until last century, notably the UK where the value of the pound reached ridiculously high levels.
Why should they encourage business? Surely there's demand to be met? If a business fails it's due to a lack of customer base. How can you blame the govt for that? Was I blaming business? If they didn't have enough customers, then it's the customers fault innit.
They don’t, and have never at any time encouraged business, seeing them as simply another cash cow. As for why they should? Because businesses ARE the productive sector, and of far more importance to you they make jobs. Jobs for those without the intestinal fortitude to take responsibility for their own day to day productivity. It’s pretty obvious that in order to grow a beneficial activity you encourage it. In the case of most SMEs that simply means refraining from taxing them out of existence and requiring them to spend huge quantities of income proving that they comply.
I blame the government for the ill health of SMEs in NZ because the very growth business generated has been distributed to house buyers, at very friendly rates instead of being made available to help business grow more.
And yes, you repeatedly blame businesses for failing to hire people they can’t afford to pay.
As for the customers? Let’s blame employees for failing to produce what they want at the cost they can pay, eh? That makes far more sense.
I doubt they've considered what I'm proposing. Likely because they think similarly to yourself, but they know something needs to be done, they just don't seem to know what. Some dude in the US wants to take the $85 billion QE money and give it directly to the people instead because it hasn't trickled down. Moderately amusing that they thought it would. Although I'd be curious to find out what they thought of removing the financial system.
So ask ‘em. Look, there’s one now: http://garethsworld.com/blog/economics/housing-boom-figures-should-convince-government-to-put-its-hands-back-on-the-steering-wheel/
Comments at the bottom.
Oh the old tax back argument. In which case the people on the dole who's parents worked all of their lives and didn't dip into the taxes that they paid aren't really bludgers then?
Of course they are, they’re a net drain on the economy, whether their parents were or not is irrelevant.
If a business can't make it without subsidy, then it shouldn't be in business. The $400 million irrigation project for the private sector. The part funding of employees for the private sector. The film industry. Agriculture. And from what I read govt subsidisation of various sectors around the world is a means of keeping them competitive.
I agree. In spite of the fact that they’re the only possible source of further tax revenue, including the paye their income generates. I’m prepared to bet huge wads of cash that you can’t show me a single private business in NZ that’s receiving a direct subsidy from govt, including the ones vaguely referred to above. If you can show me a business the government pays more than it receives in tax I’ll eat my KTM. Like I said, most individual kiwis cost the taxpayer more than they contribute, whereas EVERY business in NZ adds value to the economy. Simply refraining from bleeding SMEs white would not only increase the long term tax take it would improve overall economic performance in every regard.
Granted NZ has some of the lowest subsidies, but again, if the business can't make it, it shouldn't be shored up with money that leaves the tax payer short on services.
In fact business is taxed far more heavily than individuals, yet not only do they not collect the dole when they fail they get almost no assistance from government whatsoever, hard times or not. Claiming the public has automatic right to business tax revenue and somehow claiming it’s business’s fault if that’s not forthcoming simply displays an utter lack of understanding of what drives the economy and where jobs come from.
scumdog
9th March 2013, 16:40
A few studies in the US in regards to "peer courts" show that kids aren't that bad, they're generally just seriously bored.
More that they just haven't been on the planet long enough to have the skill and knowledge they need.
And are so darned sure of themselves that they won't listen to advice from the elders.
That way now, always been that way and will stay that way forever and ever.
It's the way of the world.
mashman
9th March 2013, 19:41
You need to make a living no matter how you’re being remunerated. Otherwise you’re dead, innit?
As for an economy, if you don’t have a financial system then you don’t have an economy. More fail.
Agreed... apart from the dead bit... especially if you're making a living by taking from others.
Of course you have an economy, just a different type(s) of economy. Goods and services will still be required to be produced as there will still be consumption. There will also be the need for a perceived financial economy. After all we'll need to "trade" with the rest of the world and to avoid sending the rest of the world into financial shock we'll still have to produce a GDP so the the economists can update their models.
Yes, I know you wanted me to “admit” that the GFC caused a rise in unemployment from ’07. The fact is ’07 was a very short anomaly fuelled by high spending. That’s what caused the GFC, remember? People spending money they didn’t have. Debt. So it’s far more accurate to say the GFC caused a correction in artificially low unemployment statistics back to pretty much normal.
As for the economy shrinking because of money, it’s nonsensical. Availability of money is driven by economic factors, not the other way around.
And the supply and demand cycle continued to function flawlessly throughout. As you observed, there were still goods available but less cash floating about, which immediately drove prices down and resulted in manufacturers lowering their costs. Perfect control loop.
All money is debt. When they stop lending things tend to come to a halt. On that basis it's more accurate to say that the lack of money floating arounf caused hundreds of thousands if not millions of people to lose their jobs. I don't care how you dress it up at the top, it's the result that's important. The economy fails people on a regular basis and we bicker about it as though people aren't trying or that they're lazy and we hold the economy up as some form of beacon of light that human beings are failing. Pretty fucked up in any language. GFC is caused by money issues, not human issues.
Oh I disagree with that entirely. You said yourself that it's
the basic unit that enables the demand and supply cycle
If money is the enabler, then it's the driver for (some false) demand and supply. So make your mind up wouldy ya.
Flawlessly? I don't call the loss of jobs, homes, relationships, lives etc... flawless. Sure some prices went down, but plenty of others rose. I guess they call that balancing the books. And yet irrespective of govt tax breaks, the manufacturing industry seems to have taken a big hit. That perfect control loop you're talking about may well be perfect in economic terms, but it fucks people over left and right. Not exactly perfect in my book. Not even close.
You don’t pay for growth at all. Growth is the result of higher levels of productive activity. End of.
If, however you want your currency to be valued at nominally the same rate you can inject more cash into the economy to compensate. Most countries didn’t bother until last century, notably the UK where the value of the pound reached ridiculously high levels.
It is, I agree. But that's not the end of it at all. You could be as productive as you like, but without consumers that productivity goes nowhere. Praise be for Marketing and Advertising. So some fucker somewhere spits the dummy because of cash injections that don't meet econimic lending criteria and people suffer for it. Bit childish given that they're just trying to make a buck.
They don’t, and have never at any time encouraged business, seeing them as simply another cash cow. As for why they should? Because businesses ARE the productive sector, and of far more importance to you they make jobs. Jobs for those without the intestinal fortitude to take responsibility for their own day to day productivity. It’s pretty obvious that in order to grow a beneficial activity you encourage it. In the case of most SMEs that simply means refraining from taxing them out of existence and requiring them to spend huge quantities of income proving that they comply.
I blame the government for the ill health of SMEs in NZ because the very growth business generated has been distributed to house buyers, at very friendly rates instead of being made available to help business grow more.
And yes, you repeatedly blame businesses for failing to hire people they can’t afford to pay.
As for the customers? Let’s blame employees for failing to produce what they want at the cost they can pay, eh? That makes far more sense.
And the right whinge are usually so business friendly too. You talk about responsibility in one breath, bagging the govt in the process for not doing enough to help SME's take responsibility for their own business. Come on. Or is that another one of your perfect loops? As I've said, if they can't make it, they can't make it. Get the fuck over it and stop expecting govt help or govt handouts to make your money.
Nah. Housing money comes from the individual thin air bucket of cash. They've still got plenty of cash in the business thin air bucket. Money is not finite so there's plenty of money for individual and SME borrowing should they want it. Perhaps SME's should ask for friendlier rates.
So ask ‘em. Look, there’s one now: http://garethsworld.com/blog/economi...teering-wheel/
Comments at the bottom.
I need my ducks in a row first. Then I'll ask a gent I know for a personal introduction.
Of course they are, they’re a net drain on the economy, whether their parents were or not is irrelevant.
So as long as dad has put in enough tax so that his kid can chill on the dole without being a net drain it'll be ok?
I agree. In spite of the fact that they’re the only possible source of further tax revenue, including the paye their income generates. I’m prepared to bet huge wads of cash that you can’t show me a single private business in NZ that’s receiving a direct subsidy from govt, including the ones vaguely referred to above. If you can show me a business the government pays more than it receives in tax I’ll eat my KTM. Like I said, most individual kiwis cost the taxpayer more than they contribute, whereas EVERY business in NZ adds value to the economy. Simply refraining from bleeding SMEs white would not only increase the long term tax take it would improve overall economic performance in every regard.
The aged healthcare industry has a few... nope, sorry, that's called funding. As for the rest, there's hige amounts of truth in that. And if businesses paid that 55% more money then they wouldn't need to be a drain. So lower them margins, change how jobs are valued and that will also improve overall economic performance. The introduction of a financial transaction tax may nullify the need to tax kiwis income at all. But hey, we can all dream up all sorts of interesting ways to lessen the load on business and the individual... however none of them seem to work. Ditch the cash and business nor the individual need be bled at all and if the businesss and employee are useful they'll survive and go from strength to strength.
In fact business is taxed far more heavily than individuals, yet not only do they not collect the dole when they fail they get almost no assistance from government whatsoever, hard times or not. Claiming the public has automatic right to business tax revenue and somehow claiming it’s business’s fault if that’s not forthcoming simply displays an utter lack of understanding of what drives the economy and where jobs come from.
Meh.
mashman
9th March 2013, 19:43
More that they just haven't been on the planet long enough to have the skill and knowledge they need.
And are so darned sure of themselves that they won't listen to advice from the elders.
That way now, always been that way and will stay that way forever and ever.
It's the way of the world.
Pah. So if they don't listen to adults, which to be honest given the caliber of authority figures and the way they approach "kids" I can't say I blame them, then put the "kids" in charge. After all the bad kids are a huge minority. they may even remind adults of what it's like to be a "kid".
scumdog
9th March 2013, 19:47
Pah. So if they don't listen to adults, which to be honest given the caliber of authority figures and the way they approach "kids" I can't say I blame them, then put the "kids" in charge. After all the bad kids are a huge minority. they may even remind adults of what it's like to be a "kid".
As I said: That's the way it has been since time immemorial, hence why young ones have never taken control.
Too full of high ideals - and no skills, knowledge or experience...
mashman
9th March 2013, 19:56
As I said: That's the way it has been since time immemorial, hence why young ones have never taken control.
Too full of high ideals - and no skills, knowledge or experience...
Adults. So competent in their skills, knowledge and experience that they've forgotten their ideals. There are too many kids that just aren't these days. They may well lack experience, but plenty of them have skill and knowledge. But that doesn't make a good generalisation.
Ocean1
9th March 2013, 20:04
Meh.
Nah, you're not rational, not wasting my time.
mashman
9th March 2013, 20:47
Nah, you're not rational, not wasting my time.
You want my reason for my meh. Other than similar to what you've just posted that is. You were splitting the tax pot and trying to justify govt assistance for business based on how much business has put into that pot. It's not a fuckin kitty to withdraw what you want when you think you should be allowed to because you are a positive contributor. You know what taxation is for. You know that if a business isn't making it then it shouldn't be in business. Why throw good money after bad by trying to buoy up that which you know to be failing and running the risk of turning a business into a negative tax contributor. You really think we should open that box? Of course I understand where jobs come from and the part that the economy and money plays in that. Tis one of the very reasons I want rid of the financial system. But if you can kick the bludgers for not having jobs, then follow your rational reasoning up the tree and pin the real blame where the real blame lies. Yet you continually defend the financial system that drives EVERYTHING.
You keep harping on about responsibility and I see next to none in many businesses. It's all about the money and what that business needs to survive. Nothing more nothing less. It's imperative that it survives because there'll be no jobs etc... What a crock of shit. It's like anything in this world. If there's money to be made something else will take that place. And you say that I'm not being rational.
scumdog
9th March 2013, 20:52
Mashy, you may well have some valid points re 'we don't need cash'.
But I suspect it would be easier for you to teach snakes to ride bikes than to get your 'system' adopted by the general population.
Don Quixote comes to mind...
Usarka
9th March 2013, 21:08
Mashy, you may well have some valid points re 'we don't need cash'.
But I suspect it would be easier for you to teach snakes to ride bikes than to get your 'system' adopted by the general population.
Don Quixote comes to mind...
Never surrender!
mashman
9th March 2013, 21:25
Mashy, you may well have some valid points re 'we don't need cash'.
But I suspect it would be easier for you to teach snakes to ride bikes than to get your 'system' adopted by the general population.
Don Quixote comes to mind...
That will probably be the case where the general population are unaware of the alternative. I'm pretty convinced that there are huge numbers of people in NZ who would see the reasons for it. The majority? Maybe. till then
Never surrender!
Such a shame that cunts like the below get away with keeping the status quo where I believe that they could well be the minority.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5gZrgGXOco
scumdog
9th March 2013, 21:29
Such a shame that cunts like the below get away with keeping the status quo where I believe that they could well be the minority.
So how do they con the majority then??
mashman
9th March 2013, 21:34
So how do they con the majority then??
That's the beauty of it. These days they don't have to so much. Just throw in a recession here and there and threaten job security and it's done. After all, 99% of everything costs money... and what could you pay for if you were on the dole?
scumdog
9th March 2013, 21:45
and what could you pay for if you were on the dole?
Everything you would need according to you??
Brian d marge
9th March 2013, 22:16
Heres a start
I have also done a similar "what if " and have a few "trials " going on here in tokyo
There are others actually doing it in , in sydney and new York
So it can be done ( IS being done )
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1602399840/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1602399840&linkCode=as2&tag=throsnow-20
and IF you wanted to or NEEDED to , its still possible to use cash......
Stephen
mashman
9th March 2013, 22:17
Everything you would need according to you??
heh... that all depends on what one is prepared to do to top up one's payments. "Splitting" from the wife and having a second house that we could rent out would do nicely for starters. The odd cash job here and then would top it up nicely. Potentially a little drug dealing for minimal profit but to pay for ones own usage. A little bit of shop lifting for pocket money and impromptu technology acquisition to keep up with the Joneses. Start up two or three businesses each year destined to fail along with so fake staff. No doubt any new acquaintances would bring me up to speed on the finer points of benefiting. Still though, that's a hell of a bad example to set for the kids. Much better to ditch the financial system and give them a real shot at being of value to society instead of just to themselves.
mashman
9th March 2013, 22:36
Heres a start
I have also done a similar "what if " and have a few "trials " going on here in tokyo
There are others actually doing it in , in sydney and new York
So it can be done ( IS being done )
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1602399840/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1602399840&linkCode=as2&tag=throsnow-20
and IF you wanted to or NEEDED to , its still possible to use cash......
Stephen
If only it were about saving money. Although it is good fun to fanny around with stuff like that and see it grow. Shame that it still takes money to setup and as we're on clay it'll cost a fuckload to get a decent amount of soil to use the space. So far I've piddled about with hydroponics growing tomatoes and broccoli in the bedroom. Learned that broccoli attracts some form of larvae and that the Mrs wouldn't let me decorate the walls with a hydroponic setup. Grow lamps need at least 1kw bulbs to really create sunlight, but only after blowing the princely sum of about $60 building one that would run off a 12 volt battery off the mains. I shoulda got a solar panel to recharge the battery to see how long it would have lasted. We have a veggie garden. Not much but not bad. Shelled a fuckload of beans today with more to come next week. Got oodles of tomatoes. There be spuds in there as I can't get rid of the fuckas. The cabbage are out as are the calui's and the tobacco leaves are drying nicely. Will remove the small leaves next week and hang them and then figure out how to cure them. Got a fuckload of tobacco seed pods that'll need dealing with over the next while... could sell seeds I suppose. And am wondering WTF will grow in winter when the summer stuff comes outta the garden. Oh yeah, also put some contraption together a few years ago and successfully produced hydrogen from water... but materials costs were prohibitive to furthering the experiments. Useful for turning dirty water into fuel and producing clean water out the other end.
It's all doable, but not everyone can afford the setup costs or has the time/skill to do what it takes to maintain the gardens. Having said that, if there were no financial system we could have "professionals", potentially the retired, from each area building and maintaining veggie gardens on people's property's to alleviate the number of out of town veggies that'd need to be grown. Ahhhhhh the possibilities.
scumdog
9th March 2013, 22:38
heh... that all depends on what one is prepared to do to top up one's payments. "Splitting" from the wife and having a second house that we could rent out would do nicely for starters. The odd cash job here and then would top it up nicely. Potentially a little drug dealing for minimal profit but to pay for ones own usage. A little bit of shop lifting for pocket money and impromptu technology acquisition to keep up with the Joneses. Start up two or three businesses each year destined to fail along with so fake staff. No doubt any new acquaintances would bring me up to speed on the finer points of benefiting. Still though, that's a hell of a bad example to set for the kids. Much better to ditch the financial system and give them a real shot at being of value to society instead of just to themselves.
All sounds too complicated!
And I eventually figured out ho to be a 'value to society' - cash and all!
mashman
9th March 2013, 22:40
All sounds too complicated!
And I eventually figured out ho to be a 'value to society' - cash and all!
It probably is if you get caught.... which technically means that your value is due to the financial system.
Winston001
9th March 2013, 23:11
Mashie - I have never doubted your sincerity. The thing is, there are some pretty big brains on the planet and despite the problems you rightly identify with the world's financial systems, nobody has come up with a better answer. Nobody.
What is wrong is our current system of allocating value has become skewed. You are right. A nurse, a bin-man, a sewage worker, they are essential to us all. And sometimes they get paid sod all. By contrast a merchant banker can earn 10X as much for...what? Persuading one group of savers to lend to another group of spenders in the hope that the spenders can grow the pot.
Ok so we should fix that and I suspect most would agree. It is happening but very slowly.
mashman
10th March 2013, 00:05
Mashie - I have never doubted your sincerity. The thing is, there are some pretty big brains on the planet and despite the problems you rightly identify with the world's financial systems, nobody has come up with a better answer. Nobody.
What is wrong is our current system of allocating value has become skewed. You are right. A nurse, a bin-man, a sewage worker, they are essential to us all. And sometimes they get paid sod all. By contrast a merchant banker can earn 10X as much for...what? Persuading one group of savers to lend to another group of spenders in the hope that the spenders can grow the pot.
Ok so we should fix that and I suspect most would agree. It is happening but very slowly.
Awwwww that's nice, thanks. I agree that there are some exceptionally intelligent people on the planet and no doubt 1 or 2 of them will have contemplated a financially free society. They may have even raised their voice at some point or other and have been derided for mentioning such. However given what money is responsible for in terms of the damage it has caused and given that the vast majority of that damage wouldn't have happened had it not been for money, why would they persist? I'm assuming that it's an out and out denial that such a thing could possibly work, see Ocean101, given the lack of a such system having ever having been tried. I've yet to see/hear/read of one single reason why ditching the financial system won't work. The best that can be mustered by the "deniers" is that human nature won't allow it or human nature will cause it to breakdown. Other than there being absolutely no proof for that assumption, here I am declaring emphatically that it makes sense. Does my human nature not count? Does the human nature of Jacque Fresco (intelligent man) not count? Does my Wife's human nature not count? Does the human nature of some of my friends not count? I've met a few strangers who also see the sense in implementing such a system. Does there human nature not count? Nearly all of those who have agreed have started from the viewpoint that it cannot be achieved. Yet they have changed their minds the more they have thought about it and discussed it. Perhaps the big brains aren't thinking about it in those terms and are very much stuck playing by the current rules. Who knows. But if human nature is the only argument for a financial system, then the financial system is a failure and we should put human nature to the test.
Skewed? It's way beyond skewed. It touches absolutely everything on this planet. I'm surprised there isn't an air tax yet, oh, hang on, yes, the ETS came pretty damned close. They have infinite money to make a financial system work, yet it still can't get the basics right. It all sounds like we have our station in life and it has been valued at $X... tis your choice what you become, but there are limited openings for the higher salaried positions. Follow that down to there being no job at all. Moderately amusing given that, as mentioned, money is infinite. Earning, spending, investing, banking, valuing, struggling etc... wouldn't exist if it weren't for money. A nurse would be a nurse, binman a binman etc... and they would have access to the necessities of life and likely many of the wants we have too. None of it has to stop just because money doesn't exist and again the only reason given for that being the case is human nature. It's not the allocation of value that is the real problem, that's just a side affect of the mechanism that's being used. Thrice, odd given that money is infinite.
Is it happening? Even if the salary's of the big boys came down, there's the knock on economic affects of that. Less tax for one. Even if you gave employees more money, how will you explain to others who don't receive more money why they didn't? Re-valuing the value of money won't fix the real issues that we have. They'll still be there. Why? Essentially due to a lack of budget. Tis why they're closing schools on Chch. Tis why they're cutting govt jobs and services. Tis why we have recession. Tis why we have poverty. Tis why prices rise. The list of negativity is endless.
NOW please, if you would be so kind, can you produce a damning list of damage that "my" system will cause. If not. Then you agree that I'm more intelligent and much more smarterer than the big brains who don't get it. In fact everyone who agrees with "my" system or similar is more intelligent and much smarterer than the big brains, because we have come up with an answer that they can't.
Brian d marge
10th March 2013, 00:48
The abbos seems to have been ok for a few years , so have the Eskimos , Indian , one nation , an quite a few " herbalists "
doesn't cost much/anything to set up if you think
My aquaponics is doing a treat , Ive added a few fresh water Crays and they are going well ( not sure if you can eat them though ?)
True , I have the same problem ( spinach and spuds are so far lasting the winter as would onions) but then Ive been preserving ...and have FK loads of tomato sauce , marmalade and some raspberry jam
Milk , I made soy milk , ( now this worked but went lumpy in me coffee,,,coffee thats another thing ,,,)
beer , wine and whiskey I make and that works a treat ,, 3 hours once a month .
Im really only stuck on one thing , electricity, yes I know I could make a pelton wheel but without running water , ..... and i cant afford the biomass
so its off to the fish and chip shop for the oil , ( enfields run on oil ).....
its not a new economy just a change of mind set , from I need , to I don't need ,,,,,and i think it may be catching on ,
For example , my Enfield will be fine until the day I pass on , but this laptop wont . If the laptop was modular and repairable ( I use Linux open source ) this to could be with me until i GO
The question is ,IF you dropped out ( or can u) how far could you drop out , until the big brother boys came calling asking for some form of dues
If the dues weren't paid are you entitled to the health system etc ?
No , the fundimental problem as it has always been is greed and those who serve it.
Stephen
Akzle
10th March 2013, 06:15
All money is debt.
...And if businesses paid that 55% more money then they wouldn't need to be a drain. So lower them margins, change how jobs are valued and that will also improve overall economic performance.
companies pay tax.
humans don't.
infact even in a "normal" company structure: the tax comes from the employees. (the company is obliged to pay X tax for every employee, so they take it from every employee, instead of off the bottom line.)
of course, a legal person is a corporation and corporations exist with the aim of making a profit. so they must, obviously, pay tax.
so i'd say it's best not to be a person, and certainly not an employee. cos they get a bum deal. legally.
and re: all money is debt: IT IS.
legal tender or a promise to pay.
when?
when something of value come back into circulation (true story).
infact, i do believe, legally the only currency in circulation is coins. i forget which act specifies.
try bills of exchange act, or paper currency act. also i believe the wages protection act specifies that workers must be paid "money". here it is:
money, in relation to any wages, means any New Zealand coin
or New Zealand banknotes, or combination of both, the tender
of which in respect of the payment of those wages is legal
tender
huh. odd fucking wording, innit.
Too full of high ideals - and no skills, knowledge or experience...
not enough guns...
alleviate the number of out of town veggies that'd need to be grown. Ahhhhhh the possibilities.
and reduce the carbon footprint //err tax, eh?
And I eventually figured out ho to be a 'value to society' - cash and all!
really, howsat??
nobody has come up with a better answer. Nobody.
It is happening but very slowly.
you have been reading the thread, huh? i think he's putting forward an answer.
i think it's happening at a faster rate that ever before. more and more i hear people who think along my lines, i hear more people waking up to the bullshit. i see change as a reality that hopefully my kids will get to enjoy when they're my age.
The question is ,IF you dropped out ( or can u) how far could you drop out , until the big brother boys came calling asking for some form of dues
If the dues weren't paid are you entitled to the health system etc ?
you can't drop out. there's no option. there's no box to tick to say "i want to be part of society." or not.
(look up a notice of understanding and intent and claim of right (NoI, CoR) and constructive notice of denial to be governed")
there is no LEGAL option to opt out of society. so they force society on you (which is against the legal definition of society.) so you remain entitled (re: healthcare), but also obliged (re: give the govt half of your life and money). (as a legal person, because it would be unlawful to force this kind of crap on a human. unless they were a slave, then it's legal as.)
as for how far you can drop out... i'm working on it. one problem is see hippies who pay rates etc "because they have to pay tax" which really irks me.
but of course, it's when the govt stops getting their cut that they come to hunt you down to remind you of "your" person's legal obligation to the society you don't want any part of. unfortunately they've got more thugs with guns on hand than i do. elsewise i'd war em on it.
Akzle
10th March 2013, 07:02
(2) The Bank shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession
and a common seal and shall be capable of acquiring, holding
and disposing of real and personal property and of suing and
being sued.
(3) Without limiting any other provision of this Act, the Bank shall
have the rights, powers, and privileges of a natural person.
10 Formulation and implementation of monetary policy
In formulating and implementing monetary policy the Bank
shall—
(a) Have regard to the efficiency and soundness of the financial
system:
Bank note or note means any negotiable instrument used or
circulated, or intended for use or circulation, as currency
. .
more when i cbf.
Usarka
10th March 2013, 08:30
So how do they con the majority then??
Because everyone's default response when it's pointed out to them is to mock and joke about tinfoil hats instead of actually engaging brain and critically thinking about stuff. Or say that it's too hard.
mashman
10th March 2013, 08:42
The abbos seems to have been ok for a few years , so have the Eskimos , Indian , one nation , an quite a few " herbalists "
doesn't cost much/anything to set up if you think
My aquaponics is doing a treat , Ive added a few fresh water Crays and they are going well ( not sure if you can eat them though ?)
True , I have the same problem ( spinach and spuds are so far lasting the winter as would onions) but then Ive been preserving ...and have FK loads of tomato sauce , marmalade and some raspberry jam
Milk , I made soy milk , ( now this worked but went lumpy in me coffee,,,coffee thats another thing ,,,)
beer , wine and whiskey I make and that works a treat ,, 3 hours once a month .
Im really only stuck on one thing , electricity, yes I know I could make a pelton wheel but without running water , ..... and i cant afford the biomass
so its off to the fish and chip shop for the oil , ( enfields run on oil ).....
its not a new economy just a change of mind set , from I need , to I don't need ,,,,,and i think it may be catching on ,
For example , my Enfield will be fine until the day I pass on , but this laptop wont . If the laptop was modular and repairable ( I use Linux open source ) this to could be with me until i GO
Yup plenty of real teachers out there that could learn us a thing or two.
Dunno about fresh water crays... although a guy a Owlcatraz said they were delicious, so I'm guessing they're on the menu. Just slap on some Donna and let them get busy.
Have most of what I need for my brewing, just need to add the lazy man touches. Got an old fridge freezer with drinks dispenser that's just begging to be converted to a beer dispenser. Got an iou for the in fridge kit from mum. Bit more reading to do then yeehaw.
Might give Tom sauce a bash as the girls don't 'arf go through it.
Each time I talk to about electricity generation the idea behind a fly wheel always crops up. Wonder how a maglev fly wheel would turn out?
Noice shit. How easy was it to convert the oil into bio fuel? Or did you?
Damn that milk sounds nasty... fortunately I don't drink it or tea or coffee.
"its not a new economy just a change of mind set , from I need , to I don't need ,,,,,and i think it may be catching on ,"... perfect description. Will use it should I get the occasion to.
Agreed on the modular shit. Fuckin abysmal that they don't build 'em like that. I guess it just doesn't make enough money.
The question is ,IF you dropped out ( or can u) how far could you drop out , until the big brother boys came calling asking for some form of dues
If the dues weren't paid are you entitled to the health system etc ?
No , the fundimental problem as it has always been is greed and those who serve it.
Stephen
You can probably drop out as far as you like... so long as you have a good mate who wouldn't mind you using his identity for medical purposes. Although if you're not putting in you shouldn't be allowed to take pout apparently :innocent:
So remove the mechanism that allows greed to flourish... and then let society decide on what to do with those who take more than they need. Likely bloody hard to quantify and if there's surplus, then we'd likely never really notice.
mashman
10th March 2013, 08:53
companies pay tax.
humans don't.
infact even in a "normal" company structure: the tax comes from the employees. (the company is obliged to pay X tax for every employee, so they take it from every employee, instead of off the bottom line.)
of course, a legal person is a corporation and corporations exist with the aim of making a profit. so they must, obviously, pay tax.
so i'd say it's best not to be a person, and certainly not an employee. cos they get a bum deal. legally.
and re: all money is debt: IT IS.
legal tender or a promise to pay.
when?
when something of value come back into circulation (true story).
infact, i do believe, legally the only currency in circulation is coins. i forget which act specifies.
try bills of exchange act, or paper currency act. also i believe the wages protection act specifies that workers must be paid "money". here it is:
huh. odd fucking wording, innit.
Ahhhhh the justification of it all. What a waste of time, effort and resource. Although it keeps people in jobs and helps to keep the average wage a keepin on risin.
and reduce the carbon footprint //err tax, eh?
Never considered it on that basis, but yeah, I guess it would.
i think it's happening at a faster rate that ever before. more and more i hear people who think along my lines, i hear more people waking up to the bullshit. i see change as a reality that hopefully my kids will get to enjoy when they're my age.
I be one of them thar recently awakened folk and I'm not overly impressed, more disappointed, that others have known this shit for a while and have done nothink about it. Not having a go, I fully realise how tricky it is :yes:, but more from the perspective that I had to work it out for myself instead of having someone explain it to me. It gets me all excited when I consider what our kids could achieve and how they would be able to live.
you can't drop out. there's no option. there's no box to tick to say "i want to be part of society." or not.
(look up a notice of understanding and intent and claim of right (NoI, CoR) and constructive notice of denial to be governed")
there is no LEGAL option to opt out of society. so they force society on you (which is against the legal definition of society.) so you remain entitled (re: healthcare), but also obliged (re: give the govt half of your life and money). (as a legal person, because it would be unlawful to force this kind of crap on a human. unless they were a slave, then it's legal as.)
as for how far you can drop out... i'm working on it. one problem is see hippies who pay rates etc "because they have to pay tax" which really irks me.
but of course, it's when the govt stops getting their cut that they come to hunt you down to remind you of "your" person's legal obligation to the society you don't want any part of. unfortunately they've got more thugs with guns on hand than i do. elsewise i'd war em on it.
Has anyone finally worked out whether we are legally obliged to pay tax yet?
Akzle
10th March 2013, 14:35
as far as fresh water crays (koura)go, red wine and a pot of boiling water. they're good. not as good as their big salty cuzzies, but quite eatable.
I be one of them thar recently awakened folk and I'm not overly impressed, more disappointed, that others have known this shit for a while and have done nothink about it. Not having a go, I fully realise how tricky it is :yes:, but more from the perspective that I had to work it out for myself instead of having someone explain it to me. It gets me all excited when I consider what our kids could achieve and how they would be able to live.
Has anyone finally worked out whether we are legally obliged to pay tax yet?
no, tax is illegal by some decree of a king in the 13th century. noone seems to take any notice...
also, coercion and duress are illegal. so too, is slavery, and i'm fairly sure theft.
BUT as a corporate person (not a living man), you have duties and obligations. it's all about that registration (berth) certificate and some other numbers they use to track you through their books. *ooooh conspiracy theoryyyyyy*.
no, it's actually a fucking fact.
a lot of it comes down to contract law - you contract with a "bank" to open an account through your name, this ALL goes through the reserve bank and IRD.
the IRD can track you monthly by the interest paid on any account, places who start with "ministry" or "department" (social development, justice etc) have fairly unlimited access to "your" bank account.
don't believe me? read the fine print which you signed in a corporate nature (corporate sign-nature= person's signature.) also, try getting your bank not to pay the interest on an account.
you don't own a bank account. the account is opened through the corporate name registered on a berth certificate. you just happen to have (some kind) of control over it. unless a ministry decides you should repay fines, or child support, or tax, or, or, or...
still a good fucking deal?
more on contracts - you sign an employment contract to further reduce your legal status, from a person, to an employee. now, you still DO NOT have an obligation to pay tax, but it's likely you will, you also (under the wages protection act) MUST BE PAID IN CASH (NOT a bank account/DC), of course, as an employee, you sign to forfeit these rights before you start your toil. and anything that goes through a bank account, is, as above, open to the tax man.
also under that act, no deductions (including tax) may be made from your pay without your consent, of course, the employment contract forms your consent.
but see, you're a living soul, and obviously this way inclined, so you naturally gravitate toward this kind of knowledge, many aren't and many don't care, but more are.
i think the more -ahem- elite, of us, have realised that sheep will be shup, and that, as usucka-anus above pointed out, it's so easy to dismiss you an i as tinfoil hatters, the lunatic fringe, conspiracy theorists.
and it's a really good media ploy, the government fucking love it, all it takes is one of us to stand up and call BS, and one of them to stand up and say "tinfoil hat" and that's the end of the argument, to the public's mind.
so there's no point in trying to make anyone elses life better, because they either will or wont, and, as you, if they're naturally inclined that way, they will, if they're not, fuck em.
so we head into the hills, with guns and tents, and, really, fuck what the corporate world does, unless they're going to come and get us, we could really care less what they do.
so it's not that we "do nothing" just that we post on internet forums /stand on soapboxes and people call us tinfoil hatters and everyone dismisses us. we're generally peaceable, so unlikely to stage riots or violent revolution. i guess we're resigned to the way things are, we spread the good word, and make things better for us and ours.
i just read a book from a (corporate slave) mate called "the outsiders" about the NZers who make an effort to get out of society. i'll post it to you if you want. it's got some good yarns in.
Winston001
10th March 2013, 20:05
Mashie - you do keep saying that no-one has tried your system but you are quite wrong about that. In fact we've talked about examples in earlier discussions but for some reason you forget.
The most recent and widely known examples are the hippie communes of the late 60s - early 70s. Their ethic was each person did what was needed for the benefit of all. No money needed - in fact they didn't have any money so that bit wasn't hard. Jerusalem in NZ (JK Baxter) was the most famous here.
The communes failed. Why? Because eventually some of the hippies noticed they were doing all the work while the others did nothing.
Apart from the hippies, the Pennsylvania Dutch - Amish and Mennonites, have successfully functioned outside our economic system for over 200 years. Check them out.
There are still tribal cultures in Africa and South America which take no part in the world's financial systems. They have no money (in the modern sense) and yet they survive. Barely.
Ocean1
10th March 2013, 20:32
Mashie - you do keep saying that no-one has tried your system but you are quite wrong about that. In fact we've talked about examples in earlier discussions but for some reason you forget.
The most recent and widely known examples are the hippie communes of the late 60s - early 70s. Their ethic was each person did what was needed for the benefit of all. No money needed - in fact they didn't have any money so that bit wasn't hard. Jerusalem in NZ (JK Baxter) was the most famous here.
The communes failed. Why? Because eventually some of the hippies noticed they were doing all the work while the others did nothing.
Apart from the hippies, the Pennsylvania Dutch - Amish and Mennonites, have successfully functioned outside our economic system for over 200 years. Check them out.
There are still tribal cultures in Africa and South America which take no part in the world's financial systems. They have no money (in the modern sense) and yet they survive. Barely.
There's always going to be differences in individual contribution in communities like those. Mashie's main intent seems to be to eliminate the natural consequences of that. But the biggest thing about all of those exclusive communities, even large ones with significant infrastructure is the work required to survive without modern specialisation, and that includes modern commercial structures. Mind numbing drudgery is one description I heard from an Amish kid who ran away to talk about it a decade later.
mashman
10th March 2013, 21:43
no, tax is illegal by some decree of a king in the 13th century. noone seems to take any notice...
also, coercion and duress are illegal. so too, is slavery, and i'm fairly sure theft.
I read that somewhere from a document back in 2000 and wondered if anyone had successfully made the challenge. I believe that there were cases of IRS agents in the US who decided not to pay tax, but never found any outcome. Quite possibly still in court, although they did say that they weren't legally obliged to pay tax. And who would know better eh.
BUT as a corporate person (not a living man), you have duties and obligations. it's all about that registration (berth) certificate and some other numbers they use to track you through their books. *ooooh conspiracy theoryyyyyy*.
no, it's actually a fucking fact.
a lot of it comes down to contract law - you contract with a "bank" to open an account through your name, this ALL goes through the reserve bank and IRD.
the IRD can track you monthly by the interest paid on any account, places who start with "ministry" or "department" (social development, justice etc) have fairly unlimited access to "your" bank account.
don't believe me? read the fine print which you signed in a corporate nature (corporate sign-nature= person's signature.) also, try getting your bank not to pay the interest on an account.
you don't own a bank account. the account is opened through the corporate name registered on a berth certificate. you just happen to have (some kind) of control over it. unless a ministry decides you should repay fines, or child support, or tax, or, or, or...
still a good fucking deal?
more on contracts - you sign an employment contract to further reduce your legal status, from a person, to an employee. now, you still DO NOT have an obligation to pay tax, but it's likely you will, you also (under the wages protection act) MUST BE PAID IN CASH (NOT a bank account/DC), of course, as an employee, you sign to forfeit these rights before you start your toil. and anything that goes through a bank account, is, as above, open to the tax man.
also under that act, no deductions (including tax) may be made from your pay without your consent, of course, the employment contract forms your consent.
but see, you're a living soul, and obviously this way inclined, so you naturally gravitate toward this kind of knowledge, many aren't and many don't care, but more are.
i think the more -ahem- elite, of us, have realised that sheep will be shup, and that, as usucka-anus above pointed out, it's so easy to dismiss you an i as tinfoil hatters, the lunatic fringe, conspiracy theorists.
and it's a really good media ploy, the government fucking love it, all it takes is one of us to stand up and call BS, and one of them to stand up and say "tinfoil hat" and that's the end of the argument, to the public's mind.
so there's no point in trying to make anyone elses life better, because they either will or wont, and, as you, if they're naturally inclined that way, they will, if they're not, fuck em.
so we head into the hills, with guns and tents, and, really, fuck what the corporate world does, unless they're going to come and get us, we could really care less what they do.
so it's not that we "do nothing" just that we post on internet forums /stand on soapboxes and people call us tinfoil hatters and everyone dismisses us. we're generally peaceable, so unlikely to stage riots or violent revolution. i guess we're resigned to the way things are, we spread the good word, and make things better for us and ours.
i just read a book from a (corporate slave) mate called "the outsiders" about the NZers who make an effort to get out of society. i'll post it to you if you want. it's got some good yarns in.
As you say, we sign up for it in some fashion or another and I guess our acceptance through not arguing the toss is taken as consent.
One of the reasons I don't want to seek office is as you mention. One tin foil hat and it's all over. However I'd much prefer each and every individual to make their own mind up as to what sort of collective society they'd like to live in. So if I ever get to the point where it's a possibility, I'll go and talk to the people and then they can have their servants do their bidding. Ahhhhh grandeur, how I crave it :facepalm:.
I don't particularly want to drop out though. Shit just won't change that way and as I've said before, no man is an island, especially if "they" decide that I'm not allowed to play by my own rules. That and I'd probably get the guilts :rofl:.
Cheers for the offer... I'll get that book off of you someday, but I'm a hellish slow reader and have other things occupying my time at the moment.
mashman
10th March 2013, 21:53
Mashie - you do keep saying that no-one has tried your system but you are quite wrong about that. In fact we've talked about examples in earlier discussions but for some reason you forget.
The most recent and widely known examples are the hippie communes of the late 60s - early 70s. Their ethic was each person did what was needed for the benefit of all. No money needed - in fact they didn't have any money so that bit wasn't hard. Jerusalem in NZ (JK Baxter) was the most famous here.
The communes failed. Why? Because eventually some of the hippies noticed they were doing all the work while the others did nothing.
Apart from the hippies, the Pennsylvania Dutch - Amish and Mennonites, have successfully functioned outside our economic system for over 200 years. Check them out.
There are still tribal cultures in Africa and South America which take no part in the world's financial systems. They have no money (in the modern sense) and yet they survive. Barely.
I'm not wrong at all. You're selectively missing that I'm talking about an entire country, not isolated pockets of communities. 40 years of technological advancement will likely make a difference too and I highly doubt that the commune's of the 60's and 70's made use of the latest technology for their benefit. An entire country could.
Communes fail because they are surrounded by financially economic entities and had to interact with those financially economic entities. The moderately amusing thing about you saying that people weren't pulling their weight was the issue that stuffed the communes, is that they'd have come back to a financial economy that has exactly the same thing. As you know, as you have mentioned the 20 hour week before, there'd be more than enough of us to perform the functions that keep the country going. And if being petty by moaning and whining that there are people who aren't perceived as pulling their weight leads to the failure of the system that has been employed, then it was doomed to failure to start with. not everyone is required to work. Yet the more who do the better we'll be and if the alternative is to revert back to the financial system and people have voted it out, then I reckon that they'd understand the potential for "lazy" people to exist. Accept that it will happen and it won't come as such a surprise that people will decide that we'd be better off being valued as individuals.
Let's try it with a whole country and with technology and with an understanding of what we'd be walking in to etc... and it'd be an entirely different animal to the communes that you speak of.
Still waiting for that list too ;).
mashman
10th March 2013, 22:03
There's always going to be differences in individual contribution in communities like those. Mashie's main intent seems to be to eliminate the natural consequences of that. But the biggest thing about all of those exclusive communities, even large ones with significant infrastructure is the work required to survive without modern specialisation, and that includes modern commercial structures. Mind numbing drudgery is one description I heard from an Amish kid who ran away to talk about it a decade later.
And there's difference in individual contributions in our communities. Wildly differing ones and all valued by a perceived contribution that is measured in $. Why would that change? All levels of ability are required for a successful economy. It's quite hilarious that you seem to think that living without money means that we'd be heading into Amish territory. Why would we ditch the tech? Or the commercial structures for that matter? Or the modern specialisation? It's all there. All I'm saying is that we make proper use of it and use it to its potential and not to a budget limit. We have the people. We have the resources. Fuckloads of us have the will. So I fail to see, throughout all of your postings, why you're equating living without a financial system as sending us back to the stone age. That mind numbing drudgery isn't limited to financial less system ya know. What was the last "projection"... 63% (give or take) of Kiwi's aren't happy in their jobs. Mind numbing drudgery doesn't just vanish because you add a financial system. On the plus side you do make me laugh.
Brian d marge
11th March 2013, 00:55
Hippies ,drugs , fail
Amish , "freaks of nature who get up at sunrise" . win ( but still pay tax)
Stephen
Akzle
11th March 2013, 06:50
Hippies ,drugs , fail
Amish , "freaks of nature who get up at sunrise" . win ( but still pay tax)
Stephen
i did read somewhere that amish pay significantly less tax..., so to the krishnas (though i think they might be registered charity)
I read that somewhere from a document back in 2000 and wondered if anyone had successfully made the challenge. I believe that there were cases of IRS agents in the US who decided not to pay tax, but never found any outcome. Quite possibly still in court, although they did say that they weren't legally obliged to pay tax. And who would know better eh.
us is slightly different as their government was constitutionally formed. australia and NZ suffer a de-facto goverment that came about when the league of nations was re structured and NZ and australia got their own chair and carafe, rather than continuing as a colony of the uk.
the uk got their government from an historic monarchy, and started making democratic noises in about 1293 when the magna carta was forced on the then-king by the people. (i think this may be the get-out-of-tax document, but it's been a while since i've read up on it.)
fun fact: the magna carta is still in force in NZ today by the imperial laws application act. first in time is best at law, so any subsequent act that contravenes the magna carta can be safely ignored. (provided you can baffle cops and judges with bullshitery)
as far as case law: the "person" argument was presented and won at manukau in south auckland, that was a case v. the IRD (the guy stopped paying tax), so yes, i'd say there's precedent...
of course the stenographer was absent that morning, because having shit like that on record might give other people ideas about a free and better way of doing things.
Ocean1
11th March 2013, 08:25
And there's difference in individual contributions in our communities. Wildly differing ones and all valued by a perceived contribution that is measured in $. Why would that change? All levels of ability are required for a successful economy.
I guess one of the key differences in our beliefs is that I see a need for money in order for an economy to function and you don't. I see money as an essential gear in a control mechanism, and you see it as the direct cause of inequity and hardship.
Now what’s required to explain those differenced in view? A difference in the perception of what money represents, yes? I see money as representing work done or the promise of work to be done. You see it as an object of desire which causes people to behave in ways you don’t like.
Given that, I see the way new money is distributed into the system (the promise of work to be done) to be a viable control on the economy. You see it as some arsehole plucking more “cause of inequity” from thin air.
I’d like the way new money is distributed to change, to control things other than just inflation. You just want the whole monetary system scrapped.
We both believe our way would provide a better environment in which people would be able to enjoy more freedom in their choices of lifestyle.
You believe that removing money will effectively remove any constraints on people’s choices because they’ll be able to live comfortably even if they don’t contribute what’s actually wanted. I believe society’s better served by those who work hard and take risks to provide what’s actually wanted, and that the best way to allow them to do that is to refrain from penalising them for doing so.
Why would that change? All levels of ability are required for a successful economy. It's quite hilarious that you seem to think that living without money means that we'd be heading into Amish territory. Why would we ditch the tech? Or the commercial structures for that matter? Or the modern specialisation? It's all there.
It's not, you've removed that primary gear, you have no way of valuing product, you have no way of accumulating value, you have no way of storing it and therefore you have no way of investing it. And that, not the lack of technology is what requires the various sects to work non-stop in order to survive. And it amuses me that you figure that all it'll take to get your way is that everyone else needs to disbelieve centuries of history about how economies work and, ignoring the holes in your theories to have faith in your beliefs. Sound familliar?
It's also significant that you require everyone else to abandon their existing lifestyles, because otherwise your idea won't work. If it won't work on a small scale what makes you think it'll work on a larger one?
All I'm saying is that we make proper use of it and use it to its potential and not to a budget limit. We have the people. We have the resources. Fuckloads of us have the will.
Who says what constitutes "proper use"? 'Cause that's the issue, innit? Control. The existing arrangement has it’s faults, but it does allow people to decide what to do with their lives knowing pretty much how those decisions will pan out. With your utopia there aren't any negative consequences to your choice of contribution and how effectively you choose to pursue it. As long as it's deemed "proper use". On the other hand there's no positive consequences, either. The world would be full of scientists with no training and no laboratory, astronauts with no training and no spacecraft, artists with no training and no talent. Given no consequences everyone takes the easy path at least sometimes. Most take the easy path most of the time.
Speaking of artists with no talent, did you know that the French once decided that artists were unfairly discriminated against in that their income was dependant on them selling their art, a product the value of which was simply a matter of opinion, and some of them were starving. Their solution was for the government to pay for their work. What do you suppose happened next?
So I fail to see, throughout all of your postings, why you're equating living without a financial system as sending us back to the stone age.
Well, it’s your failure, hopefully you find something above to help you, there.
That mind numbing drudgery isn't limited to financial less system ya know. What was the last "projection"... 63% (give or take) of Kiwi's aren't happy in their jobs. Mind numbing drudgery doesn't just vanish because you add a financial system. On the plus side you do make me laugh.
Now why’s that? Has society let them down? Or did they make poor decisions that led to the circumstances they find themselves in? And why did they make those choices? Is it possible that they were told that they would be comfortably off even if they didn’t stay at school? Didn’t put in a few extra yards when work got busy? That they should feel free to take a day off whenever they felt the need?
I see nothing funny about that. Given a free hand I'd ask those that tell people such things to pay for the consequences of their beliefs.
Mind numbing drudgery is sometimes the lot of unlucky people, but mostly it’s the natural consequence of making poor choices. What do you suppose might be the consequences of encouraging the whole world to make poor choices?
Banditbandit
11th March 2013, 10:09
15 pages of political and economic dross means
IT'S SILLY HAT TIME
<img src="http://coreybradshaw.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/pope.jpg" width="400px"/>
Akzle
11th March 2013, 11:21
got this one of Ed:
http://img.costumecraze.com/images/vendors/rasta/3038-Rainbow-Hat-large.jpg
but i think it's time to class it up:
http://images.buycostumes.com/mgen/merchandiser/70847.jpg
sidecar bob
11th March 2013, 11:55
15 pages of political and economic dross means
IT'S SILLY HAT TIME
<img src="http://coreybradshaw.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/pope.jpg" width="400px"/>
Im astounded how well we're coping in the absence of a Pope at the moment.
You would hardly notice the difference.
mashman
11th March 2013, 16:09
us is slightly different as their government was constitutionally formed. australia and NZ suffer a de-facto goverment that came about when the league of nations was re structured and NZ and australia got their own chair and carafe, rather than continuing as a colony of the uk.
the uk got their government from an historic monarchy, and started making democratic noises in about 1293 when the magna carta was forced on the then-king by the people. (i think this may be the get-out-of-tax document, but it's been a while since i've read up on it.)
fun fact: the magna carta is still in force in NZ today by the imperial laws application act. first in time is best at law, so any subsequent act that contravenes the magna carta can be safely ignored. (provided you can baffle cops and judges with bullshitery)
as far as case law: the "person" argument was presented and won at manukau in south auckland, that was a case v. the IRD (the guy stopped paying tax), so yes, i'd say there's precedent...
of course the stenographer was absent that morning, because having shit like that on record might give other people ideas about a free and better way of doing things.
I guess one tax loophole is as good as another and one that allows one to get away with all of your loot would be spendid for so many people. I just hope they don;t complain when they have to raise more tax to cover them thar legitimate losses.
I wonder how one would argue that one is a person :rofl:.
mashman
11th March 2013, 17:21
I guess one of the key differences in our beliefs is that I see a need for money in order for an economy to function and you don't. I see money as an essential gear in a control mechanism, and you see it as the direct cause of inequity and hardship.
Now what’s required to explain those differenced in view? A difference in the perception of what money represents, yes? I see money as representing work done or the promise of work to be done. You see it as an object of desire which causes people to behave in ways you don’t like.
Given that, I see the way new money is distributed into the system (the promise of work to be done) to be a viable control on the economy. You see it as some arsehole plucking more “cause of inequity” from thin air.
I’d like the way new money is distributed to change, to control things other than just inflation. You just want the whole monetary system scrapped.
We both believe our way would provide a better environment in which people would be able to enjoy more freedom in their choices of lifestyle.
You believe that removing money will effectively remove any constraints on people’s choices because they’ll be able to live comfortably even if they don’t contribute what’s actually wanted. I believe society’s better served by those who work hard and take risks to provide what’s actually wanted, and that the best way to allow them to do that is to refrain from penalising them for doing so.
I do see it as the cause of inequity and hardship and much much much more, because it is. I also understand how you see the financial system as I once saw it the same way... and that is what I would say is the key difference. I've thought it through and the only consideration is "human nature". I don't rank human nature as being a problem. If it is then "my" system won't be adopted, if it isn't then it will and people will have voted it in knowing full well that failure to get on and play by whatever rules there are will mean a return to the financial system. My money, eventually, will be on the latter being the case.
Most of the rest is bang on including the last paragraph, except I believe that socirty will still be served by those who work hard (not guaranteeing a good salary by any means under a financial system) and take risk to provide what's wanted. I see no reason why that would stop. So it would seem that you are happy with the financial system penalising those who wish to be teachers, by allowing the to train to be a teacher and then not offering them a guaranteed position at the end of it. The same can be said for anyone who is trained in a particular field that has to work in a non-related field. the only reason that they aren't practicing in that field is due to there being a finite amount of money available funding X number of positions.
It's not, you've removed that primary gear, you have no way of valuing product, you have no way of accumulating value, you have no way of storing it and therefore you have no way of investing it. And that, not the lack of technology is what requires the various sects to work non-stop in order to survive. And it amuses me that you figure that all it'll take to get your way is that everyone else needs to disbelieve centuries of history about how economies work and, ignoring the holes in your theories to have faith in your beliefs. Sound familliar?
It's also significant that you require everyone else to abandon their existing lifestyles, because otherwise your idea won't work. If it won't work on a small scale what makes you think it'll work on a larger one?
That gear is only representing value. If the work is still undertaken but without a value on it, the job is still being done and the value that was once attributed to that job still exists. So the gear will remain. Certainly in the short-term the gear will remain in a transitory state, where the perception of that value will have to remain in order to deal with the rest of the world. The only difference being that it isn't physically available to that person in the form of a money, ya get yer shit for free. Shrodingers Cat and trees falling without a sound as there's noone to hear it spring to mind... but it will be there.
I haven't ignored the holes in the theory at all, primarily because there is only 1 potential hole in my "theory". In regards to why I believe it will work on a larger scale: Some of it is sheer weight in numbers and the rest is because the country will have voted for it. Sheer weight of numbers mitigating single points of failure. Currently money is a single point of failure. Pull it and chaos ensues. Remove it by choice and avoid the chaos.
Quote Originally Posted by mashman View Post
All I'm saying is that we make proper use of it and use it to its potential and not to a budget limit. We have the people. We have the resources. Fuckloads of us have the will.
Who says what constitutes "proper use"? 'Cause that's the issue, innit? Control. The existing arrangement has it’s faults, but it does allow people to decide what to do with their lives knowing pretty much how those decisions will pan out. With your utopia there aren't any negative consequences to your choice of contribution and how effectively you choose to pursue it. As long as it's deemed "proper use". On the other hand there's no positive consequences, either. The world would be full of scientists with no training and no laboratory, astronauts with no training and no spacecraft, artists with no training and no talent. Given no consequences everyone takes the easy path at least sometimes. Most take the easy path most of the time.
Speaking of artists with no talent, did you know that the French once decided that artists were unfairly discriminated against in that their income was dependant on them selling their art, a product the value of which was simply a matter of opinion, and some of them were starving. Their solution was for the government to pay for their work. What do you suppose happened next?
Proper use is that which is needed/wanted in the community. It will be decided at community level. It will be actioned at community level as far as possible. That will rely on the community leaders and the community themselves. There are negatives, but they're for someone else to point out and I've yet to see anyone give it enough consideration to figure out what those negatives are. but where there are negatives, there's always some bright spark that can come up with a solution :innocent:. The positives are huge. No poverty is a good start I'd say. A fuckload less crime being another. Shit getting built to the highest standard that it can be built to being another. Advancement and knowledge share for the entire country being another. Second to none education and healthcare systems (including recurring and pre-existing injuries ;)). What's wrong with artists with no training or talent? Have you seen how much a Jackson Pollock goes for? Scientists will have access to very high levels of training and exceptionally well equipped laboratories. Astronauts, erm, no 8 and gaffer, naaaaaaa, no fucker would be mad enough and the rest of the world are throwing people into space... doesn't mean we can't be a world class observatory though. The consequence is the return to the financial system... and again, if it has been voted out, I would imagine people will put in whatever effort is required to keep it that way. Why do I say this in the face of your French example? We have the dole as a path of least resistance. why isn't everyone on the dole?
Well, it’s your failure, hopefully you find something above to help you, there.
heh... it is, but I still don't see any reason whay we'd go backwards in terms of how we live.
Now why’s that? Has society let them down? Or did they make poor decisions that led to the circumstances they find themselves in? And why did they make those choices? Is it possible that they were told that they would be comfortably off even if they didn’t stay at school? Didn’t put in a few extra yards when work got busy? That they should feel free to take a day off whenever they felt the need?
I see nothing funny about that. Given a free hand I'd ask those that tell people such things to pay for the consequences of their beliefs.
Mind numbing drudgery is sometimes the lot of unlucky people, but mostly it’s the natural consequence of making poor choices. What do you suppose might be the consequences of encouraging the whole world to make poor choices?
Yes society has let them down. It doesn't provide enough jobs in the field that the person is trained and doesn't offer enough opportunity to be promoted where an entrentched and useless bloater is ignoring innovation to keep their job. That shit goes on and I've met very few managers that I would say are good at their jobs, so I'm going for it being a real problem. It's generally not a person's choice to be unemployed either, yet the financial system gives plenty of people no choice but to take a pay cut in many cases. Even those who are qualified up the wazoo have difficulties finding a job. ever heard the phrase "sorry, but you're a bit over qualified for this position"? Code for, we think you're using us as a stop gap and are likely to leave as we have nothing here to challenge you with. Even still, plenty have put in plenty of hard yards yet still live in your 55% net loser of the population. They're not being paid enough.
Mind numbing drudgery comes in many forms. In the case of a neighbour she hates it when there's no work on. Me too to be honest. Yet she generally enjoys her job when it's busy. We all grow up at different ages and some of us know what we want to do at an early age, some mid 20's, some mid 30's etc... yet there is no provision for any of us to retain in something entirely different without sacrificing huge amounts of time and money in order to break the cycle. That's not getting the best out of a person imho and a waste, and it isn't all down to poor choices by any means.
mashman
11th March 2013, 17:25
http://creatingclever.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/lightbulbhats.jpg
Akzle
11th March 2013, 17:53
I wonder how one would argue that one is a person :rofl:.
errr. your job is to argue that you are NOT a person (corporation).
in the instance i referenced, that was done by taking a berth certificate and saying "there is the legal person - talk to them"
a bit of judge yelling and harrumf and eventually went away quietly.
they argue that you ARE based on any sign-nature you've provided, and any joinder you accept. like if they say "Mr. Smith, step up" and you step up, well, you must be mr smith, who has a 20, 000$ tax bill to pay...
-edit-
sorry. no hat.
http://hdwallpapers.be/wallpapers/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/31/Wallpapers-FAshion-Girls-hat-hay.jpg
scumdog
11th March 2013, 19:11
a berth certificate
Sort of a ticket to park ships???:scratch:
Akzle
11th March 2013, 19:41
Sort of a ticket to park ships???:scratch:
not far wrong...
a registration process for a berth in, say, citizen-ship.
admiralty law mann. tis the basis of now-times "law" it's all about semantics. tricky latin fucks.
it's a wonder you're allowed to be gainfully employed as a cop, then, if you had some kind of clue, you probably wouldn't.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_XcekdU_rv40/THelSMmmE1I/AAAAAAAABlw/U2IgfZdxA9U/s640/man-wearing-a-mexican-hat.jpg
Ocean1
12th March 2013, 04:32
I believe that socirty will still be served by those who work hard (not guaranteeing a good salary by any means under a financial system) and take risk to provide what's wanted. I see no reason why that would stop.
Simple, it’d stop dead simply because with no concept of value there’s no possible relationship between work done and reward returned.
That gear is only representing value. If the work is still undertaken but without a value on it, the job is still being done and the value that was once attributed to that job still exists. So the gear will remain.
Yeah, that statement sorta reinforces the fact that you’ve really got no idea what money is. In fact it’s already society that assigns the value of almost all goods and services, and they back that decision up by comparing them to their own effort, their income. You simply don’t agree with society’s value assessment of a bunch of products and services and the easiest way you can think of to take control of that is to abolish the value unit. It’s simplistic bullshit, a sort of idiot communism.
Proper use is that which is needed/wanted in the community. It will be decided at community level. It will be actioned at community level as far as possible. That will rely on the community leaders and the community themselves.
So, instead of the guy needing a product or service deciding the value of a product/service you’ve got some council who’ve had fuck all to do with the product/service and have no idea of its value, (because that’s irrelevant) dictating how much of it to make available to everyone for free? Sorry mate, if one of those hard working, risk taking dude’s you reckon will still be hard at work in your brave new world need something I’d say they’d probably tell any community committee suggesting that it doesn’t matter how hard they have to work for that product/service to fuck off. I know I would.
Why do I say this in the face of your French example? We have the dole as a path of least resistance. why isn't everyone on the dole?
But as we’ve already discovered, 55% of them effectively are to some extent, it’s just a matter of how much they’re paid. Did you find out what happened to all those artists?
Yes society has let them down. It doesn't provide enough jobs in the field that the person is trained
What the fuck makes you think they’re entitled to depend on society, (that’s all of the rest of us) to guarantee them a living? It’s not society’s role to provide jobs, if someone, having chosen their career, (or failed to do so at all) subsequently discovers that few people have a need for their services then how does it ever become a good idea to reimburse them as if their services were actually worth more than they are?
On the other hand I reckon society (that’s all the rest of us) is entitled to expect each of us to contribute something of actual value, as opposed to, y’know, just whatever the fuck they can be bothered doing.
It's generally not a person's choice to be unemployed either, yet the financial system gives plenty of people no choice but to take a pay cut in many cases. Even those who are qualified up the wazoo have difficulties finding a job. ever heard the phrase "sorry, but you're a bit over qualified for this position"? Code for, we think you're using us as a stop gap and are likely to leave as we have nothing here to challenge you with. Even still, plenty have put in plenty of hard yards yet still live in your 55% net loser of the population.
The financial system has fuck all to do with unemployment. The market decides what the product’s worth, and if the labour required to provide it is more than the market wants to pay then that labour's redundant. And yes the market does have the right to decide the value of that product and that labour, it was the market’s labour that generated the ability to pay for it in the first place.
That's not getting the best out of a person imho and a waste, and it isn't all down to poor choices by any means.
You’re right, it’s not getting the best out of a person. But I’m afraid that far and away the biggest factor in getting the best out of a person is… that person. So, much as you’d like the problem to go away it really does boil down to personal choices. To make “society” responsible for tailoring jobs for individuals is to take that responsibility away from those individuals, and while I’m sure there’s people around that like that idea there’s also a bunch of people that recognise that being responsible for your own decisions is the only way you’ll personally ever achieve anything at all.
Having a communal hand holding circle meeting to decide that everyone’s effort is worth the same don’t make it so, and it doesn’t go anywhere close to eliminating the concept of value. It’s just another in a long, long history of pathetic attempts to make all pigs equal.
mashman
12th March 2013, 09:35
Simple, it’d stop dead simply because with no concept of value there’s no possible relationship between work done and reward returned.
The value is in the outcome of the work being completed. It serves its purpose.
Yeah, that statement sorta reinforces the fact that you’ve really got no idea what money is. In fact it’s already society that assigns the value of almost all goods and services, and they back that decision up by comparing them to their own effort, their income. You simply don’t agree with society’s value assessment of a bunch of products and services and the easiest way you can think of to take control of that is to abolish the value unit. It’s simplistic bullshit, a sort of idiot communism.
Oh really. Go and watch the 7 sharp clip again and actually listen to what the economist says instead of screaming "BULLSHIT" at the monitor. It's ALL based on perception. That's an intersting statement. Society sets the value blah blah blah. If that was the case then why aren't my bank charges $0? Why doesn't my house cost $0 to manufacture? You've said yourself that people expect things to be handed to them. The control is in the doing and should NOT be in the making a good/service scarce to drive prices up or flooding the market to lower the prices or fixing the market for a "guaranteed" return etc... I'm wanting the value unit to change as it's utterly damaging to society as a whole... and as for idtiotic communism, that only serves to show your lack of understanding, or want to understand, common sense in regards to how a system would run without a financial system. Capitalism is failing comrade. It's overly complicated and egocentric core is overflowing with bullshitters with bullshit ideas and no concern for those who suffer because of it. It should be called Savagism, coz it ain't that far from being out of the primordial soup from where I'm looking at it.
So, instead of the guy needing a product or service deciding the value of a product/service you’ve got some council who’ve had fuck all to do with the product/service and have no idea of its value, (because that’s irrelevant) dictating how much of it to make available to everyone for free? Sorry mate, if one of those hard working, risk taking dude’s you reckon will still be hard at work in your brave new world need something I’d say they’d probably tell any community committee suggesting that it doesn’t matter how hard they have to work for that product/service to fuck off. I know I would.
See, you're writing the "council" off without even understanding their function and equating them to the beaureaucratic plonkers that we have today. If the risk taking dude's idea has merit in the grand scheme of things, then I fail to see why any "council" would knock it back. We'd be Proactive instead of Reactive. What's the best that we currently have to offer? develop the waterfront for the tourists? spend 12 billion on roading? more urban sprawl? good god that's depressing.
But as we’ve already discovered, 55% of them effectively are to some extent, it’s just a matter of how much they’re paid. Did you find out what happened to all those artists?
True, they are, and as you have said, that's what happens when society doesn't value their effort. Couldn't find anything on the painters and to be honest didn't try too hard, but I assume every man and his dog became a painter and they all lived happily ever after? Was that about the same time your distant relative John Law stepped in to save France with his monetary system?
What the fuck makes you think they’re entitled to depend on society, (that’s all of the rest of us) to guarantee them a living? It’s not society’s role to provide jobs, if someone, having chosen their career, (or failed to do so at all) subsequently discovers that few people have a need for their services then how does it ever become a good idea to reimburse them as if their services were actually worth more than they are?
On the other hand I reckon society (that’s all the rest of us) is entitled to expect each of us to contribute something of actual value, as opposed to, y’know, just whatever the fuck they can be bothered doing.
Because we all depend on society. Businesses don't run without society. If we don't provide jobs, then don't moan and bitch that there are "excess" people that need to be supported. The alternative is returning to fully blown slavery. Every contribution is required, that's why it's a good idea. Or would you rather keep paying for them on the dole?
In which case give them an equal share of any value that they contribute towards. After all, without their contribution you'll end up with less value using your rules.
The financial system has fuck all to do with unemployment. The market decides what the product’s worth, and if the labour required to provide it is more than the market wants to pay then that labour's redundant. And yes the market does have the right to decide the value of that product and that labour, it was the market’s labour that generated the ability to pay for it in the first place.
The why when the financial system goes into meltdown does unemployment rise? If it had fuck all to do with unemployment then the market wouldn't need to change the value of their products/services. No, you said above that society sets the value, make your mind up. It was the labour of people that allowed the market to have value in the first place. There's no chicken and egg here. No people, no market.
You’re right, it’s not getting the best out of a person. But I’m afraid that far and away the biggest factor in getting the best out of a person is… that person. So, much as you’d like the problem to go away it really does boil down to personal choices. To make “society” responsible for tailoring jobs for individuals is to take that responsibility away from those individuals, and while I’m sure there’s people around that like that idea there’s also a bunch of people that recognise that being responsible for your own decisions is the only way you’ll personally ever achieve anything at all.
Having a communal hand holding circle meeting to decide that everyone’s effort is worth the same don’t make it so, and it doesn’t go anywhere close to eliminating the concept of value. It’s just another in a long, long history of pathetic attempts to make all pigs equal.
Then if you want to get the best out of the person you're going to have to meet in the middle. Currently it's all one way traffic, here's the job, this is the process, don't go all Marvin on me. You can't have it both ways. You're either going to breed a disaffected workforce, which we are, or you're going to have to replace your business practices (which costs too much money and poor management NEVER like), or you're going to have to change the model to have entirely flexible work hours (including working from home and exercising one's responsibility by allowing people to walk out of work when you can't be arsed without excuse). There really aren't that many options open to a person where they are locked into a job and being locked in like that is ALL due to money. They're there to get paid and that's it, there's no incetive to do anything other than the bare minimum in 55% of the cases. How the fuck are they then supposed to achieve anything? Rack up a load of debt going to Uni to come out to a non-guaranteed job and most likely one that won't pay well enough to allow you to get rids of that debt. All of these things go through people's minds, all are capable of something else, yet the financial system hamstrings them from minute 1... unless of course they have money to burn or are prepared to live in debt forever. Saying that they have made bad choices through no other fault than of their own is writing people off without even considering that they may have reasons for their decisions other than ability/drive/motivation etc... you do that well.
I agree, not everyone's effort will be the same, meh. I will work harder than some, some will work harder than me, that's the way of the world. Eliminating the value by accepting that certain jobs will be physical, certain jobs will require brain power, certain jobs will require both etc... will do exactly that. There is a job to do, I am the best person for it (thus far), I will do my best because others are relying on me, end of! Not complicated by value.
Ocean1
12th March 2013, 10:30
The value is in the outcome of the work being completed.
Absolutely correct. And the owner of that value is the dude that did the work. He's the one that chose what work to do and how much of it, and he's got the ethical right to use the value he's created in any way he sees fit. It's not up to anyone else, or a collection of anyone elses to decide what he’s got to pay for anything, and that's precisely what you propose your "council" do.
The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money.
mashman
12th March 2013, 12:49
Absolutely correct. And the owner of that value is the dude that did the work. He's the one that chose what work to do and how much of it, and he's got the ethical right to use the value he's created in any way he sees fit. It's not up to anyone else, or a collection of anyone elses to decide what he’s got to pay for anything, and that's precisely what you propose your "council" do.
The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money.
From your standpoint yes, there is an owner of value. From mine, society is the owner and the driver for the project.
That's also a problem with capitalism by the looks of things. It's all debt remember i.e. someone else's money. There'll be no money in "my" society, so that won't be the limiting factor. There's also the maxim: Just because you can doesn't mean you should, that would guide production. Something that capitalism ignores.
Ocean1
12th March 2013, 15:26
From your standpoint yes, there is an owner of value. From mine, society is the owner and the driver for the project.
There is no fucking "standpoint", the dude that produces the goods/services owns the resulting value, it's as basic as ethical concepts gets. There's just two valid reasons the state gets to punch that ticket on the way past, to pay for the cost of national infrastructure and to pay for those that CAN'T work. I already pay more in tax than I end up keeping, and that adds up to a fairly healthy quantity of infrastructure with enough left over to pay for a seriously sizable contribution to charity. I always wondered if some arsehole would turn up and demand the rest, you'd better come fucking well armed.
That's also a problem with capitalism by the looks of things. It's all debt remember i.e. someone else's money. There'll be no money in "my" society, so that won't be the limiting factor. There's also the maxim: Just because you can doesn't mean you should, that would guide production. Something that capitalism ignores.
It's fuck all to do with capitilism, Socialist states have money too, just a fucking sight less of it. They have loans, also, and I promise you they're more expensive than ours. Debt? Mate, I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that them bills in my back pocket are all mine. In fact I used a couple to buy a loaf of bread on the way home and the nice lady at the bakery was of the same opinion. Money doesn't become debt until you borrow it, something clever people try to do as little as possible, if you don't like the cost or even simply the concept of debt then I suggest that you do the same, and keep your thieving fingers out of everyone else's back pocket.
mashman
12th March 2013, 16:48
There is no fucking "standpoint", the dude that produces the goods/services owns the resulting value, it's as basic as ethical concepts gets. There's just two valid reasons the state gets to punch that ticket on the way past, to pay for the cost of national infrastructure and to pay for those that CAN'T work. I already pay more in tax than I end up keeping, and that adds up to a fairly healthy quantity of infrastructure with enough left over to pay for a seriously sizable contribution to charity. I always wondered if some arsehole would turn up and demand the rest, you'd better come fucking well armed.
It's fuck all to do with capitilism, Socialist states have money too, just a fucking sight less of it. They have loans, also, and I promise you they're more expensive than ours. Debt? Mate, I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that them bills in my back pocket are all mine. In fact I used a couple to buy a loaf of bread on the way home and the nice lady at the bakery was of the same opinion. Money doesn't become debt until you borrow it, something clever people try to do as little as possible, if you don't like the cost or even simply the concept of debt then I suggest that you do the same, and keep your thieving fingers out of everyone else's back pocket.
There is a standpoint where 2 party's disagree and I'm very much disagreeing with you. It's not even truly ethical from my standpoint. I get therefore others don't. It's a total and utter selfish attitude that's rotting society to its core. The govt can punch the ticket anyway they like as far as I'm concerned as they're the ones looking after those who have been abandoned by the money seekers. Boohoo, I pay tax too, quite possibly half once all added up half, but I don't moan and bitch about it and congratulate myself on how much I can earn and how much I can give away to appease my conscience. But hey, we're all different. If and when I turn up it'll be with the majority of a country at my back and I won't fancy your odds.
And capitalism exists within socialist states. You're off your fuckin rocker trying to separate the two and saying that capitalism and socialism require different amounts of money to look after their populations only serves to confirm that. Every single cent in circulation has been borrowed, therefore every cent that you have in your pocket of bakery lady has in her til/bank account/stockings is a debt that someone somewhere owes. Debt is here and here to stay. Debt levels will only ever rise and if people stop borrowing, the baker lady will be going out of business coz no fucker will be able to afford the price of her bread... and that will have fuck all to do with her effort, but it will have everything to do with money.
Akzle
12th March 2013, 17:03
the hats you geys, the hats!
http://dofb.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/birthday-cake-hat.jpg
scumdog
12th March 2013, 17:07
it's a wonder you're allowed to be gainfully employed as a cop, then, if you had some kind of clue, you probably wouldn't.
So...ya didn't 'Fit The Bill' huh?:lol:
Ocean1
12th March 2013, 17:24
There is a standpoint where 2 party's disagree and I'm very much disagreeing with you. It's not even truly ethical from my standpoint.
Yeah. Cargo Cult adherents disagree too. And they’ve got a far better understanding of where goods come from.
I get therefore others don't. It's a total and utter selfish attitude that's rotting society to its core.
I EARN, therefore anyone wanting what I’ve got can do the same. And what’s rotting society is grubby part time socialists with entitlement complexes and no work ethic to match.
The govt can punch the ticket anyway they like as far as I'm concerned as they're the ones looking after those who have been abandoned by the money seekers. Boohoo, I pay tax too, quite possibly half once all added up half, but I don't moan and bitch about it and congratulate myself on how much I can earn and how much I can give away to appease my conscience. But hey, we're all different. If and when I turn up it'll be with the majority of a country at my back and I won't fancy your odds.
The government most certainly don’t look after anyone, they don’t have any resources whatsoever other than those supplied by income earners. I’ve never met a money seeker, can’t be fuck all of them around. I’ve met thousands of productive individuals, but almost to a man they contribute enough that they can indeed be well proud of their charitable efforts. As for your posse, as far as I’m concerned I’ll worry about that in direct proportion to the sense or validity I see in your massively ill-considered daydream. Not a great deal.
And capitalism exists within socialist states. You're off your fuckin rocker trying to separate the two and saying that capitalism and socialism require different amounts of money to look after their populations only serves to confirm that.
I said nothing of the sort. I said all socialist states use money, and they lend/borrow money, and the cost of borrowing money there is higher. In fact every civilisation currently on the planet sees money as indispensable. Now, who’s off their fucking rocker?
Every single cent in circulation has been borrowed, therefore every cent that you have in your pocket of bakery lady has in her til/bank account/stockings is a debt that someone somewhere owes. Debt is here and here to stay. Debt levels will only ever rise and if people stop borrowing, the baker lady will be going out of business coz no fucker will be able to afford the price of her bread... and that will have fuck all to do with her effort, but it will have everything to do with money.
Utterly incorrect. It might be true of your money. My money, however represents the value of the work I did in earning it. No debt there I can assure you, just a valid medium of exchange. I’d suggest you do some reading, but you’ve demonstrated you can interpret fucking near anything to mean what you want. A lost cause.
Akzle
12th March 2013, 17:36
So...ya didn't 'Fit The Bill' huh?:lol:
no. i failed their IQ test when i turned up at the right building on time, and could tie my own shoelaces..
mashman
12th March 2013, 18:12
Yeah. Cargo Cult adherents disagree too. And they’ve got a far better understanding of where goods come from.
They bare a remarkable resemblance to your side of the fence.
I EARN, therefore anyone wanting what I’ve got can do the same. And what’s rotting society is grubby part time socialists with entitlement complexes and no work ethic to match.
:killingme... there be irony in them thar hills... still hung up on people that aren't net contributors having no work ethic. Haven't you got a small village of children to massacre somewhere?
The government most certainly don’t look after anyone, they don’t have any resources whatsoever other than those supplied by income earners. I’ve never met a money seeker, can’t be fuck all of them around. I’ve met thousands of productive individuals, but almost to a man they contribute enough that they can indeed be well proud of their charitable efforts. As for your posse, as far as I’m concerned I’ll worry about that in direct proportion to the sense or validity I see in your massively ill-considered daydream. Not a great deal.
Don't loThe look after all of us. Granted they do it really really really badly, but that's what happens when tax dodgers, I mean those who structure their affairs in such as way as to limit their tax liability, don't put what they are morally bound yo put into the collective pot. Yet the govt have the ability to take anyone's property on a whim? Ye be dreamin. Else you would have battered out a list of negatives by now and you haven't. Because you can't. And when you attempt to do so, whilst claiming a moral high ground, you only reinforce what I know to be true.
I said nothing of the sort. I said all socialist states use money, and they lend/borrow money, and the cost of borrowing money there is higher. In fact every civilisation currently on the planet sees money as indispensable. Now, who’s off their fucking rocker?
Well that's how I translated the below. Nothing to do with capitalism, yet social states use money. I told you. You're the one that's off their rocker for accepting that this is the only way a civilisation (my fuckin arse we're civilised) can function.
It's fuck all to do with capitilism, Socialist states have money too, just a fucking sight less of it
Utterly incorrect. It might be true of your money. My money, however represents the value of the work I did in earning it. No debt there I can assure you, just a valid medium of exchange. I’d suggest you do some reading, but you’ve demonstrated you can interpret fucking near anything to mean what you want. A lost cause.
:killingme. There is NO money without debt. Just because you are not in debt, which technically you are as the govt has borrowed on your behalf whether you like it or not, does not mean that your work has not created even more debt. The money you hold has debt attached to it whichever way you look at it, apart from out and out denial that is, and sugar coating it by calling it a means of exchange has to be one of the most outdated concepts on the face of this planet. But by all means sugar coat anything you like if it helps you to sleep better. I'm not a lost cause at all. I have been where you are and have chosen to be somewhere else because of that stupid financial system. You highlight that some people will just never learn, however I am prepared for such a world view, coz I used to live it.
mashman
12th March 2013, 18:21
no. i failed their IQ test when i turned up at the right building on time, and could tie my own shoelaces..
and bang went your police career?
Akzle
12th March 2013, 18:56
and bang went your police career?
yeah. kicked me out, the pricks.
didn't like it too much when i started questioning the lawfulness of the unlawful detention of peoples who haven't committed crimes, either...
scumdog
12th March 2013, 20:05
yeah. kicked me out, the pricks.
didn't like it too much when i started questioning the lawfulness of the unlawful detention of peoples who haven't committed crimes, either...
More likely didn't really give a fuck.
but that doesn't sound as grand...
Ocean1
12th March 2013, 20:25
Well that's how I translated the below.
Just stick with the original words, you don't translate worth a damn.
And get a haircut.
mashman
12th March 2013, 21:06
Just stick with the original words, you don't translate worth a damn.
And get a haircut.
Yeah, that's some nice backing out there. Socialism with it's money has nothing to do with capitalism, yeah, that's the title of my first book sorted.
Had one a week again. Get some new fuckin glasses.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.