Prime Minister Dotcom?

[Akzle]

The $1000 comes from the gold Reserves held by Governments/Banks.


and whom ascribes the value to gold?

(hint, look up newtons gold standard.
A pound sterling used to be just that. A pound of sterling silver.
Last i checked gold is ~1800 'dollars' an ounce. Ten years ago it was 400, for a long while it was <200. Once, im sure, it was one 'dollar'
Go figure.)

[TheDemonLord]

Satan???

:headbang::headbang::headbang:

Out of curiosity - you aren't a Black Metal/Gorgoroth Fan per chance (based on that comment)


What kind of logic does it require? Pattern recognition is not the same thing ... and deductive reasoning is only setting up a syllogism - or, more clearly - an argument where the conclusion does not contradict the asserted premises .. what are the asserted premises? A human-created, and therefore theoretical, numbering system. Therefore it only requires pattern recognition skills coupled with an understanding of (probably training and indoctrination in) the human created numbering system. Ask the thirteenth tree from the left what comes next ...

Logic is part of the propaganda system ... there are other ways of organising and experience the world ...


I chose the Fibonacci sequence because it is easy to type - Shapes and patterns can be used as well - and these don't require a basic understanding of maths.

You may say that Logic is just one way of experiancing the world - but it has been responsible for 99.9999% of the advancements of Humanity and the understanding of the world around us. If there was a competing system that had even a slightly comparable success rate - I would concede, but there isn't.

[Akzle]

See, you don't need those evil Doctors, just look at the Grass"

*smoke .

[Banditbandit]

BUGGER - last time - because I don't want to get sucked into this argument ...


The $1000 comes from the gold Reserves held by Governments/Banks.

These do not exist any more - and were based on a fictitious assignment of value to a lump of rock ..


Whilst your example may seem logical - it is missing a key step:

I go out into the Forrest, and cut Down a tree (a really big tree) and I say the value of my Tree is $1,000, I could Barter the Tree for services I want, but barter is a rather ineffecient system with several inherant problems which Money Solved (sort of)

How do you value the tree at $1,000? Some fictitious assignment of a monetary value to your time? The tree has cost you nothing except your time and tools ... the assignment of value is purely arbitrary


Someone else goes into a Mine and digs up $1,000 worth of Minerals - this is where the Generation of Money comes from

Again - the arbitrary assignment of a money value ...


- the Money we use is actually just a place holder for Gold Reserves (cause carrying around Gold is problematic)

You are wrong - it is a place holder for an arbitrarily assigned value. And therefore it has no reality outside the human mind ... as no human-created value has ..


There - you Maths problem has been solved by Primary Industries and the Generation of Wealth.['QUOTE]

And heaps of other problems created

[QUOTE] from there Goods are produced from the Raw resources (secondary Industries) and then Services are provided using those Goods (tertiary Industries)

To answer your inevitable question 'What happens when there is no more of Resource X on earth' - look up to the Solar System, then out to our Galaxy and then on to our Universe and whilst Human Greed is infinite - it will take longer than my lifetime to consume all the resource in the Universe and besides.

Bwhahahahahaha .. I bet you read a lot of science fiction ...

[TheDemonLord]

and whom ascribes the value to gold?

(hint, look up newtons gold standard.
A pound sterling used to be just that. A pound of sterling silver.
Last i checked gold is ~1800 'dollars' an ounce. Ten years ago it was 400, for a long while it was <200. Once, im sure, it was one 'dollar'
Go figure.)

the Scarcity of Resource does - if suddenly a massive gold reserver was found, the value of Gold would decrease as there was an increase in supply. however the supply of Gold has been more difficult - gone are the days of hand mining and panning and being able to find large nuggets just lieing about - thus as it becomes more difficult to aquire new gold - the price of Gold goes up

[Akzle]

the advancements of Humanity and the understanding of the world around us.

the advancements of Humanity??
The understanding of the world around us??
You are on your own fucking planet.
Riddle me this, science guy, what is fire?

[Akzle]

the Scarcity of Resource does - if suddenly a massive gold reserver was found, the value of Gold would decrease as there was an increase in supply. however the supply of Gold has been more difficult - gone are the days of hand mining and panning and being able to find large nuggets just lieing about - thus as it becomes more difficult to aquire new gold - the price of Gold goes up

ok. Theres only one akzle. That means i must be the most valuable thing in existence.

[Banditbandit]

Cool - tell you what, lets take away all that evil Black Magic Medicine - I will place you next to someone with say:

Bubonic Plague
Polio
Whooping Cough
Tuberculosis

Or any of the myriad of highly virulent pathogens to which Modern Medicine has been able to cure/wipeout/prevent through immunisation

Then - when you are dieing in Agony, I will (in my biohazard suit) take you outside and say:

"but look at the nicely cut Grass, doesn't it contribute to your visual and Mental Well being? See, you don't need those evil Doctors, just look at the Grass"

No, I am not denying the use value of medicine (notice I talk about a use value and not a monetary value) .. I am certainly challenging it's all-knowing, all-powerful stance - and I would certainly fought against its attempts to control my health ... I would also challenge the empiricist basis of science and therefore medicine ... and as such place it as another belief system - with no more privileged a position than the magic of which you speak ...

And by "black" I did not mean evil - merely unknown ..




:headbang::headbang::headbang:

Out of curiosity - you aren't a Black Metal/Gorgoroth Fan per chance (based on that comment)

No - I was demonstrating that there were more than one way to interpret that sequence .. I could just have easily said O - in what used to be my world the number 13 was worn because M is the 13th letter of the alphabet .. I am sure that Akzle can tell you the rest ...





I chose the Fibonacci sequence because it is easy to type -

You're a Dan Brown fan?


Shapes and patterns can be used as well - and these don't require a basic understanding of maths.

You may say that Logic is just one way of experiencing the world - but it has been responsible for 99.9999% of the advancements of Humanity and the understanding of the world around us. If there was a competing system that had even a slightly comparable success rate - I would concede, but there isn't.

Ah .. now you are talking about a Use value .. but that is not the same as a Truth value ... there is no truth value - therefore the world and knowledge can only be based on use value ...

And if you look at the history of the advancements of which you speak ... there is no basis in logic .. there are leaps of human imagination, which are eventually accepted as "good science" ... starting with Galileo ... moving through Einstein, Rutherford, Bohrs .. et al ... the "logic" comes after the event ..a s a means of justifying and arguing ...

As well, this so called logic and science has added to human misery as well ..

[Akzle]

the Scarcity of Resource does - if suddenly a massive gold reserver was found, the value of Gold would decrease

youre fucking deluded if you think this is how it happens.

Theyre still printing money you know... But not finding more gold to.... Wait, what was your point again?

[TheDemonLord]

BUGGER - last time - because I don't want to get sucked into this argument ...

These do not exist any more - and were based on a fictitious assignment of value to a lump of rock ..

How do you value the tree at $1,000? Some fictitious assignment of a monetary value to your time? The tree has cost you nothing except your time and tools ... the assignment of value is purely arbitrary

Again - the arbitrary assignment of a money value ...

You are wrong - it is a place holder for an arbitrarily assigned value. And therefore it has no reality outside the human mind ... as no human-created value has ..

And heaps of other problems created

Bwhahahahahaha .. I bet you read a lot of science fiction ...

Fort Knox and the US gold reserves disagree with your assertion that Gold reserves dont' exist anymore

Good Question - how do you Value anything - what is the Value of a Tree to the Value of a Rock? This is the inherent problem that Money Solves - give everything an Arbitrary Value based on the ease or difficulty it is to aquire and now we have a universal standard of measure by which to compare things - now we are comparing not a rock to a tree, but $500 worth of Lumber to a $1 peice of stone.

It does create other problems (again nowhere did I say the system was perfect, in fact I said it was inherently imperfect) but most of those problems are caused not by Money - but by the People using it.

I do read a lot - I do enjoy some Sci Fi (mainly reading stuff from Games Workshops Black Library atm - Space Marines and Gratuitous violence - what is not to love?)

[oldrider]

Since when has sewing seeds been a waste of time and energy ;)?

Hey G, I see Bitcoin (?) in the news, apparently is gaining momentum big time! :yes:

[Banditbandit]

ok. Theres only one akzle. That means i must be the most valuable thing in existence.

Yes - every person is the centre of their own universe ..

If you stop existing so does your world ...

[Akzle]

Good Question - how do you Value anything - what is the Value of a Tree to the Value of a Rock? This is the inherent problem that Money Solves - give everything an Arbitrary Value based on the ease or difficulty it is to aquire and now we have a universal standard of measure by which to compare things - now we are comparing not a rock to a tree, but $500 worth of Lumber to a $1 peice of stone.



but... 'money' isnt scarce... So how can it have value?
If it is scarce, why not make more?

[oldrider]

ok. Theres only one akzle. That means i must be the most valuable thing in existence.

Darlak screaming begins ... exterminate ... exterminate ... exterminate ... exterminate ... ext :nya:

[Akzle]

Yes - every person is the centre of their own universe ..

If you stop existing so does your world ...

value. I was arguing my value by his 'logic.'

i dont know that i have ever, nor will, stop existing.

[Banditbandit]

Fort Knox and the US gold reserves disagree with your assertion that Gold reserves dont' exist anymore

That's true .. but there is no link between gold and the New Zealand dollar .. that was removed last century ...


Good Question - how do you Value anything - what is the Value of a Tree to the Value of a Rock? This is the inherent problem that Money Solves - give everything an Arbitrary Value based on the ease or difficulty it is to aquire and now we have a universal standard of measure by which to compare things - now we are comparing not a rock to a tree, but $500 worth of Lumber to a $1 peice of stone.

You are buying into the propaganda system quite a lot .. but let that go ..

To a starving child what has more value? A $1,000 gold nugget or a $5 Big Mac ???


It does create other problems (again nowhere did I say the system was perfect, in fact I said it was inherently imperfect) but most of those problems are caused not by Money - but by the People using it.

So, a corrupt use value??? Or merely useless ???

[Banditbandit]

value. I was arguing my value by his 'logic.'

i dont know that i have ever, nor will, stop existing.

Only things that have independent origin actually exist ..

Of course you will not stop existing. The statement "Akzle exists" is true - and therefore it was true 100 years ago .. and will be true in 1,000 years.

[Banditbandit]

No - bored bored .. been through this discussion many times ... thanks for the momentary fun .. I hope it was good for you too ...

[Akzle]

LET GO DUDE.
The only thing that gives money it's worth is your belief in it.
Your entire world view has been corrupted by it. I acceed it is hard to change, when the motto has been drummed into you, but in the words of pimp mc slickback,
'trust me tom, i've done the research'

[Akzle]

No - bored bored .. been through this discussion many times ... thanks for the momentary fun .. I hope it was good for you too ...

if i can help one flailing robin unto its nest again...

We appreciate your cuntribution.

[TheDemonLord]

the advancements of Humanity??
The understanding of the world around us??
You are on your own fucking planet.
Riddle me this, science guy, what is fire?

A vigourious Oxidation reaction which produces heat, light and plasma?

(really if you are going to play that Card - at least pick a phenomena that isn't well known and understood)

There may be one of you - but you are just one of over 7 Billion - want to prove that you are valuable? then do something of Value.

as to printing more money - yes, we are printing more to keep up with the Rate of Inflation and to replace notes lost/destroyed - we learnt the lesson of printing money to increase wealth in Germany in the 1930's.

Bandit:

"No, I am not denying the use value of medicine (notice I talk about a use value and not a monetary value) .. I am certainly challenging it's all-knowing, all-powerful stance - and I would certainly fought against its attempts to control my health ... I would also challenge the empiricist basis of science and therefore medicine ... and as such place it as another belief system - with no more privileged a position than the magic of which you speak ... "

If you think Science or Medicine is all knowing and All powerful - then you clearly don't understand Science - the only things that claims to being all knowing and All powerful are those created by Religons - known as Gods.

Science accepts it does not know everything, but what it does have is the best currently availible method for finding out - yes it isn't perfect - but tell me this what other system has had more tangible and measurable results? if a new system came along that was better than Science, Scientists would be the first to acknowledge it.

[Banditbandit]

Oh ... alright ..





If you think Science or Medicine is all knowing and All powerful -then you clearly don't understand Science - the only things that claims to being all knowing and All powerful are those created by Religons - known as Gods.

No - I do not think Science is all knowing and all powerful .. I was challenging the view that many people hold (including some scientists) that science is exactly that ... I am currently writing rather a lot of words for publication based in the Anarchistic Philosophy of Knowledge of Paul Fereyabend and engaging with Imre Lakatos' Philosophy of Science ... It's a critique of "knowledge as truth" and offering a Use Value as the basis of knowledge rather than a truth value ... (yeah - I know .. but shit happens ... I'd rather be riding my bike ... but ya gotta earn petrol money)


Science accepts it does not know everything, but what it does have is the best currently availible method for finding out - yes it isn't perfect - but tell me this what other system has had more tangible and measurable results? if a new system came along that was better than Science, Scientists would be the first to acknowledge it.

Better at what ??? Better at producing the truth? :killingme ... you are basing your judgements in the cognative domain, which really leads nowhere ...

[mashman]

1: Okay a challenge then - All you need to do to prove me wrong is point to one system that evolved across different physical, cultural, linguistical or ideological divides that is 100% compatable with all the other systems without any Central governance or body that agreed on or dictated Standards.

If you can provide an example and upon scrutiny it fulfills the criteria above - I will conceed.

2: We agree on this point but from different view points - I agree it would be nice if everyone just did their job without needing someone to oversee it - but that isn't reality is it?

3: okay this is going to take me a while because there are many factors to consider - to be highlight this, let me use an example:

In your ideal system - everyone works and contributes to society and in return is provided with the things they need - FYI - this is what they tried in Soviet Russia and failed, I don't deny that it isn't a nice idea, but it falls flat on its face in reality.

Person A is a Doctor - they have sacrificed 6 years of their life training to be a Doctor, they work in a high stress job where they have to deal with Death, Grieving and upset Family, they have to make quick decisions that often have life or death consequences. They are also required on a regular basis to work late or extended hours due to the nature of their work, they have to be oncall which often pulls them away from spending time with their family.

Person B Cuts the grass on the berms - they have no training past how to start a lawn mower, they don't need to make any real decisions, they don't have to deal with anyone, occassionally they have to work in the rain, but they also get to finish on time and spend time with their family.

Let me first ask this:

Who contributes more to society? and the follow up - assume that you say that both contribute equally to society, well let us test this - what are the consequences of each person not doing their job for a day? well in Person B's case - the grass grows maybe 1-2 CM longer but what about Person A - well someone could Die, or at the best suffer due to not getting the care they require.

So we can agree that the Consequences of their jobs not being done are vastly different thus their contributions cannot be equal.

Now Person A looks at Person B and says:

Why am I working a 60 hour week, having to deal with Stress related problems if I get the same as if I just went and cut the Grass for a 40 hour week?

Then Person A stops being a Doctor (cause there is no benefit or reward for the Extra work that is required as part of the Job) and Goes and Cuts the Grass. This is what caused the Soviet empire collapse - The lack of Incentive to work harder/smarter/longer/better than the next person.

And that is the reson why Ideas like NOW (which is really just Sociailism 2.0 - same idea that failed miserably when done in the real world, only with a new coat of paint and new technology) will fail and why it hasn't been implemented by anyone.

to answer your question do all builders become builders because of Money - No. There are a small percentage who would be Builders because it is what they Love to do and would do it regardless of the reward but all the other builders - sure I don't doubt they like their job, but would they do it if they got paid the same as what someone on the Dole gets? I doubt it.

Now onto Resource Scarcity - there are a finite number of Trees for example, and we could dish out Resources to where they are needed - until the supply ran out - then what? if there are 2 competing projects that need wood - how do you decide between them? of course you could arbitrarily assign resources, however the best way to assign resource is assigning a value to the project - what is the most convieniant way to assign Value? in Monetary terms.

Should the Dollar value of something be the only Metric we use to determine Value? now that is a different question entirely - and I agree, it shouldn't be the sole metric we look at but it is the easiest metric to measure and evaluate. if there was an objective way to measure say quality of life, then that would also be useful - but there isn't.

So yes - I am advocating that resources go to those who can afford it - does that make me a selfish asshole while half the world population is dieing in squalor - maybe, but would they do any different if the roles were reversed? I doubt it.

People are the problem, People are imperfect, thus anything created by People will be inherently flawed - Same is true of the current Financial system or the proposed NOW system.

Now in order for you to claim it wasn't base human nature - you would have to provide me with a group of People that have not exhibited their traits - they are far too universal to be learned behaviour. "we'd be fighting like the animals and we'd all be gredy and seeking power." You say this like we aren't? Syria, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan - and these are just the ones we are involved in and know about - not to mention all the in-fighting that gets done at the local, family, individual level. Certainly it might not be as overt as 200 years ago where we are going into lesser countries and colonising them (and do you really think that in 200 years we have managed to un-learn millions of years of genetic behaviour?) but we are still going about it, except much more subtely.

As for your comment about Pacificists - funnily enough, they never seem to be able to breed enough of them to make a difference - probably because they Die out because they refuse to fight for what is theirs (Darwin strikes again!)

I have not read reports on the Middle Class shrink - Source?

and finally - 5 Year olds can and Do sit IQ tests and can score very highly - you must disasociate knowledge with Intelligence:

What is the Capital of NZ?
Auckland!

This is an Example of Knowledge - there is no way to work this out except throwing knowing the Answer

but what about this:

1,1,2,3,5,8,13, What comes next?

Now you could know that it is the Fibonacci sequence and so the next number is 21, but you could work out that the Sequence conforms to N=(N-1) + (N-2) - this doesn't require knowledge, it just requires Logic, same with pattern recognition and higher reasoning/Deductive Reasoning.

You might wish to read more on this subject:

1. Nature, without the interference of man.

2. True, it's not reality because there are no real mechanisms that are incorruptible when it comes to overseeing our decision makers given that we're all too busy doing other things. Does that mean we should just settle and accept that?

3. You're right on there being many factors to consider, heh...

In my ideal system, not everyone has to work and not everyone has to contribute. If everyone does work, they will work less hours in (many) jobs that require doing. By way of an example, me. I'm a programmer. I have written the same software using different languages/platforms for different company's servicing different clients. This would be standardised to yield better results i.e. 1 piece of software for all. This would remove the need for, let's say 50% of the programmers in the country. I could retrain to become anything else... preferably something that society requires. I could go fishing 24/7. That will be my choice and I will exercise my personal responsibility as I see fit. Because I'm a sweety, I WILL do something for society. It likely failed in Russia because of the financial system and its behaviour changing ability. Again, apples and oranges.

Person A v's Person B

Brief, required imho, comparison of the financial system v's NOW in regards to Corporations, I mean, Persons A & B.

Things that'll stop people from wanting to become Doctors. The fear of being laden with huge amounts of debt if they fail (fiscal prudence) or decide that being a Doctor isn't for them. Poor grades at a time when they didn't know they wanted to be Doctors. Number of Uni places available. There are more, but they'll do.

v's

Things that'll stop people from becoming Doctors. They fail or decide that being a Doctor isn't for them. No worries, go do something else. They will have no debt. They will have not taken up a Uni place as there will be no limit to the number of people who want to study to be Doctors. Grades will be irrelevant so long as they can pass the first year. After all, if they want to be a Doctor, they'll be willing to put in the hard yards. Furthermore, to relieve the pressure on Doctors, people will submit blood every 3 months to a central database. This will allow computers (quantum maybe) to alert Doctors that something has entered that person's system that will cause an issue if not caught soon. That will never happen within a financial system, because it costs too much.

Win - NOW. You may disagree.

Your questions:

Who contributes more: Long grass will cause more crashes as it grows onto the highway keeping the Doctors at the hospitals for longer, which in turn will make them over tired and possibly prone to more mistakes. That's if the Doctor can get to work, that's if the ambulances can navigate the roads to get to people in need etc... The grass dude, if he chops his hand off, will need a Doctor. So who has contributed more, both. Profession does not dictate contribution outwith perceived effort. Which will be, and is, a personal choice. Yes a Doctor not being at work can mean the death of someone. I hope they never call in sick.

Yes, the consequences are different, but try living without either and you end up in a worse position. Both contributions are required. In fact what about a Binman. He only lifts bins right? Well what happens to the Doctors workload if the rubbish isn't collected? Similarly with the Sewerage Worker, or the food producer, or the oil worker, or the nurse, or the teacher etc... the Doctor has relied on all of those people throuought his life and could not have become a Doctor without them. Measuring who is more important is futile given the chain of people that we ALL rely on.

Person A wants to be a grass cutter: He will not be as stressed under NOW and will have access to absolutely everything that he currently does, but so does the grass cutter. So if he enjoys being a Doctor, why would he become a grass cutter? Surely nurses do more as much work as Doctors, but they get paid a fuckload less. Why do they persist in that job? The incentive is not financial, in fact the incentive is to do a good job. Working harder/smarter/longer/better is no guarantee of top remuneration... just as those who claim benefits from the govt whilst working 2 jobs in order to put food on the table (more stressful than being a Doctor I bet). That only happens because someone has deemed that their contribution is all but meaningless. So the guarantee isn't there.

Socialism requires money too. So it isn't Socialism either. The reason it hasn't been implemented, is because of the financial system and those who fight tooth and nail to protect their position. If "they" weren't scared of it, it would be on the ballot as an options.

A small percentage do it for the love of it? A small percentage? You're speaking for an awful lot of people and I think you're miles out in regards to percentages. Remove the financial system and they won't be paid... and I still think that the majority would stay as builders. The world is full of pau inequality, yet people still do their jobs. Why would that change under NOW given that they won't be losing anything?

The whole point is to avoid Resource Scarcity by putting something in place to manage the resources. Unfortunately trees are a bad example because you can grow them. Also under NOW, there would be no need for bus/train/cinema etc... tickets, no need for circulars, no need for bank statements, electricity bills etc... so you will have already put yourself in a better position in regards to using less resources. In regards to competing for resources, which project will be of more value to the people will be the benchmark. Money shouldn't come into it, but for arguments sake, if my project cost more than the other project, I would bring the costs of my project down in order to get the resources. In your book that competition is a win, in my book, I know that my project can't come in on that budget, so the job will either get half done or more resources will be required. In which case, neither project gets done.

Easiest? Why confuse a simple issue i.e. a project needs to be done, by throwing in a budget when the outcome will not be measured in financial terms, but in the usefulness of the "product"? It's a middle man that isn't required.

:laugh: yeah, you're a selfish arse... again, you're speaking for a population that you know nothing about. You need to ask them first. You may not get an honest answer, but hey, when does a person when money is involved? What if that half of the population that is dying contained an individual that could create a pure power source? or a vaccine to replace all others? or design a teleportation system? Put it this way, a 16 year old german kid solved a problem set by Newton 300 years ago. It has eluded the greatest minds of our time, but this kid solved it. Yet you are prepared to kill that potential off?

I agree that people are imperfect and yes we will create things that are flawed... however we can mitigate those "mistakes" should we wish too. As you say NOW looks great in theory, so why would you not try it (given that is has never been tried before) when there are obvious benefits for everyone. After all, isn't that what the financial system claims to be attempting to do too? It has failed, what's the worst that can happen? We end up going back to a financial system. We will have learned plenty and will have lost nothing. NOW will work.

Many tribes in the jungles don't exhibit many of the negative traits that we do. Yes they are territorial if you come to take their land. If you come to share the land, they're more accomodating. Just ask the Maori. WE aren't acting like animal waging war across the globe, a tiny tiny percentage of people are. Individually we argue with those we come into contact with, but it's usually for a reason and seldom end in death. Why is there still war? To remove dictators? In which case, why is the longest serving "butcher" (Mugabe, kighted once upon a time) on the planet not dead? It's a fight for control of the resources, plain and simple. I have a feeling that should more reasonable "men" be in charge that these resources would freely be shared.

They do breed enough of them. But how do you fight a system that throws out propaganda such as the comment you made? The fight probably gets boring after several years, although some will fight to the bitter end. Oddly enough, they're doing it with your future and welfare in mind... as am I.

Type this search term "middle class shrinking" into the search engine of your choice... and if you want it the easy way, just view the images.

I'm sure they sit IQ tests that are designed for 5 year olds... but if a kid does not know what a number is, they cannot work out that 21 comes next. If you understand how to work the answer out, then you have knowledge in regards to how to work it out. Otherwise they're just meaningless numbers. Someone always has to go first i.e. Fibernacci, after that, everyone learns how to work it out.

[ellipsis]

.....

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/TkZFuKHXa7w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>........

[TheDemonLord]

Perhaps a different Tack is required to see my point (and to understand my position)

When I was younger (around 14-18) I read a lot of Anarchist Literature and firmly believed that Anarchy was the perfect political system, no mob rule, no oppression, complete free will etc. etc.

But then I realised - the problem isn't the system of Anarchy (this was around the time I did some reading on Socialism) but the problem is Human Nature and any system that tries to either go against Human Nature is doomed to failure

Capitalism - 'works' by compensating and allowing for Human Nature

When I deride these other ideas about social structure it is because IMO they do not account or compensate for Human Nature.

and whilst in theory they are far better and more elegant solutions - the failure to account for People renders them little better than a fantasy.

[mashman]

The $1000 comes from the gold Reserves held by Governments/Banks.

Whilst your example may seem logical - it is missing a key step:

I go out into the Forrest, and cut Down a tree (a really big tree) and I say the value of my Tree is $1,000, I could Barter the Tree for services I want, but barter is a rather ineffecient system with several inherant problems which Money Solved (sort of)

Someone else goes into a Mine and digs up $1,000 worth of Minerals - this is where the Generation of Money comes from - the Money we use is actually just a place holder for Gold Reserves (cause carrying around Gold is problematic)

There - you Maths problem has been solved by Primary Industries and the Generation of Wealth. from there Goods are produced from the Raw resources (secondary Industries) and then Services are provided using those Goods (tertiary Industries)

To answer your inevitable question 'What happens when there is no more of Resource X on earth' - look up to the Solar System, then out to our Galaxy and then on to our Universe and whilst Human Greed is infinite - it will take longer than my lifetime to consume all the resource in the Universe and besides.

All fine and well... but the convenience factor i.e. money carries a debt bearing interest. As for barter. If both party's agree on the value, they use exactly the same logistics to get gems to A and trees to B as if money were involved.

Oh and these days, money isn't backed by gold.

[mashman]

Hey G, I see Bitcoin (?) in the news, apparently is gaining momentum big time! :yes:

heh... it always will whilst there's a profit to be made... even the die hard anti-bitcoin brigade will invest on that basis.

[mashman]

Perhaps a different Tack is required to see my point (and to understand my position)

When I was younger (around 14-18) I read a lot of Anarchist Literature and firmly believed that Anarchy was the perfect political system, no mob rule, no oppression, complete free will etc. etc.

But then I realised - the problem isn't the system of Anarchy (this was around the time I did some reading on Socialism) but the problem is Human Nature and any system that tries to either go against Human Nature is doomed to failure

Capitalism - 'works' by compensating and allowing for Human Nature

When I deride these other ideas about social structure it is because IMO they do not account or compensate for Human Nature.

and whilst in theory they are far better and more elegant solutions - the failure to account for People renders them little better than a fantasy.

I get your point. I understand your position. I have been in your mental shoes to a certain extent. I have changed my mind for a very valid set of reasons.

The reason I have changed my mind, is that I could not, and still can't, challenge NOW on any logical basis... and given that human beings will make the best of whatever system is in place and given that money curtails innovation, it would seem logical to remove the financial system and try something different. People are simple. Feed them, cloth them, provide shelter, offer holidays, bikes, entertainment etc... and they won't give a shit about the system they live under because they don't have to think about it. This will not change, or it will but not in ways that we can imagine. To that end, NOW takes human behaviour into consideration and can handle it very well as it does not rely on money to get things done. Half of the population could be unemployed and the country would still provide that which the people need, because it does not rely on a financial system to get things done.

But make no mistake, I have been where you are.

[Scuba_Steve]

Fort Knox and the US gold reserves disagree with your assertion that Gold reserves dont' exist anymore


Yea 'cept Fort Knox has more gold in theory then it does in reality. In-fact most of the US's gold reserves are apparently over in Europe as payments for US debt

[oldrider]

Yea 'cept Fort Knox has more gold in theory then it does in reality. In-fact most of the US's gold reserves are apparently over in Europe as payments for US debt

Fort Knox could be full of rocks (probably is) and have the same value ... the value is a human concept. :shifty:

[Banditbandit]

But then I realised - the problem isn't the system of Anarchy (this was around the time I did some reading on Socialism) but the problem is Human Nature and any system that tries to either go against Human Nature is doomed to failure



Yeah .. I figured that was the path you'd taken ...

So tell me - this Human Nature you speak of ... is it hereditary or is it environmental ??? i.e. do we carry a basic nature in our "genes" or do we learn it as we grow up ???

[bogan]

Half of the population could be unemployed and the country would still provide that which the people need, because it does not rely on a financial system to get things done.

That's where your system falls over, any system has to harness human labor to provide the resources we need. We are not yet technically advanced enough that half the population could be unemployed and we could still provide everyone with the resources the need and want. To think it could is pure fantasy.

[Banditbandit]

Capitalism - 'works' by compensating and allowing for Human Nature

When I deride these other ideas about social structure it is because IMO they do not account or compensate for Human Nature.

and whilst in theory they are far better and more elegant solutions - the failure to account for People renders them little better than a fantasy.

Let me see now ... Capitalism is one of the best tools at alienating Human Nature .. Capitalism does not deal with people- it deals with positions in an economic system ... you are not a person, you are a worker, a taxpayer, a consumer - or a capitalist - all positions in an economic system.

Capitalism allows people to accumulate and benefit from their own wealth .. at the expense of other people ... rich people do not produce anything but gain their wealth from the physical work of others ... (they might put up the money and fund projects, but they do not do the labour - and their wealth is earned by exploiting others) productive people are alienated from their products of their labour and from the wealth generated by those products.

Capitalism requires wars and conflicts to be successful ... War is the world's biggest earner ...

Poverty and unemployment is a requirement of the capitalist system we currently have - if there were no unemployed people capitalists would have to pay higher wages to get workers - and either not make as much money as they do (horrors) or not set up in business.

Capitalism dictates the propaganda system which means people like you buy into the bullshit ...

Capitalism separates people into factions that fight each other (immigrants vs already there ... black versus white ... Māori vs Pākehā ... Christian vs Moslem) it cannot have unity because unified people might see the corrupt system and try to change it ...

So while you think this system allows for something which you call human nature, it alienates and exploits people ... buries them under mass propaganda ... creates wars and turmoil ...

Best we can do??? I seriously doubt it ...

[Banditbandit]

That's where your system falls over, any system has to harness human labor to provide the resources we need. We are not yet technically advanced enough that half the population could be unemployed and we could still provide everyone with the resources the need and want. To think it could is pure fantasy.

Are you suggesting that half the population is engaged in producing food, heat and shelter???

[Banditbandit]

Yeah Yeah .. I got sucked in .. Damm .. hard to walk away once you start - next time I'll try not to start ...

[bogan]

Are you suggesting that half the population is engaged in producing food, heat and shelter???

Are you suggesting that is all the population needs/wants?

[Banditbandit]

Are you suggesting that is all the population needs/wants?

I'm certainly suggesting that is all the population needs in terms of producing resources ...

I would not be saying that is all the population wants ... but, in the words of the great Glimmer Twins, "You can't always get what you want ... "

[bogan]

I'm certainly suggesting that is all the population needs in terms of producing resources ...

I would not be saying that is all the population wants ... but, in the words of the great Glimmer Twins, "You can't always get what you want ... "

Healthcare, transportation infrastructure for said resources, if the price of NOW is going back to the stoneage, I think I'll stay with what we've got thanks.

Mashy is saying the population's wants will be better met under NOW. You seem to think they won't and I agree, that's why I'd prefer to stay with what we've got, wouldn't you?

[oldrider]

Perhaps a different Tack is required to see my point (and to understand my position)

When I was younger (around 14-18) I read a lot of Anarchist Literature and firmly believed that Anarchy was the perfect political system, no mob rule, no oppression, complete free will etc. etc.

But then I realised - the problem isn't the system of Anarchy (this was around the time I did some reading on Socialism) but the problem is Human Nature and any system that tries to either go against Human Nature is doomed to failure

Capitalism - 'works' by compensating and allowing for Human Nature

When I deride these other ideas about social structure it is because IMO they do not account or compensate for Human Nature.

and whilst in theory they are far better and more elegant solutions - the failure to account for People renders them little better than a fantasy.

Despite mankind's best efforts to balance our political needs and will, we never succeed, yet we can explore space and send ourselves to distant planets!

There is always a negative force which stands in the way of political/financial harmony and balance!

There is a clue in this quote if you think about the inference and subsequent evidence since the quote was made:

I.E. "Give me control of the finances of the world I care not who makes the laws"! ... The same people are still in control of the finances of the world today!

Their will is our will, that is the problem.

One of many many links on the subject:http://financearmageddon.blogspot.co.nz/2013/08/the-rothschild-quote-give-me-control-of.html look around for yourself!

Like here for instance: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4311

[TheDemonLord]

1. Nature, without the interference of man.

2. True, it's not reality because there are no real mechanisms that are incorruptible when it comes to overseeing our decision makers given that we're all too busy doing other things. Does that mean we should just settle and accept that?

3. You're right on there being many factors to consider, heh...

In my ideal system, not everyone has to work and not everyone has to contribute. If everyone does work, they will work less hours in (many) jobs that require doing. By way of an example, me. I'm a programmer. I have written the same software using different languages/platforms for different company's servicing different clients. This would be standardised to yield better results i.e. 1 piece of software for all. This would remove the need for, let's say 50% of the programmers in the country. I could retrain to become anything else... preferably something that society requires. I could go fishing 24/7. That will be my choice and I will exercise my personal responsibility as I see fit. Because I'm a sweety, I WILL do something for society. It likely failed in Russia because of the financial system and its behaviour changing ability. Again, apples and oranges.

Person A v's Person B

Brief, required imho, comparison of the financial system v's NOW in regards to Corporations, I mean, Persons A & B.

Things that'll stop people from wanting to become Doctors. The fear of being laden with huge amounts of debt if they fail (fiscal prudence) or decide that being a Doctor isn't for them. Poor grades at a time when they didn't know they wanted to be Doctors. Number of Uni places available. There are more, but they'll do.

v's

Things that'll stop people from becoming Doctors. They fail or decide that being a Doctor isn't for them. No worries, go do something else. They will have no debt. They will have not taken up a Uni place as there will be no limit to the number of people who want to study to be Doctors. Grades will be irrelevant so long as they can pass the first year. After all, if they want to be a Doctor, they'll be willing to put in the hard yards. Furthermore, to relieve the pressure on Doctors, people will submit blood every 3 months to a central database. This will allow computers (quantum maybe) to alert Doctors that something has entered that person's system that will cause an issue if not caught soon. That will never happen within a financial system, because it costs too much.

Win - NOW. You may disagree.

Your questions:

Who contributes more: Long grass will cause more crashes as it grows onto the highway keeping the Doctors at the hospitals for longer, which in turn will make them over tired and possibly prone to more mistakes. That's if the Doctor can get to work, that's if the ambulances can navigate the roads to get to people in need etc... The grass dude, if he chops his hand off, will need a Doctor. So who has contributed more, both. Profession does not dictate contribution outwith perceived effort. Which will be, and is, a personal choice. Yes a Doctor not being at work can mean the death of someone. I hope they never call in sick.

Yes, the consequences are different, but try living without either and you end up in a worse position. Both contributions are required. In fact what about a Binman. He only lifts bins right? Well what happens to the Doctors workload if the rubbish isn't collected? Similarly with the Sewerage Worker, or the food producer, or the oil worker, or the nurse, or the teacher etc... the Doctor has relied on all of those people throuought his life and could not have become a Doctor without them. Measuring who is more important is futile given the chain of people that we ALL rely on.

Person A wants to be a grass cutter: He will not be as stressed under NOW and will have access to absolutely everything that he currently does, but so does the grass cutter. So if he enjoys being a Doctor, why would he become a grass cutter? Surely nurses do more as much work as Doctors, but they get paid a fuckload less. Why do they persist in that job? The incentive is not financial, in fact the incentive is to do a good job. Working harder/smarter/longer/better is no guarantee of top remuneration... just as those who claim benefits from the govt whilst working 2 jobs in order to put food on the table (more stressful than being a Doctor I bet). That only happens because someone has deemed that their contribution is all but meaningless. So the guarantee isn't there.

Socialism requires money too. So it isn't Socialism either. The reason it hasn't been implemented, is because of the financial system and those who fight tooth and nail to protect their position. If "they" weren't scared of it, it would be on the ballot as an options.

A small percentage do it for the love of it? A small percentage? You're speaking for an awful lot of people and I think you're miles out in regards to percentages. Remove the financial system and they won't be paid... and I still think that the majority would stay as builders. The world is full of pau inequality, yet people still do their jobs. Why would that change under NOW given that they won't be losing anything?

The whole point is to avoid Resource Scarcity by putting something in place to manage the resources. Unfortunately trees are a bad example because you can grow them. Also under NOW, there would be no need for bus/train/cinema etc... tickets, no need for circulars, no need for bank statements, electricity bills etc... so you will have already put yourself in a better position in regards to using less resources. In regards to competing for resources, which project will be of more value to the people will be the benchmark. Money shouldn't come into it, but for arguments sake, if my project cost more than the other project, I would bring the costs of my project down in order to get the resources. In your book that competition is a win, in my book, I know that my project can't come in on that budget, so the job will either get half done or more resources will be required. In which case, neither project gets done.

Easiest? Why confuse a simple issue i.e. a project needs to be done, by throwing in a budget when the outcome will not be measured in financial terms, but in the usefulness of the "product"? It's a middle man that isn't required.

:laugh: yeah, you're a selfish arse... again, you're speaking for a population that you know nothing about. You need to ask them first. You may not get an honest answer, but hey, when does a person when money is involved? What if that half of the population that is dying contained an individual that could create a pure power source? or a vaccine to replace all others? or design a teleportation system? Put it this way, a 16 year old german kid solved a problem set by Newton 300 years ago. It has eluded the greatest minds of our time, but this kid solved it. Yet you are prepared to kill that potential off?

I agree that people are imperfect and yes we will create things that are flawed... however we can mitigate those "mistakes" should we wish too. As you say NOW looks great in theory, so why would you not try it (given that is has never been tried before) when there are obvious benefits for everyone. After all, isn't that what the financial system claims to be attempting to do too? It has failed, what's the worst that can happen? We end up going back to a financial system. We will have learned plenty and will have lost nothing. NOW will work.

Many tribes in the jungles don't exhibit many of the negative traits that we do. Yes they are territorial if you come to take their land. If you come to share the land, they're more accomodating. Just ask the Maori. WE aren't acting like animal waging war across the globe, a tiny tiny percentage of people are. Individually we argue with those we come into contact with, but it's usually for a reason and seldom end in death. Why is there still war? To remove dictators? In which case, why is the longest serving "butcher" (Mugabe, kighted once upon a time) on the planet not dead? It's a fight for control of the resources, plain and simple. I have a feeling that should more reasonable "men" be in charge that these resources would freely be shared.

They do breed enough of them. But how do you fight a system that throws out propaganda such as the comment you made? The fight probably gets boring after several years, although some will fight to the bitter end. Oddly enough, they're doing it with your future and welfare in mind... as am I.

Type this search term "middle class shrinking" into the search engine of your choice... and if you want it the easy way, just view the images.

I'm sure they sit IQ tests that are designed for 5 year olds... but if a kid does not know what a number is, they cannot work out that 21 comes next. If you understand how to work the answer out, then you have knowledge in regards to how to work it out. Otherwise they're just meaningless numbers. Someone always has to go first i.e. Fibernacci, after that, everyone learns how to work it out.

1: I would argue that Darwinian Evolution was the governing body of Nature - via Natural Selection.

And besides - there are plenty of incompatabilities found in Nature....

2: Acknowledging the current short comings whilst working for a better solution - knowing why things are the way they are is the first step in figuring out a better way.

3: I do disagree that NOW will work - but again, it is a nice theory

I acknowledge that all jobs are necessary - but to paraphrase Animal Farm - Some are more necessary than others. you may say it is futile given that eventually all jobs become important, but some can be left longer than others.

you will note I said socialism 2.0 - its like the love child between Gene Roddenberry's Federation and Socialism - both ideals that IMO are incompatible with Human nature.

okay suppose I am out on my percentage - say that only 10% or 15% leave their profession in order to do easier work with the same benefits that would result in a Massive change in the work force dynamic. I agree there is Pay inequality - some people just simply can't do the high paying jobs - yes that sucks, but when has life/nature been equal?

you say that if we changed financial systems (to try) and then abandoned it, we wouldn't be in a worse position - History has shown that major changes in a financial system have usually ended in Disaster for said country. Sure, NOW could be the exception - but I doubt it - History has shown us otherwise.

when I say easiest - although the outcome of a project can vary greatly (in all metrics) comparing a $1,000 project to a $10,000 project is an easy comparison (especially when you don't have $10,000)

Meh - I acknowledge my own shortcomings and am honest about them and try and actively keep them in check as opposed to attempting to fool myself and others into thinking I am some form of Saint - as for my Skepticism regarding the rest of the Human population if the Roles were reversed - History has shown us otherwise.

as to your point about the 300 year old problem - but it was solved was it not? thus it is only a matter of time till the wheels of Chance place the right person, at the right time, in the Right place.

I don't know what Tribes you are referring to, but I cannot think of a Single indeginous people that have not taken part in raiding neighbouring villages for the reason de jour.

paterns, shapes, spacial changes there are plenty of things that don't require prior knowledge which is what IQ is designed to test

[Banditbandit]

Healthcare, transportation infrastructure for said resources,

Those are part of that sector .. I would not make that differentiation ...


if the price of NOW is going back to the stoneage, I think I'll stay with what we've got thanks.

That's reasonable ...


Mashy is saying the population's wants will be better met under NOW.

I don't see him saying that ...



You seem to think they won't and I agree, that's why I'd prefer to stay with what we've got, wouldn't you?

Maybe .. I'm closer to Mashy's way than yours ... I think you are misinterpreting him ..but yes, such a system would be a small technological step backwards .. I am not sure it would be as bad as you think ... and I am not at al convinced hat would be a bad thing .. I certainly have a strong Luddite streak ...

[bogan]

Those are part of that sector .. I would not make that differentiation ...



That's reasonable ...



I don't see him saying that ...




Maybe .. I'm closer to Mashy's way than yours ... I think you are misinterpreting him ..but yes, such a system would be a small technological step backwards .. I am not sure it would be as bad as you think ... and I am not at al convinced hat would be a bad thing .. I certainly have a strong Luddite streak ...

So what isn't part of that sector then? Just entertainment right?

Its one of the core reasons why he promotes NOW isn't it?

I think I'm interpreting him more accurately than either of you would like. That shit just won't work; sorry, but the financial system is the best option for resource allocation we've got.

[Banditbandit]

1: I would argue that Darwinian Evolution was the governing body of Nature - via Natural Selection.



Bwhahahahahaha .. Oh .. so how did evolution come up with this ???


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P735clt7eOw

Or this ??? What the fuck is the evolutionary point of this???

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/Dugong_Marsa_Alam.jpg/250px-Dugong_Marsa_Alam.jpg

This one's counter-survival and therefore counter-evolutionary ... it's definitely a WTF?? moment for evolution ..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Callosobruchus_analis_penis.jpg/220px-Callosobruchus_analis_penis.jpg
"The penis of a Callosobruchus analis bean weevil. Some species of insect have evolved spiny penises, which damage the female reproductive tract. This has led to females using various techniques to resist being bred."

The only explanation is that evolution has a sense of humour ...

[TheDemonLord]

I get your point. I understand your position. I have been in your mental shoes to a certain extent. I have changed my mind for a very valid set of reasons.

The reason I have changed my mind, is that I could not, and still can't, challenge NOW on any logical basis... and given that human beings will make the best of whatever system is in place and given that money curtails innovation, it would seem logical to remove the financial system and try something different. People are simple. Feed them, cloth them, provide shelter, offer holidays, bikes, entertainment etc... and they won't give a shit about the system they live under because they don't have to think about it. This will not change, or it will but not in ways that we can imagine. To that end, NOW takes human behaviour into consideration and can handle it very well as it does not rely on money to get things done. Half of the population could be unemployed and the country would still provide that which the people need, because it does not rely on a financial system to get things done.

But make no mistake, I have been where you are.

Hairy Muff

Sure, NOW might take care of our Base needs - but I rather like to keep my creature comforts. and your 2nd to last line really sums it up:

"Half of the population could be unemployed and the country would still provide that which the people need,"

Why the hell should I work so that half of the country can sit around and do nothing? or Why should I get to sit around and have half the country working to support my Fat Lazy Ass? (I hold myself accountable to the same standard I hold others)

BanditBandit:


"So tell me - this Human Nature you speak of ... is it hereditary or is it environmental ??? i.e. do we carry a basic nature in our "genes" or do we learn it as we grow up ??? "

It is Both - There is a Hereditary component - I like to refer to it as Evolutionary Hard Programming - there are evolutionary advantages which over thousands of generations has become part of us - like in the same way a Pointer Dog has been bred to point to game instinctively.

Now There is the environmental factor to consider - we can either repress this (as we like to try in the Civilised) or we can embrace it (true Sociopath) or we can go down any number of infinite paths in between. I am not saying that if over thousands of generations we might be able to breed out this characteristic. but I doubt it.

To your other post - Yes Capitalism is bad, but unlike other systems that have been tried and failed - it still works (in a loose sense of the word).

Yes people profit off the labour of others - but those people took the Risk in the first place - is it fair that those who took the risk don't reap the rewards? if they don't why take the risk in the first place?

there are other points - but I believe we have already covered them off.

OldRider

If the problem is people controlling the Financial system - what happens to those that control the NOW system? All power Corrupts....

[TheDemonLord]

Bwhahahahahaha .. Oh .. so how did evolution come up with this ???

Or this ??? What the fuck is the evolutionary point of this???

This one's counter-survival and therefore counter-evolutionary ... it's definitely a WTF?? moment for evolution ..
"The penis of a Callosobruchus analis bean weevil. Some species of insect have evolved spiny penises, which damage the female reproductive tract. This has led to females using various techniques to resist being bred."

The only explanation is that evolution has a sense of humour ...

Just because we don't understand the point, does not mean there isn't one.

I remember that Male lions have a Barbed Penis - the theory being that the scratches on the vaginal wall cause violent contractions - helping the Semen hit its mark.

But yes - Evolution it would seem has a sense of Humour - Platypus....

[oldrider]

OldRider

If the problem is people controlling the Financial system - what happens to those that control the NOW system? All power Corrupts....

Exactly!

Complacency is the creator of opportunity for otherwise honest men!

Victims of complacency should look in the mirror to bare witness of the perpetrator! :Pokey:

[mashman]

That's where your system falls over, any system has to harness human labor to provide the resources we need. We are not yet technically advanced enough that half the population could be unemployed and we could still provide everyone with the resources the need and want. To think it could is pure fantasy.

Your assumption, yes I realise I'm making assumptions here too, is that people won't work. You do realise that you're speaking for every person in the country without asking them? And that the great KB poll of yonder year was running at 50-50? Half of the jobs in the country probably aren't required or won't be required as the removal of the finance system (bankers, accountants, tellers etc...) will make more people available for to workforce.

Fantasy? It may be a logistical squeeze, but I wouldn't call it fantasy. And as you can't speak for everyone else, coz you're not KDC, fantasy as a diagnosis is nothing more than a negative assumption. We'll never know until it's on the ballot and the idea has been thrashed out for a year. Everything that can be achieved with money can be achieved without money. Some things that can't be achieved with money can be achieved without money. Doesn't sound like a reason not to have a go does it?

[Banditbandit]

Any second now ...

So this time, I'm out .. with a passing nod to the biter ... go on - laugh ..

[bogan]

Your assumption, yes I realise I'm making assumptions here too, is that people won't work. You do realise that you're speaking for every person in the country without asking them? And that the great KB poll of yonder year was running at 50-50? Half of the jobs in the country probably aren't required or won't be required as the removal of the finance system (bankers, accountants, tellers etc...) will make more people available for to workforce.

Fantasy? It may be a logistical squeeze, but I wouldn't call it fantasy. And as you can't speak for everyone else, coz you're not KDC, fantasy as a diagnosis is nothing more than a negative assumption. We'll never know until it's on the ballot and the idea has been thrashed out for a year. Everything that can be achieved with money can be achieved without money. Some things that can't be achieved with money can be achieved without money. Doesn't sound like a reason not to have a go does it?

Actually you said half the people could be unemployed. Simple question, with half the people unemployed, do you think the whole population will be able to enjoy a better standard of living than currently?

Also, the great poll of KB was not asking if NOW was the solution.

It is fantasy because the gaps in your logic are massive.

[Akzle]

Any second now ...

So this time, I'm out .. with a passing nod to the biter ... go on - laugh ..

fuck catching up.


http://img.izismile.com/img/img3/20100505/640/swedish_king_who_640_01.jpg

[mashman]

1: I would argue that Darwinian Evolution was the governing body of Nature - via Natural Selection.

And besides - there are plenty of incompatabilities found in Nature....

2: Acknowledging the current short comings whilst working for a better solution - knowing why things are the way they are is the first step in figuring out a better way.

3: I do disagree that NOW will work - but again, it is a nice theory

I acknowledge that all jobs are necessary - but to paraphrase Animal Farm - Some are more necessary than others. you may say it is futile given that eventually all jobs become important, but some can be left longer than others.

you will note I said socialism 2.0 - its like the love child between Gene Roddenberry's Federation and Socialism - both ideals that IMO are incompatible with Human nature.

okay suppose I am out on my percentage - say that only 10% or 15% leave their profession in order to do easier work with the same benefits that would result in a Massive change in the work force dynamic. I agree there is Pay inequality - some people just simply can't do the high paying jobs - yes that sucks, but when has life/nature been equal?

you say that if we changed financial systems (to try) and then abandoned it, we wouldn't be in a worse position - History has shown that major changes in a financial system have usually ended in Disaster for said country. Sure, NOW could be the exception - but I doubt it - History has shown us otherwise.

when I say easiest - although the outcome of a project can vary greatly (in all metrics) comparing a $1,000 project to a $10,000 project is an easy comparison (especially when you don't have $10,000)

Meh - I acknowledge my own shortcomings and am honest about them and try and actively keep them in check as opposed to attempting to fool myself and others into thinking I am some form of Saint - as for my Skepticism regarding the rest of the Human population if the Roles were reversed - History has shown us otherwise.

as to your point about the 300 year old problem - but it was solved was it not? thus it is only a matter of time till the wheels of Chance place the right person, at the right time, in the Right place.

I don't know what Tribes you are referring to, but I cannot think of a Single indeginous people that have not taken part in raiding neighbouring villages for the reason de jour.

paterns, shapes, spacial changes there are plenty of things that don't require prior knowledge which is what IQ is designed to test

1. But not every animal society works the same. So there is no governing body.

2. Done. NOW is a better way. NOW isn't the only Resource Based Economy "idea" out there, but it seems to be the only one that offers a solution for getting from here to there.

3. I'd like to see the theory tested with a willing population. I know it will work.

True. Food, water management, waste management, "building", cleaning should be top of the tree. They give us the environment to do all of the other stuff. The rest could easily be lived without. However NOW will not directly change a single thing in regards to wants or needs... it doesn't have to, because the country will still be importing and exporting using money (because the rest of the world will be, for the time being).

I'm sure they are incompatible with human nature, especially as human nature doesn't exist ;)

Given the number of people that will become unemployed by the removal of the financial system, perhaps those 10 or 15% will be replaced by those eager to build? Plenty of people can do the high paying jobs, but there are only so many high paying jobs. For the rest of the degree qualified, there's always a job at macca's. I care not about equality, as you say, we're not equal, but equity is another matter entirely as it brings an equality to proceedings tat money doesn't (because there are only so many high paid jobs available for instance).

The financial system is only going to be removed from the local economy. It will become entirely virtual, which is useful for if NOW fails, because you can use those records as failover. There is no major change. It far more simple than people want to accept. The financial system will still exists for the purposes of producing GDP. That has not been tried.

Irrespective of whether it's a $1000 or a $10000 project, a resources list would give away the extent of the project. Why use money as a measure as to whether the resources are available or not? T'would seem like yet another case of money stopping play.

What has being a saint got to do with anything? How has history shown you that. When was the last time someone fucked you over? and how many people have you dealt with? There's a huge possibility that that will continue under NOW, but one things for certain, it won't be because of the existence of money.

My point was, if you keep half of the population away from the tools to learn about these things, the you limit your chances of solving the problems.

There are some in the Amazon that cooperate and don't butcher each other. That and when people have a shared cause, they generally pull together and generally don't shaft each other for their own gain. However there is always that small element that will. Something NOW may not solve, but certainly it'll certainly limit the options for doing so.

You can still learn pattern recognition, shapes, spacial awareness etc... which would lead me to believe that there are many who have learned it. As I said earlier, once the first person has that knowledge, it is passed on. I'm not saying that there aren't those who get it with minimal knowledge, but I wouldn't call it the norm.

[mashman]

Hairy Muff

Sure, NOW might take care of our Base needs - but I rather like to keep my creature comforts. and your 2nd to last line really sums it up:

"Half of the population could be unemployed and the country would still provide that which the people need,"

Why the hell should I work so that half of the country can sit around and do nothing? or Why should I get to sit around and have half the country working to support my Fat Lazy Ass? (I hold myself accountable to the same standard I hold others)

Who says you won't get to keep your creature comforts? The country will produce a GDP. The country will still import comforts and export whatever it does. Doesn't sound like a loss to me.

It would be entirely your choice to develop an entitlement complex. I would like to think that those unemployed might take the opportunity to retrain as something else. There's no guarantee, but if they've voted for the system, why wouldn't they? S'ok, I got you covered, if you wanna sit on yaw ass, you do just that. I don't care about the standards of others as I can't control them and really wouldn't want to. Other than that, it's all conjecture as to how people would react... although given that we currently do what we do and given that 55% (supposedly) of the population are a net drain in regards to taxation i.e. they receive more in benefits than they out in, I've no reason to expect that those 55% will suddenly think fuck it and head for the couch.

[mashman]

Actually you said half the people could be unemployed. Simple question, with half the people unemployed, do you think the whole population will be able to enjoy a better standard of living than currently?

Also, the great poll of KB was not asking if NOW was the solution.

It is fantasy because the gaps in your logic are massive.

Dunno. I'd like to find out though... but I highly doubt that they'd go without the essentials. What percentage of the working population are responsible for the essentials?

True. But I did ask "Would you live in NZ if there was no financial system?". NOW operates without a financial system... locally anyway.

What gaps?

[oldrider]

Actually there is nothing wrong with the current financial system it's self other than that it allows the parasites that use to their own ends to exist in it!

Then again they only exist in it because we naively allow them to and like alcoholic's defending their bottle, we actually demand that they continue!

Purge the parasites and tidy things up and the current financial system will serve our needs quite admirably.

The hard part is digesting the fact that we are being duped so simply! :facepalm:

[mashman]

Actually there is nothing wrong with the current financial system it's self

Other than the debt that can never be repaid and the inevitable social problems that that debt brings. Other than that, the thing is a mechanism of absolute perfection.

[bogan]

Dunno. I'd like to find out though... but I highly doubt that they'd go without the essentials. What percentage of the working population are responsible for the essentials?

True. But I did ask "Would you live in NZ if there was no financial system?". NOW operates without a financial system... locally anyway.

What gaps?

Curently we have more than just the essentials, if NOW means our standard of living drops, whats the point?

Exactly, the question didn't mention the means, so the answers cannot be applied.

See above.

[oldrider]

Other than the debt that can never be repaid and the inevitable social problems that that debt brings. Other than that, the thing is a mechanism of absolute perfection.

Debt that can be created with the stroke of a pen can be cancelled with the stroke of a pen!

Social problems will always be there in one form or another removing the debt and focussing on the problem would help rather than hinder. :yes:

[mashman]

Curently we have more than just the essentials, if NOW means our standard of living drops, whats the point?

Exactly, the question didn't mention the means, so the answers cannot be applied.

See above.

That was in response to half of the population being unemployed. A statement that was in response to NZ being able to handle half of the population being unemployed. If you want a concrete answer, then that concrete answer is NO, NZ will not lose its standard of living because of a lack of money.

Of course they can. NOW has no financial economy. The question asked if people would live in a such an economy. So the answers arebut asingle way of the how that could be achieved. The result is the same.

So. What gaps?

[mashman]

Debt that can be created with the stroke of a pen can be cancelled with the stroke of a pen!

Social problems will always be there in one form or another removing the debt and focussing on the problem would help rather than hinder. :yes:

Very true. Why bother having debt mechanisms at all if you're going to write it off eventually anyway? Especially when it affects the lives of billions of people.

Aye, there will always be those with issues and as you say, but it isn't all down to debt is it? If people aren't being paid enough, because someone has decided their job doesn't warrant it, then they will struggle financially. Best to remove the financial system entirely and there would be even less to hinder addressing the problem than just removing debt.

[bogan]

That was in response to half of the population being unemployed. A statement that was in response to NZ being able to handle half of the population being unemployed. If you want a concrete answer, then that concrete answer is NO, NZ will not lose its standard of living because of a lack of money.

Of course they can. NOW has no financial economy. The question asked if people would live in a such an economy. So the answers arebut asingle way of the how that could be achieved. The result is the same.

So. What gaps?

So under NOW, half the population could choose to be unemployed, and that would lower the standard of living for everybody (even those working their asses off) from what we enjoy today? So your concrete answer of no, means you have concrete evidence that employment would be a lot higher than that, correct?

Time to put up or shutup, do another poll asking people to choose between the current way, and the NOW way, see if you results translate then.

Again, the rather larges ones explained above :lol:

[mashman]

So under NOW, half the population could choose to be unemployed, and that would lower the standard of living for everybody (even those working their asses off) from what we enjoy today? So your concrete answer of no, means you have concrete evidence that employment would be a lot higher than that, correct?

Time to put up or shutup, do another poll asking people to choose between the current way, and the NOW way, see if you results translate then.

Again, the rather larges ones explained above :lol:

Quantify standard of living. My concrete answer of no was in regards to NZ not losing its standard of living because of a lack of money. It has nothing to do with the amount of people in or out of work. My assumption is that people would contribute to the well being of their country. I can't guarantee that.

:killingme... you do it.

No problem. Answered. Next?

[bogan]

Quantify standard of living. My concrete answer of no was in regards to NZ not losing its standard of living because of a lack of money. It has nothing to do with the amount of people in or out of work. My assumption is that people would contribute to the well being of their country. I can't guarantee that.

:killingme... you do it.

No problem. Answered. Next?

Others have done so much better than I could. There you go, that is the big gap, that you have to assume people will work without having a direct incentive to do so. That is why NOW will never get off the ground, that gap is too big, and the proponents of now are too quick to dismiss it and take a she'll be right approach. Also, that it's like pulling teeth to even get you to admit it, makes it seem like you guys are just as smarmy and full of shit as any businessman or politician we're currently stuck with anyway.

[mashman]

Others have done so much better than I could. There you go, that is the big gap, that you have to assume people will work without having a direct incentive to do so. That is why NOW will never get off the ground, that gap is too big, and the proponents of now are too quick to dismiss it and take a she'll be right approach. Also, that it's like pulling teeth to even get you to admit it, makes it seem like you guys are just as smarmy and full of shit as any businessman or politician we're currently stuck with anyway.

I asked for your take on a standard of living. I assume that the incentive will be to see the country thrive in ways that a financial system won't allow and for the citizens to benefit in ways that the financial system can't deliver. Put it this way, if it's on the ballot and it's voted in, people will have voted for it understanding that their role is to contribute. Best laid plans etc... does not mean that will happen and I've gone for a worst case scenario of half of the population giving up work. I have a faith in people putting in the effort to make these sorts of things work, why don't you? You assume the opposite of what I do, yet you are right? Really? What is this gap you keep talking about?

She'll be right? I'd say they also have faith in people for a huge number of reasons... least of all knowing many of them that don't go around fucking people over irrespective of the incentives. You sell them short.

What am I supposed to be admitting? Put the words in my mouth, spell it out, "mashy, I would like to hear you admit that <insert ?gap? explanation>".

[bogan]

I asked for your take on a standard of living. I assume that the incentive will be to see the country thrive in ways that a financial system won't allow and for the citizens to benefit in ways that the financial system can't deliver. Put it this way, if it's on the ballot and it's voted in, people will have voted for it understanding that their role is to contribute. Best laid plans etc... does not mean that will happen and I've gone for a worst case scenario of half of the population giving up work. I have a faith in people putting in the effort to make these sorts of things work, why don't you? You assume the opposite of what I do, yet you are right? Really? What is this gap you keep talking about?

She'll be right? I'd say they also have faith in people for a huge number of reasons... least of all knowing many of them that don't go around fucking people over irrespective of the incentives. You sell them short.

What am I supposed to be admitting? Put the words in my mouth, spell it out, "mashy, I would like to hear you admit that <insert ?gap? explanation>".

You gotta stop talking in ways the financial system can't do, and start with what yours can. And every time you say assume, that's a gap.

Faith, fantasy, two somewhat synonymous terms. Half the pop not working is not worst case, all the pop not working would be worst case...

I'm saying it will fail to get started because of the gaps, the onus is on those proposing the change to put together a coherent argument, if you can't you will never get the support to effect that change.

You've admitted the gap is that you have to assume people will work, that's all the info I need for me to say; well fuck that then, lets stay with something that has direct consequences for those who don't, and direct incentives for those who do.

[mashman]

You gotta stop talking in ways the financial system can't do, and start with what yours can. And every time you say assume, that's a gap.

Faith, fantasy, two somewhat synonymous terms. Half the pop not working is not worst case, all the pop not working would be worst case...

I'm saying it will fail to get started because of the gaps, the onus is on those proposing the change to put together a coherent argument, if you can't you will never get the support to effect that change.

You've admitted the gap is that you have to assume people will work, that's all the info I need for me to say; well fuck that then, lets stay with something that has direct consequences for those who don't, and direct incentives for those who do.

Fair point... however without access to every single person for a day or so of Q & A, I can only assume. Pretending otherwise, I leave that to our current crop of politicians. It's entirely up to you what you decide to believe that people are capable of. I've built in a margin of error of 50%. Is that not good enough?

I'm sure the world's innovators would disagree about how synonymous those terms are... but hey. In which case, given your worst case scenario, either NOW wouldn't have been voted in or if it was, we'd immediately have to go back to the financial system as people only voted to quit work. I give people more credit which is why I went for 50%. I assume that the majority of people will take personal responsibility for their actions?

But you still have to accept that argument. I can't spoon feed you and without lots of resources, I can't give you many facts. Something the current group of politicians can't do either. I wonder if that has anything to do with not being able to know for a certainty what the future is. The benefits are factual though.

Provide them all with well paying jobs then. If you can't, then how can you blame those who have decided not to work because the rewards that hard work is supposed to promise have not materialised? Essentially that's what you're assuming will happen in reverse with NOW. Irony much?

[bogan]

Fair point... however without access to every single person for a day or so of Q & A, I can only assume. Pretending otherwise, I leave that to our current crop of politicians. It's entirely up to you what you decide to believe that people are capable of. I've built in a margin of error of 50%. Is that not good enough?

I'm sure the world's innovators would disagree about how synonymous those terms are... but hey. In which case, given your worst case scenario, either NOW wouldn't have been voted in or if it was, we'd immediately have to go back to the financial system as people only voted to quit work. I give people more credit which is why I went for 50%. I assume that the majority of people will take personal responsibility for their actions?

But you still have to accept that argument. I can't spoon feed you and without lots of resources, I can't give you many facts. Something the current group of politicians can't do either. I wonder if that has anything to do with not being able to know for a certainty what the future is. The benefits are factual though.

Provide them all with well paying jobs then. If you can't, then how can you blame those who have decided not to work because the rewards that hard work is supposed to promise have not materialised? Essentially that's what you're assuming will happen in reverse with NOW. Irony much?

There's no margin of error in the shit you've done cos you just pulled numbers out of your arse. Tbh, the whole scheme sounds too much like that to get my support, and if the country looked like adopting it, I'd skip out asap.

[mashman]

There's no margin of error in the shit you've done cos you just pulled numbers out of your arse. Tbh, the whole scheme sounds too much like that to get my support, and if the country looked like adopting it, I'd skip out asap.

So you're not actually in society for anyone other than yourself? Hardly surprising that you're a detractor instead of a skeptical contributor. Fair enough though, it's your life.

[Ocean1]

So you're not actually in society for anyone other than yourself? Hardly surprising that you're a detractor instead of a skeptical contributor. Fair enough though, it's your life.

Actually, you're the one criticising the current economic model. He's simply asking you how your idea is better. Which does indeed make him the skeptic, and you the detractor.

The fact that you can't answer him also makes you a fucking idiot.

[mashman]

Actually, you're the one criticising the current economic model. He's simply asking you how your idea is better. Which does indeed make him the skeptic, and you the detractor.

The fact that you can't answer him also makes you a fucking idiot.

I am. No he's not, he's telling me it won't work because people won't accept it... moderately amusing as I thought only the PM could do that. Two way street... but only 1 of us knows that.

I did answer him, he doesn't like the answers, not my problem. Going by the number of questions that have been ignored in this thread that have been asked and ignored, and given that your criteria for being a fuckin idiot is not answering questions, you're shooting fish in a barrel. Meh.

[bogan]

So you're not actually in society for anyone other than yourself? Hardly surprising that you're a detractor instead of a skeptical contributor. Fair enough though, it's your life.

I never said that, its just that if this one is going down, I'll find another!

Depends how you want to see it I guess, I've pointed out big gaps with your idea, the choice to put me in the detractor basket so you can gloss over the gaps says a lot more about your mindset than it does mine.

[mashman]

I never said that, its just that if this one is going down, I'll find another!

Depends how you want to see it I guess, I've pointed out big gaps with your idea, the choice to put me in the detractor basket so you can gloss over the gaps says a lot more about your mindset than it does mine.

I'm surprised you'd think that no further thought/discussion etc... would go into it should the funding become available to promote it and that what you see is what you will get. But why think about how it could work when it's easier to ignore it.

Did I gloss over the gaps, of which you only really showed one i.e. asshat figures... which is funny when you consider that the question hasn't been asked of the population, yet you demand numbers and claim failure on that basis... but I certainly don't remember dismissing any concerns willy nilly and I would appreciate it if you could point me to a post where that happened.

[bogan]

I'm surprised you'd think that no further thought/discussion etc... would go into it should the funding become available to promote it and that what you see is what you will get. But why think about how it could work when it's easier to ignore it.

Did I gloss over the gaps, of which you only really showed one i.e. asshat figures... which is funny when you consider that the question hasn't been asked of the population, yet you demand numbers and claim failure on that basis... but I certainly don't remember dismissing any concerns willy nilly and I would appreciate it if you could point me to a post where that happened.

I'm surprised you think such a half assed idea could be taken that seriously.

So ask a subset, simple question like how many hours a week would you work if you didn't have to work at all, see what employment you get out of that.

This is the thing you completely fail to understand, if you guys can't put together a decent case for it, which at least tries to address the gaps, then no, we won't take you seriously. That's my skeptical contribution. I mean FFS mashy, you say things can get done without money, and that people will be self motivated to do things, yet you can't be bothered to research the idea you propose :facepalm: It's not a good look :no: really boils the whole thing down to a simple "can't someone else do it"

[mashman]

I'm surprised you think such a half assed idea could be taken that seriously.

So ask a subset, simple question like how many hours a week would you work if you didn't have to work at all, see what employment you get out of that.

This is the thing you completely fail to understand, if you guys can't put together a decent case for it, which at least tries to address the gaps, then no, we won't take you seriously. That's my skeptical contribution. I mean FFS mashy, you say things can get done without money, and that people will be self motivated to do things, yet you can't be bothered to research the idea you propose :facepalm: It's not a good look :no: really boils the whole thing down to a simple "can't someone else do it"

You haven't given me a reason to think that it's half assed. You will call that denial, I will call it how I see it.

I would if I could get the funds together to do that kind of research. Is that sinking in yet? Even at that, you may be happy with a statistically relevant (who chooses that relevance?) subset of people to give an idea of how many hours people would work... I won't, because that's not going to be the answer, it has the potential to not be even be close, people lie.

I'm not asking you to take me seriously. I'm asking you to take you seriously. So far, of the people I have spoken to about this (verbally), let's say that's about 30... about 20 of them (I don;t keep notes, I'm not interviewing them) have said they would happily do what it took to have such a society after having some basics explained to them. These people generally expand upon what's being discussed by taking what's important to them and incorporating into the NOW system i.e. that would mean that I can retrain to be something else without having my family suffer any financial consequences, or, that means there would be no poverty (not strictly true, but certainly financial), and many other reasons. Essentially they don't care about your perceived gaps because their needs will have been met and they see the other benefits too. The only real difference between them and yourself, that I can see, is that they have faith (yes faith, get the fuck over it as the entire financial system is built on exactly the same principle) in the people of the country to do the right thing. If I had more money, oh irony, I would conduct and document the research i.e. talk to people and find out what they think to get a "feel" for the numbers you crave so dearly. I don't have that money.

It is entirely your choice how you decide to react to NOW in whatever form you receive it, it's on you, not me, YOU.

[TheDemonLord]

1. But not every animal society works the same. So there is no governing body.

Correct - and as I said, you could argue that there are massive incomptabilities - lets start with 99.9% of all living species are Extinct - doesn't sound like a very compatable system to me...


2. Done. NOW is a better way. NOW isn't the only Resource Based Economy "idea" out there, but it seems to be the only one that offers a solution for getting from here to there.

In your opinion it is a better way, I point to similar systems and their spectacular failure and say that based on this, it won't work.


3. I'd like to see the theory tested with a willing population. I know it will work.

it *might* work with a willing population - but how do you make the entire population willing? That would require either a group of like minded individual to form a new independant colony somewhere OR it would require North Korea style Propanganda - so what is worse? Capitalism and all its flaws or a North Korean style Utopia? I don't know about you - but I would rather hump a pineapple than Grovel to Our Glorious Leader.



True. Food, water management, waste management, "building", cleaning should be top of the tree. They give us the environment to do all of the other stuff. The rest could easily be lived without. However NOW will not directly change a single thing in regards to wants or needs... it doesn't have to, because the country will still be importing and exporting using money (because the rest of the world will be, for the time being).

Sweet - so under NOW, I can order 2 Ferraris and the Government will just supply it without me having to work for it? Awesome!

Of course this won't happen - but when happens when I do want a Car, even a reasonable car - What happened in Russia, was that you had a choice of government approved cars that you could own - all of them were shit. I cannot see how NOW will end up any different - either it is magic and will enable everyone in the country to have Ferraris, Private Jets etc. etc. OR the reality of what will happen is you will be able to choose from a list of NOW approved 'luxury' items - and if you want isn't on this list - Tough.

So yes, it WILL directly change EVERYTHING in regards for Wants - it will remove my ability to choose what I want or choose what I determine to best fit my needs.


I'm sure they are incompatible with human nature, especially as human nature doesn't exist ;)

Now you are just denying something that is easily demonstratable because it puts a Titanic sized hole in your perfect system.

Here are a few bits of Human Nature that can be easily demonstratred and for it not to be Human Nature, it would have to have less than 50% ocurence or be no better than Chance:

Mothering Instinct
Fight or Flight
Greed


So either you must refute all of the above (to prove that Human Nature catagorically does not exist) or you must conceede that there are shared facets of human nature which are the result of Evolutionary Advantageous traits which are common across all societies and cultures - if you Conceede that, then I can prove that your system wont' work, if you refuse to conceede that, then you are simply denying the overwhelming scientific, historic, anecdotal and observable evidence in order to try and fit the square peg into the round hole of NOW.

And frankly I don't know what is more dangerous - a Purely capitalist system or a system designed by people who close their eyes to what can be proved to exist



Given the number of people that will become unemployed by the removal of the financial system, perhaps those 10 or 15% will be replaced by those eager to build? Plenty of people can do the high paying jobs, but there are only so many high paying jobs. For the rest of the degree qualified, there's always a job at macca's. I care not about equality, as you say, we're not equal, but equity is another matter entirely as it brings an equality to proceedings tat money doesn't (because there are only so many high paid jobs available for instance).

Plenty of people can do High paying jobs - again you clutch at straws to bolster your arguement.

Can anyone be an Engineer? No, some people lack the Logical, Mathematical and Problem Solving skills to be an Engineer.
Can anyone be a Lawyer? No, Some people have Ethical Integrity :lol:
Can anyone be a succesful Entrepaneur? No, Some people don't have the necessary creative edge or the require drive or percerverance required.
Can anyone be an All Black? No, some people are 6 foot Islanders who can run 100 Meters in 10 seconds.

You think that there is a Scarcity in high paying jobs - actually there isn't - have you ever heard of a Lawyer struggling to find work? the reality is, that those jobs require Time, Effort, Extensive training/education and most importantly - they require certain pre-requisites, and the right combination of those pre-requisites is rare, thus the high paying jobs pay highly - to keep a hold of those with that rare combination.


The financial system is only going to be removed from the local economy. It will become entirely virtual, which is useful for if NOW fails, because you can use those records as failover. There is no major change. It far more simple than people want to accept. The financial system will still exists for the purposes of producing GDP. That has not been tried.

See above for how this will not work.


Irrespective of whether it's a $1000 or a $10000 project, a resources list would give away the extent of the project. Why use money as a measure as to whether the resources are available or not? T'would seem like yet another case of money stopping play.

No - again money is the most (currently) convieniant metric to measure a project.


What has being a saint got to do with anything? How has history shown you that. When was the last time someone fucked you over? and how many people have you dealt with? There's a huge possibility that that will continue under NOW, but one things for certain, it won't be because of the existence of money.

So what you have conceeded here (by extension and possibly without realising) is that NOW is pointless and I am right. People will still fuck each other over - this has been my point all along, that people are greedy, lazy and power hungry - and it is not the fault of Money for this - but the Fault of People. If you remove money, the problems will simply continue and probably get worse. What you are doing is blaming money for the fault of People who abuse it. If you were to Implement NOW, in time someone like you will be Blaming NOW for the same reason you blame money - because some people are Cunts.


My point was, if you keep half of the population away from the tools to learn about these things, the you limit your chances of solving the problems.

I didn't realise that the Current Financial system had abolished Schools and Learning?


There are some in the Amazon that cooperate and don't butcher each other. That and when people have a shared cause, they generally pull together and generally don't shaft each other for their own gain. However there is always that small element that will. Something NOW may not solve, but certainly it'll certainly limit the options for doing so.

Source please - Most tribes in the Amazon until recent western contact happily engaged in HeadHunting/Head Shrinking. Not to mention other forms of Human Sacrifice.


You can still learn pattern recognition, shapes, spacial awareness etc... which would lead me to believe that there are many who have learned it. As I said earlier, once the first person has that knowledge, it is passed on. I'm not saying that there aren't those who get it with minimal knowledge, but I wouldn't call it the norm.

I will not argue further on this point - you have been presented with clear and concise evidence that IQ and Knowledge are seperate entities yet you refuse to acknowledge this.

[bogan]

I'm not asking you to take me seriously. I'm asking you to take you seriously.

I do, and I take my choices seriously too. Which is why based on all I've heard about NOW, I think it is crap. You need to take that opinion on board, instead of just disregarding it.

[Bikemad]

LET GO DUDE.
i've done the research'

is that you Ed?

[oldrider]

Meanwhile ... Prime Minister Dotcom? :whistle:

[Akzle]

is that you Ed?

of all the shit ive had slung at me on kb, ive never been so fucken insulted.

[mashman]

Correct - and as I said, you could argue that there are massive incomptabilities - lets start with 99.9% of all living species are Extinct - doesn't sound like a very compatable system to me...

Things die. Some things die out when their environment is "removed". C'est la vie.



In your opinion it is a better way, I point to similar systems and their spectacular failure and say that based on this, it won't work.


The simple mental process of removing a financial system puts up benefits that the financial system can't. Anything that can happen under a financial system can happen under NOW. It's more than an opinion. Sure they may be similar, but they're not the same as all of the systems you have put forwards have run using a financial system. Apples and Oranges.



it *might* work with a willing population - but how do you make the entire population willing? That would require either a group of like minded individual to form a new independant colony somewhere OR it would require North Korea style Propanganda - so what is worse? Capitalism and all its flaws or a North Korean style Utopia? I don't know about you - but I would rather hump a pineapple than Grovel to Our Glorious Leader.


It might. I believe, given what I know, that it will. You don't make the entire population willing, you ask them and you only need 51% of them to agree to implement it. There are plenty of "like minded" people/groups that I have seen, don't know them personally, who tout a Resource Based Economy... and there is absolutely no reason that they, exclusively, need to form society. The idea is that it can work anywhere, NZ would have a head start given the Pacific/Maori (whatever group) i.e. the land isn't ours. Ugh. North Korea still uses a financial system. If you vote, you already grovel to a leader. But it isn't Utopia either. It's just a better way, or if you would prefer, it looks like a better way.



Sweet - so under NOW, I can order 2 Ferraris and the Government will just supply it without me having to work for it? Awesome!

Of course this won't happen - but when happens when I do want a Car, even a reasonable car - What happened in Russia, was that you had a choice of government approved cars that you could own - all of them were shit. I cannot see how NOW will end up any different - either it is magic and will enable everyone in the country to have Ferraris, Private Jets etc. etc. OR the reality of what will happen is you will be able to choose from a list of NOW approved 'luxury' items - and if you want isn't on this list - Tough.

So yes, it WILL directly change EVERYTHING in regards for Wants - it will remove my ability to choose what I want or choose what I determine to best fit my needs.


What government? In theory yes, we could all drive Ferrari's.

If you want a car, cars sitting on the forecourt will be free. Kinda pointless having cars sitting there doing nothing if someone wants a car innit. NOW will be "different" from the perspective that the country can currently afford to buy the range of cars from overseas that it usually does i.e. the import money is there to buy different cars. Once upon a time, before I understood that we already have the services and import money in place, I did think that we'd need to select from such a list and import through a central agency. Given that the current system of getting cars will only change should the people decide that it should change, then all things should remain the same. Not everyone will want gas guzzling monsters for their travel purposes. Some may prefer a small car. I'll have a small car quite happily, but I have simple tastes and of few needs.

Your assumption isn't necessarily what the reality would be.



Now you are just denying something that is easily demonstratable because it puts a Titanic sized hole in your perfect system.

Here are a few bits of Human Nature that can be easily demonstratred and for it not to be Human Nature, it would have to have less than 50% ocurence or be no better than Chance:

Mothering Instinct
Fight or Flight
Greed

So either you must refute all of the above (to prove that Human Nature catagorically does not exist) or you must conceede that there are shared facets of human nature which are the result of Evolutionary Advantageous traits which are common across all societies and cultures - if you Conceede that, then I can prove that your system wont' work, if you refuse to conceede that, then you are simply denying the overwhelming scientific, historic, anecdotal and observable evidence in order to try and fit the square peg into the round hole of NOW.

And frankly I don't know what is more dangerous - a Purely capitalist system or a system designed by people who close their eyes to what can be proved to exist


Oxana Oleksandrivna Malaya. Raised by dogs, acts like a dog, but is a human being and her doctors said " that it is unlikely that she will ever be properly rehabilitated into "normal" society". Human nature is a myth.

Not all Mothers protect their young (Oxana Oleksandrivna Malaya for one).
Not everyone will fight or run given the same set of circumstances (another option is to take a beating, another is to try reason, another is to increase your numbers).
Not everyone is greedy (Ubuntu).

Consider them refuted. Yes we share traits, but they are not our nature because we react to the situation i.e. implement a behaviour that may not be consistent. NOW doesn't deal with human nature, what will be will be, people will do what they will etc... and neither of us knows for sure what will happen. If human nature was real, we could predict what was going to happen. As it isn't, because you can't say for sure, how do you know what will happen without a time machine? Kinda makes a mockery of the 2 choices you gave me.

The system hasn't been designed, yet because of the direction it will take you're already calling the architects blind? bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa.



Plenty of people can do High paying jobs - again you clutch at straws to bolster your arguement.

Can anyone be an Engineer? No, some people lack the Logical, Mathematical and Problem Solving skills to be an Engineer.
Can anyone be a Lawyer? No, Some people have Ethical Integrity
Can anyone be a succesful Entrepaneur? No, Some people don't have the necessary creative edge or the require drive or percerverance required.
Can anyone be an All Black? No, some people are 6 foot Islanders who can run 100 Meters in 10 seconds.

You think that there is a Scarcity in high paying jobs - actually there isn't - have you ever heard of a Lawyer struggling to find work? the reality is, that those jobs require Time, Effort, Extensive training/education and most importantly - they require certain pre-requisites, and the right combination of those pre-requisites is rare, thus the high paying jobs pay highly - to keep a hold of those with that rare combination.


Anyone who can learn the skills required can become anything they like. That's plenty of people. Kudos for the Lawyer jibe, made me chorttle... but serious minus points for assuming that plenty is an exaggeration.

So why aren't more people becoming lawyers or seeking out all of these vacant positions (of which there are 25 on trademe)? Perhaps they don't care about money and would rather try to do something that they enjoy? Similar for any high paid job. Perhaps the money doesn't mean anything and is just a way of getting by. Now you'll blame people for not trying eh... which begs the question: who will do the other jobs if 2 million law jobs became available and we all went and studied to be lawyers because we only gave a shit about the money? You're being silly.



See above for how this will not work.


See above for how it will.



No - again money is the most (currently) convieniant metric to measure a project.


Really. 10 logs = $20, how many logs do we need for the job, well, as I said 10. Fuck, I've only got $15 to build that bridge for joining us together so that we can make our economy more efficient... Simplified. Do 10 logs exist? Yes. Do the people exist for building the bridge? Yes. Is it a sensible thing to join those community's? Yes. Is there enough money? No. Money has only measured the financial value of the logs, nothing else.



So what you have conceeded here (by extension and possibly without realising) is that NOW is pointless and I am right. People will still fuck each other over - this has been my point all along, that people are greedy, lazy and power hungry - and it is not the fault of Money for this - but the Fault of People. If you remove money, the problems will simply continue and probably get worse. What you are doing is blaming money for the fault of People who abuse it. If you were to Implement NOW, in time someone like you will be Blaming NOW for the same reason you blame money - because some people are Cunts.


I fail to see how I said NOW was pointless, moreoover I said that there was still the possibility of bad people doing morally questionable things. The rest is all in your head. What NOW does do is stop virtually, pun intended for those who grasp the concept, all financial crime (ya know, muggings, theft for drugs/gain/tv's etc...). Hardly pointless and as people are after the money. This will not stop people being cunts, but it will remove a mechanism for triggering that behaviour. Money is the problem.



Source please - Most tribes in the Amazon until recent western contact happily engaged in HeadHunting/Head Shrinking. Not to mention other forms of Human Sacrifice.


Find your own source. I say some, you say most. Didn't say they were perfect, but by your own admission you have said that they are "evolving" given their contact with the west. Isn't head shrinking and human sacrifice human nature?



I will not argue further on this point - you have been presented with clear and concise evidence that IQ and Knowledge are seperate entities yet you refuse to acknowledge this.


:killingme@evidence.

[mashman]

I do, and I take my choices seriously too. Which is why based on all I've heard about NOW, I think it is crap. You need to take that opinion on board, instead of just disregarding it.

I'm not disregarding it. Fuck knows why you would come to that conclusion given that I've answered the questions you've asked etc... There's just no pleasing some people.

[bogan]

I'm not disregarding it. Fuck knows why you would come to that conclusion given that I've answered the questions you've asked etc... There's just no pleasing some people.

Because you keep ignoring it an going around in circles, when I say you need to provide more evidence; if you were actually taking my point on board that wouldn't lead to "aw c'mon just give it a try" and then much warbling about how good it is but still not backed by any evidence.

[mashman]

Because you keep ignoring it an going around in circles, when I say you need to provide more evidence; if you were actually taking my point on board that wouldn't lead to "aw c'mon just give it a try" and then much warbling about how good it is but still not backed by any evidence.

No. I give you answers that you don't consider to be viable, it's you that classes them as me going around in circles. Furthermore, you're not using evidence either. If neither of us have a crystal ball, then there are no guarantees... pot kettle black? And given the evidence that the financial marketeers have, surely you would think that they could avoid recession, pay people more, get rid of poverty, provide free healthcare, provide free education and generally sort their shit out... after all, the major problems are due to a lack of money, just about the only infinite thing on the planet. Yet they don't.

What am I doing that is so different to the way that things are currently done? At its highest level, all NOW is doing is removing the physical financial system and virtualising it. Everything else that ya'll keep coming up with based on a hypothetical change. Hardly surprising that my answers are hypothetical. I'd say cut me some slack given the above, but why would you? Is your hypothesis so much more accurate than mine? I'm gonna say no and you're gonna call that denial... lose lose. Fortunately I know better :bleh:

[BoristheBiter]

There's just no pleasing some people.

And that there is why you guys will carry on going around in circles.





Oh fuck what have I done?

[mashman]

And that there is why you guys will carry on going around in circles.





Oh fuck what have I done?

bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaa... oh my, you tickled my funny bone :shifty:

[Akzle]

heheh. found this:
http://freedomfromgovernment.us/how-i-can-tell-you-are-a-slave-in-less-than-2-sentences/

to anyone who needs to be told "fuck you" : Fuck You.

[mashman]

heheh. found this:
http://freedomfromgovernment.us/how-i-can-tell-you-are-a-slave-in-less-than-2-sentences/

to anyone who needs to be told "fuck you" : Fuck You.

I got to paragraph 3 and let loose the laughter of which they go on to talk about a bit prematurely when I read "Now, please stretch your imagination". Given the debate of the last few days/years, and given the lack of imagination on display, I doubt anyone will read it. Why bother to educate oneself when one knows everything already eh. Like knowledge is enough...

Anyways, I can't state such a thing without evidence, coz peeps will get all defensive. So, some smart dude said “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”. That smart dude was Einstein.

Some other smart dude said "You're framing your thoughts by what already is".

Given the words of them thar smart dudes, there's enough evidence there to prove that there is a distinct lack of imagination among the knockers.

Of course I'll read it as I have an imagination and seek further education. Thanks for the link, looks interesting

[Akzle]

I doubt anyone will read it. Why bother to educate oneself when one knows everything already eh.

jeesus, i didn't realise how f@cking long it is. sorry. (the salient points are in bold, and have pictures :) )

i'm also debugging article 6 of the UN human rights thing. and kiwisfirst.co.nz
ahhhh. internets.

[mashman]

jeesus, i didn't realise how f@cking long it is. sorry. (the salient points are in bold, and have pictures :) )

i'm also debugging article 6 of the UN human rights thing. and kiwisfirst.co.nz
ahhhh. internets.

:killingme... As an almost free man, I only have to read as much of it as I want innit. But your apology was sweet.

heh... I'm currently wading through 13 hours of vid explaining how the law is a lie because of the misuse of language. Works well with your doc, but the vidz has lotz of scripturz in them to aid explanation and make some form of sense. Have fun dear.

[Akzle]

heh... I'm currently wading through 13 hours of vid

ode to bandwidth.

1gb a month.

[mashman]

ode to bandwidth.

1gb a month.

You poor thing. You should vote for KDC, he can help you


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

[bogan]

No. I give you answers that you don't consider to be viable, it's you that classes them as me going around in circles.

Well how else would you class giving me the same half assed "i dunno" answer? certainly isn't moving forward.

You realise NOW is not the only alternative to the current system, if change were ever desired, you'd still have to put your one ahead of the others, and that would take evidence. I do have evidence that the financial system results in viable employments number and technological progress; it's called taking off you blinkers.

[bogan]

woops, wrong thread

[scumdog]

This thread is sorta like retards vs drongos...



I love it, it's kinda like a modern Christians Vs lions...without the blood or pain to the lions!:lol:

[mashman]

Well how else would you class giving me the same half assed "i dunno" answer? certainly isn't moving forward.

You realise NOW is not the only alternative to the current system, if change were ever desired, you'd still have to put your one ahead of the others, and that would take evidence. I do have evidence that the financial system results in viable employments number and technological progress; it's called taking off you blinkers.

You get I dunno when you don't accept what I have already offered. You accept neither the idea nor the impossible to predict :laugh:. It's a HUGE subject that has been simplified for the purposes of debate and that debate is a 2 way street... or is supposed to be.

Removal of the financial system will have better outcomes for many issues that suffer at the hands of budget constraint. That's a fact.
The way NOW is removing the financial system does not mean that things have to change, but that's up to the people. That's a fact.
The people need to be asked and to vote on it. That's a fact.
IF people agree to carry on exactly the way they currently are i.e. working habits, spending habits, contribution and they fulfill that "promise", then NOW will work. That's a fact.
NOW makes provision for lots of people who lie. IF too many people lie and we hit a certain threshold that is predetermined by the "experts", then we will have to revert to the financial system. Again, fact.

Everything else (give or take) is a black box and is going to be the how/procedural/logistics etc... The financial system and all of its data can't predict the future and they have infinite resources and research. So essentially, it's a black box too. Both black boxes require a leap of imagination, faith, confidence, buy in, whatever you want to call it. At that point in time, that's all up to us as individuals to take it as we will.

Of course I realise NOW isn't the only alternative. Social Credit, LVT, Unconditional Basic Income, Debt Jubilee, an internal currency, communism (snigger), financial transaction tax, The Venus Project, Zeitgeist Movement, the Ubuntu movement, Occupy, Wave of Action etc... there are huge numbers of alternatives. Some using a financial system, some not. As for putting NOW ahead of any of them, why would I? Yes if I had to directly compete, but I'd much rather cooperate.

:killingme@blinkers... I don't class a system that has 55% of the population claiming benefits as viable, especially when you consider that that technological advancement you talk of has replaced jobs as it has spurred ahead. Has your evidence factored that in? Coz it don't look like it. Talk about gaps. In fact I read an article, wait, I'll go find it and you can read it yourself. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2542113/Will-robot-jobocalypse-make-YOU-obsolete-2014-year-droid-takes-job-say-experts.html). Stop being silly.

[mashman]

This thread is sorta like retards vs drongos...



I love it, it's kinda like a modern Christians Vs lions...without the blood or pain to the lions!:lol:

Cops will have less work to do as financially related crime won't exist... which means more hours riding motorcycles, or scoping out the next car, or fushun etc... It'll be like high noon at the donut shop.

[scumdog]

Cops will have less work to do as financially related crime won't exist... which means more hours riding motorcycles, or scoping out the next car, or fushun etc... It'll be like high noon at the donut shop.

As long as the rapes, murders and domestic violence also drops off....:weep:

[bogan]

You get I dunno

When you say things like this


My assumption is that people would contribute to the well being of their country. I can't guarantee that.

You can't try and build a coherent argument all while ignoring the most basic of flaws. End of fucking story.

[Scuba_Steve]

As long as the rapes, murders and domestic violence also drops off....:weep:

well you guys only bother with 1 of those 3 anyways, you gotta do something to justify your job don't cha?

[mashman]

As long as the rapes, murders and domestic violence also drops off....:weep:

That would be a miracle, albeit a welcome one.


When you say things like this

You can't try and build a coherent argument all while ignoring the most basic of flaws. End of fucking story.

Given your last effort, ya know, your so called evidence in regards to employment and technology, you probably wouldn't know a coherent argument if it came up and bit yer erse... at least I'm being honest about the potential for NOW to fail. But, "IF people agree to carry on exactly the way they currently are i.e. working habits, spending habits, contribution and they fulfill that "promise", then NOW will work. That's a fact.". I do not have control over the population in order to give that guarantee... funnily enough though, neither does the govt. Speaking of which, where are those 170,000 jobs that they promised?

[Ocean1]

Speaking of which, where are those 170,000 jobs that they promised?

Exactly where they've always been, waiting for someone to work hard enough to earn them.

As for "NOW", if' it works for all it'll work for a few. So dump your cash do it or stfu.

[scumdog]

well you guys only bother with 1 of those 3 anyways, you gotta do something to justify your job don't cha?

Expecting a bit much aincha???

[mashman]

Exactly where they've always been, waiting for someone to work hard enough to earn them.

As for "NOW", if' it works for all it'll work for a few. So dump your cash do it or stfu.

You mean nowhere near where anyone lives... I'm going for, the 170,000 jobs that the govt promised to create were just an election bribe for the mindless morons that voted for them. Having said that, there's still time to fudge the figures and to use the same line again for the sheeple to follow... or indeed for them to apologise and say they'll give it top priority this time around.

That is a possibility. Why would I put my family at that disadvantage under the current system? that's just silly. And no, I shan't STFU... so f u u fin fer.

[Ocean1]

You mean nowhere near where anyone lives... I'm going for, the 170,000 jobs that the govt promised to create were just an election bribe for the mindless morons that voted for them. Having said that, there's still time to fudge the figures and to use the same line again for the sheeple to follow... or indeed for them to apologise and say they'll give it top priority this time around.

And based on your usual performance you're going for that based on the fact that you really really want it to be true.

Rather than accept that there's jobs for anyone that wants to put them out so far as to get off their arses and get them.


That is a possibility. Why would I put my family at that disadvantage under the current system?

For the same reason your puerile fairy story would put every hard working family at a disadvantage. You're a fucking idiot.

[mashman]

And based on your usual performance you're going for that based on the fact that you really really want it to be true.

Rather than accept that there's jobs for anyone that wants to put them out so far as to get off their arses and get them.

For the same reason your puerile fairy story would put every hard working family at a disadvantage. You're a fucking idiot.

OMG I'm guessing. So are you. Deal with it.

I accept there are jobs out there... unfortunately for you even Bennett stated that there aren't enough jobs for people, let alone well paying ones.

To use one of the arguments that is consistently thrown against NOW: why the fuck should anyone lower themselves to taking a job that does not value their effort (let alone allow them to pay the bills free and clear of subsidy) in the way that they believe their effort should be rewarded? That would put hard working family's at a disadvantage. You're a fuckin idiot and with statements like the above, you're a contender for top spot.

[TheDemonLord]

H'okay - Retort Time And this is going to be a long one


Things die. Some things die out when their environment is "removed". C'est la vie.

That a pretty incompatible system if 99.9% of it has to be destroyed so that 0.1% can exist


The simple mental process of removing a financial system puts up benefits that the financial system can't. Anything that can happen under a financial system can happen under NOW. It's more than an opinion. Sure they may be similar, but they're not the same as all of the systems you have put forwards have run using a financial system. Apples and Oranges.

They were more than Similar - Regardless of whether it is the State, NOW or some other Entity, when the idea of a single entity supplying resources to the things that were needed - the system failed and resulted in a collapse of the country.

The reason for the Collapse was people - and in all I have read on NOW there is not a single thing that talks about how it deals with People better than the current Financial system



It might. I believe, given what I know, that it will. You don't make the entire population willing, you ask them and you only need 51% of them to agree to implement it. There are plenty of "like minded" people/groups that I have seen, don't know them personally, who tout a Resource Based Economy... and there is absolutely no reason that they, exclusively, need to form society. The idea is that it can work anywhere, NZ would have a head start given the Pacific/Maori (whatever group) i.e. the land isn't ours. Ugh. North Korea still uses a financial system. If you vote, you already grovel to a leader. But it isn't Utopia either. It's just a better way, or if you would prefer, it looks like a better way.

I don't Vote remember... I am saving the longer retort for below




What government? In theory yes, we could all drive Ferrari's.

If you want a car, cars sitting on the forecourt will be free. Kinda pointless having cars sitting there doing nothing if someone wants a car innit. NOW will be "different" from the perspective that the country can currently afford to buy the range of cars from overseas that it usually does i.e. the import money is there to buy different cars. Once upon a time, before I understood that we already have the services and import money in place, I did think that we'd need to select from such a list and import through a central agency. Given that the current system of getting cars will only change should the people decide that it should change, then all things should remain the same. Not everyone will want gas guzzling monsters for their travel purposes. Some may prefer a small car. I'll have a small car quite happily, but I have simple tastes and of few needs.

Your assumption isn't necessarily what the reality would be.

Good, Good - now this is a chance to bust out some maths to show how truly Deluded this is and how if you think in Theory under a NOW type system we could all drive Ferraris you clearly do not understand the ramifications of what would happen under a NOW system and thus do not understand why it will fail miserably.

So - you have asserted that the Centralised Bank under the NOW system will still use Money to trade with the rest of the world. Thus any Imported goods/services will need to be paid for while the rest of the world uses the current Financial System.

Enter NZ's GDP:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/gdp-per-capita-ppp

Per Capita in a Year (last year) is equal to $25,689.46

But Hell - I will Triple it because if NOW works the way you say it will, everyone will be super happy and super efficient at their work, and I won't even account for the Lost GDP from the Financial Sector - this gives us a total of $77,068.38 per person, per year

Cost of a new Ferrari $300,000USD - which means in NZD terms: $364,018.00

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_FF)

But thats okay - not everyone in NZD can drive so using some stats from here:

http://m.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/Children/census-snapshot-children.aspx and extrapolating them out - approximately 1/4 of NZ is under 15 (the driving age) so lets increase our tripled GDP value to account for this $102,757.84 and then lets assume that everyone only needs one Car (cause this is NZ and everyone has 2 cars) so we will multiply that by 2

which gives us: $205,515.68 - we only around half of the way to a cost of a New Ferrari for everyone in the country (assuming of course that Ferrari could meet the demand) which means that no, NOW will never be able to supply new Ferraris to everyone.

Now you will note that I deliberately skewed all those numbers in NOW's favour and it still came up woefully short - but thats okay lets assume that everyone wants just a nice midrange sedan car for their car average cost new - around $40,000 to $50,000 which is much less than our GDP - thus the NOW central bank/government/Thing will have to place limits on the amount of stuff someone can import from overseas in a year otherwise it will bankrupt the system it will also have to set upper limits on the value of items you can import so someone can't just go and import a brand new Learjet (retailing at a cool $50 Mil USD) and take more than their fair share.

Thus the only way that NOW could work would be by removing full consumer choice, setting time limits and as I stated earlier having a list of approved items that you can get - it might not say anything in NOWs Dogma about this - but it is the only way it will work.

Thus with the help of some Maths - your system and your argument (it will work with full choice and Ferrari's for everyone) has a big enough hole in it that I could drive a Universe through it,

QED

PS - Why would people NOT choose Gas Guzzlers if you didn't have to Pay for Gas?



Oxana Oleksandrivna Malaya. Raised by dogs, acts like a dog, but is a human being and her doctors said " that it is unlikely that she will ever be properly rehabilitated into "normal" society". Human nature is a myth.

Not all Mothers protect their young (Oxana Oleksandrivna Malaya for one).
Not everyone will fight or run given the same set of circumstances (another option is to take a beating, another is to try reason, another is to increase your numbers).
Not everyone is greedy (Ubuntu).

Consider them refuted. Yes we share traits, but they are not our nature because we react to the situation i.e. implement a behaviour that may not be consistent. NOW doesn't deal with human nature, what will be will be, people will do what they will etc... and neither of us knows for sure what will happen. If human nature was real, we could predict what was going to happen. As it isn't, because you can't say for sure, how do you know what will happen without a time machine? Kinda makes a mockery of the 2 choices you gave me.

Dogs have Hierachial structures (Packs with the Alpha at the top)
Dogs (without training) are Aggressive and Territorial to each other
Dogs are possesive and Greedy

So actually Oxana kinda proves my point - these Basic traits are evolutionary in Origin, are shared by ALL social animals - and Humans (as Social Animals) share them - why else was Oxana able to be raised by Dogs? Because her Human Nature fits rather snuggly with Dog Nature (this is also why we were able to Domesticate dogs - because we are both Social Animals)

Now you will also note in my original post I said "more than 50% or no better than Chance" which you conveniently ignored - for Every Facet of Human Nature, I can find an Exception - but the reality is that the exceptions make up a tiny percentage of the population - if Mothering Instinct wasn't part of Human Nature - we would see up to and over of 50% of mothers abandoning/killing/ignoring their Children - even in NZ with the Terrible Child Abuse record - we are still not anywhere near that percentage.

Since it is shared by such a high percentage of ALL peoples from all areas of the Globe - it can be considered a common trait and thus can be called Human Nature. To use an Analogy - your argument is the same as if you were trying to convince me that Arms aren't standard on humans because some Babies are born without Limbs.

We can predict in some situations with a high degree of Accuracy what will happen - a really good example of this is Serial Killer Profiling.

I can predict what will happen to some degree by looking at the past, looking at similar situations and by making a few logical Deductions. Your argument can be boiled down to "you don't know what will happen until you try it" so then a Challenge then - go look down the barrel of a Loaded firearm and Pull the trigger - After all, you can't know without trying it right?


The system hasn't been designed, yet because of the direction it will take you're already calling the architects blind? bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa.

So then, stop arguing, Design the System in Full and come back to me when you have a fully thought out and Designed system (which I will then subject to critical analyses)




Anyone who can learn the skills required can become anything they like. That's plenty of people. Kudos for the Lawyer jibe, made me chorttle... but serious minus points for assuming that plenty is an exaggeration.

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

If that was the Case - things like the SAS selection course wouldn't have the extremely high drop out rate - Not anyone can learn the skills to become anything they like.

Plenty is a relative term in this case - if becoming a Lawyer was easy, there would be lots of Lawyers and the demand for lawyers would dictate that they wouldn't be paid so highly. Flipping Burgers is easy - any numbskull can do it, thus they aren't paid highly and there is Never a 'Burger Flipper' shortage. but in many High paying jobs there is a massive Shortage - my own field of IT for example does not have enough people to fill all the roles - thus I get paid a shit load by my company to make sure I don't move else where.



So why aren't more people becoming lawyers or seeking out all of these vacant positions (of which there are 25 on trademe)? Perhaps they don't care about money and would rather try to do something that they enjoy? Similar for any high paid job. Perhaps the money doesn't mean anything and is just a way of getting by. Now you'll blame people for not trying eh... which begs the question: who will do the other jobs if 2 million law jobs became available and we all went and studied to be lawyers because we only gave a shit about the money? You're being silly.

Because being a Lawyer is difficult - it takes time, Sacrifice, Patience, Intelligence, Dubious Morals, Very high Academic Marks.

Actually I am not being silly - what would happen in a Free Market economy is that the Wage of those 2 million lost jobs would increase as an incentive for people to work them - Basic Economics of Supply and Demand - if there is an excess in Demand and a shortage in Supply - the Price goes up.




I fail to see how I said NOW was pointless, moreoover I said that there was still the possibility of bad people doing morally questionable things. The rest is all in your head. What NOW does do is stop virtually, pun intended for those who grasp the concept, all financial crime (ya know, muggings, theft for drugs/gain/tv's etc...). Hardly pointless and as people are after the money. This will not stop people being cunts, but it will remove a mechanism for triggering that behaviour. Money is the problem.

Even if you remove a Single Mechanism for triggering a Behavior - it will still get triggered by other Mechanisms, proving that it is not the Trigger that is the Problem, the underlying behavior is the problem. Money is not the problem and since NOW doesn't fix People being Cunts, it is pointless in the manner in which you describe - why go through all these changes if the problems will keep occuring? Its not a better solution unless it addresses the current problems and as you rightfully pointed out - People will still be Cunts under NOW.




Find your own source. I say some, you say most. Didn't say they were perfect, but by your own admission you have said that they are "evolving" given their contact with the west. Isn't head shrinking and human sacrifice human nature?

That isn't how a Debate works - you asserted something is X, then the burden of Proof falls to you to prove it. Can't provide a source? then "That which is submitted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence"

Head Shrinking and Human Sacrifice are manifestations of underlying Human Nature - every culture at one point or another has engaged in Human Sacrifice - normally to appease God(s) or to ensure the prosperity of the Tribe/Village - the notion that if you want something good to happen, you have to sacrifice something of Value is a pretty universal concept (value could mean money, could mean time, or 100 years ago in the Amazon in a time of Famine could be your first born)



:killingme@evidence.

I see now that I am arguing with a Zealot with Faith - The standard of proof which you require to contradict your claims is Infinite, yet the standard of Proof you require to support your claims is infinitesimal. I see in your words the same as I see from a Religious Fanatic, no theory or proof or Evidence will ever be good enough when it comes to disproving because:


It might. I believe, given what I know, that it will.

And heed this - blind Faith to ANY system is a one way path down to oblivion, I am sure you will want proof of this, so I will ask you - look at history and the Horrors committed in the name of Faith and ask yourself if this is not proof enough, what will be?

a few Final question then - How does international Travel work in the NOW System as when you go overseas - you still need money. Does the NOW OmniBank provide you with all the Cash you require at the Border? and how does International Tourism work (one of NZ's Key industries)

If I was a tourist and found I could pick up a car in NZ without paying for it - I would pickup several, ship them overseas and sell them at an immense profit.

How would our consumer culture change under NOW? if there is no Financial incentive to repair or rebuild - people will just replace (because that is easier). If I can just go to a dealer and pickup a car for free - why would I bother taking my car to a Panel Beater after it got a Scratch? there is no financial incentive or disadvantage not to, and if I can get a new car there and then instead of having to wait for the panel beater - why would I inconvenience myself?

Finally - what safeguard(s) is there to stop the NOW OmniCorporation from turning Malevolent? In a true free Market Economy the Safeguard is that people will move their business to a competitor - yet that can't happen under NOW - so what Safeguard is there? that the Heads of this organization will somehow remain good? Remember - All power Corrupts, and if you think the heads of this organization will turn into anything other than the heads of the current system which you decree as being so wrong - well, let's just say I hope to be around then to laugh and say 'I told you so"

[oldrider]

So I guess your not keen on NOW then? :yawn:

[BoristheBiter]

This thread is sorta like retards vs drongos...



I love it, it's kinda like a modern Christians Vs lions...without the blood or pain to the lions!:lol:

I wondered why is was becoming so boring.

[Ocean1]

OMG I'm guessing. So are you. Deal with it.

I made no guesses whatsoever, you're the one who reckons there aren't any more jobs. All I did was point out that you didn't have a clue and you were pulling shit out of your arse to suit your own agenda. Again.


I accept there are jobs out there... unfortunately for you even Bennett stated that there aren't enough jobs for people, let alone well paying ones.

I have a job. Nothing unfortunate about it, I earned it and I continue to earn what it pays. If there's people unemployed it's because there's an artificial lower limit in how much jobs can pay. Arsehole minimum wage controls and there'd be plenty of jobs for those who's work isn't worth paying much for.


To use one of the arguments that is consistently thrown against NOW: why the fuck should anyone lower themselves to taking a job that does not value their effort (let alone allow them to pay the bills free and clear of subsidy) in the way that they believe their effort should be rewarded? That would put hard working family's at a disadvantage. You're a fuckin idiot and with statements like the above, you're a contender for top spot.

Because it's not the job that defines the value of the person doing the work, it's the person paying for it: the market. Which defines the root of your problem, you see everyone's work effort as being identical in value, which is not only factually but ethically wrong. The fact that so many believe that their effort should be rewarded at so much more than anyone else is prepared to pay for is the real cause of unemployment, not the evel corporations and banks conspiring against them.

So, given that in your fevered imaginings hard working well trained and clever people don't benefit any more than lazy, uneducated and stupid people, and that you not only expect such a system to "work" but insist that it's a perfectly fair and reasonable one then I'd say it's tolerably obvious that your level of idiocy trumps pretty much anything you might like to compare it with.

[oldrider]

There is nothing wrong with our current monetary system in itself and all faults can or could be addressed and sorted if the forces that cause them were disenfranchised!

It is claimed by many that the same forces are at work in many aspects of every day life around the world militarily politically and otherwise!

An understanding of the origins and objectives of these mysterious forces may be gained here: http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-83-page-report-AIPAC-controls-USA.pdf

Most observers can judge for themselves the authenticy/accuracy of the document because they have been witness to the events and the outcomes in their life times.

It's a long compelling read but "half" of it is reference material supporting the conclussion that the writers have come to.

It may well even add light to some questions readers may have had about the events themselves at the time.

[mashman]

That a pretty incompatible system if 99.9% of it has to be destroyed so that 0.1% can exist


If it's a natural progression it's a natural progression. Is it possible that over the claimed 4.7 billion years that in comparison to today that 99.9% of species are extinct?



They were more than Similar - Regardless of whether it is the State, NOW or some other Entity, when the idea of a single entity supplying resources to the things that were needed - the system failed and resulted in a collapse of the country.

The reason for the Collapse was people - and in all I have read on NOW there is not a single thing that talks about how it deals with People better than the current Financial system


Who said there was going to be a single entity supplying resources? Not the same.

People are more than capable of looking after themselves and if you provide an environment that allows them to focus on cooperation, you WILL see a positive shift in behaviour.



I don't Vote remember... I am saving the longer retort for below


Then you'd be in the same position as me and a large chunk of the population, we have to make do with whoever ends up governing... or come up with something else that would be worth voting for.




Good, Good - now this is a chance to bust out some maths to show how truly Deluded this is and how if you think in Theory under a NOW type system we could all drive Ferraris you clearly do not understand the ramifications of what would happen under a NOW system and thus do not understand why it will fail miserably.

So - you have asserted that the Centralised Bank under the NOW system will still use Money to trade with the rest of the world. Thus any Imported goods/services will need to be paid for while the rest of the world uses the current Financial System.

Enter NZ's GDP:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-...per-capita-ppp

Per Capita in a Year (last year) is equal to $25,689.46

But Hell - I will Triple it because if NOW works the way you say it will, everyone will be super happy and super efficient at their work, and I won't even account for the Lost GDP from the Financial Sector - this gives us a total of $77,068.38 per person, per year

Cost of a new Ferrari $300,000USD - which means in NZD terms: $364,018.00

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_FF)

But thats okay - not everyone in NZD can drive so using some stats from here:

http://m.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_st...-children.aspx and extrapolating them out - approximately 1/4 of NZ is under 15 (the driving age) so lets increase our tripled GDP value to account for this $102,757.84 and then lets assume that everyone only needs one Car (cause this is NZ and everyone has 2 cars) so we will multiply that by 2

which gives us: $205,515.68 - we only around half of the way to a cost of a New Ferrari for everyone in the country (assuming of course that Ferrari could meet the demand) which means that no, NOW will never be able to supply new Ferraris to everyone.

Now you will note that I deliberately skewed all those numbers in NOW's favour and it still came up woefully short - but thats okay lets assume that everyone wants just a nice midrange sedan car for their car average cost new - around $40,000 to $50,000 which is much less than our GDP - thus the NOW central bank/government/Thing will have to place limits on the amount of stuff someone can import from overseas in a year otherwise it will bankrupt the system it will also have to set upper limits on the value of items you can import so someone can't just go and import a brand new Learjet (retailing at a cool $50 Mil USD) and take more than their fair share.

Thus the only way that NOW could work would be by removing full consumer choice, setting time limits and as I stated earlier having a list of approved items that you can get - it might not say anything in NOWs Dogma about this - but it is the only way it will work.

Thus with the help of some Maths - your system and your argument (it will work with full choice and Ferrari's for everyone) has a big enough hole in it that I could drive a Universe through it,

QED

PS - Why would people NOT choose Gas Guzzlers if you didn't have to Pay for Gas?


Who said anything about new Ferrari's? One thing you fail to take into account is that some people may well be happy with the 5k - 10k car that gets them from A to B. How many cars are already in the country? How many people who need cars don't have them? I ask from the perspective that not everyone drives into or out of town. They may only go to the station etc...

So you have problems exercising personal responsibility for the good of your fellow country men. In theory it IS possible to get everyone a car. It may not be the best car in the world, but it's a car, get over it. It's even possible, in theory, to for all of us to drive Ferrari's, but a you highlight, we may only end up getting 10 or 20 into the country each year because other country's will be buying them... and from what I know of Ferrari ownership, you get invited to buy new one's. But yeah, if you can;t be personally responsible for the good of your fellow country men, maybe you'll find your Ferrari on fire some day. Not through envy, but revenge for you being an inconsiderate wanker.

If there aren't a list of specific providers currently, then NOW won't need them easier because the mechanisms and the products are already in place to bring in the variants. Who knows, maybe having a preferred supplier for certain items NZ may get a better deal for a better product.

The GDP must remain a close to the current GDP as possible to avoid financial shocks around the world.

So NO, removing customer choice has nothing to do with NOW.

:killingme QED? that's gold man, pure gold.

PS - It's called personal responsibility.



Dogs have Hierachial structures (Packs with the Alpha at the top)
Dogs (without training) are Aggressive and Territorial to each other
Dogs are possesive and Greedy

So actually Oxana kinda proves my point - these Basic traits are evolutionary in Origin, are shared by ALL social animals - and Humans (as Social Animals) share them - why else was Oxana able to be raised by Dogs? Because her Human Nature fits rather snuggly with Dog Nature (this is also why we were able to Domesticate dogs - because we are both Social Animals)

Now you will also note in my original post I said "more than 50% or no better than Chance" which you conveniently ignored - for Every Facet of Human Nature, I can find an Exception - but the reality is that the exceptions make up a tiny percentage of the population - if Mothering Instinct wasn't part of Human Nature - we would see up to and over of 50% of mothers abandoning/killing/ignoring their Children - even in NZ with the Terrible Child Abuse record - we are still not anywhere near that percentage.

Since it is shared by such a high percentage of ALL peoples from all areas of the Globe - it can be considered a common trait and thus can be called Human Nature. To use an Analogy - your argument is the same as if you were trying to convince me that Arms aren't standard on humans because some Babies are born without Limbs.

We can predict in some situations with a high degree of Accuracy what will happen - a really good example of this is Serial Killer Profiling.

I can predict what will happen to some degree by looking at the past, looking at similar situations and by making a few logical Deductions. Your argument can be boiled down to "you don't know what will happen until you try it" so then a Challenge then - go look down the barrel of a Loaded firearm and Pull the trigger - After all, you can't know without trying it right?


Just showing that human nature isn't inate and that it is learned behaviour. Once upon a time men bludgeoned children that aren't there own. They don't any more. Their behaviour has changed. It can't change if it's human nature... coz if human nature changes, then you're shifting the goal posts to suit the new behaviour. Human nature is learned behaviour, nothing more, nothing less... this is evidence by people thinking differently and acting differently to the same situation depending on how they feel at the time.

I'm not saying that behaviour can't be predicted... but you are predicting behaviour, not human nature.



So then, stop arguing, Design the System in Full and come back to me when you have a fully thought out and Designed system (which I will then subject to critical analyses)


Once I can afford to pay people for their time, the system will get designed.



Bull. Fucking. Shit.

If that was the Case - things like the SAS selection course wouldn't have the extremely high drop out rate - Not anyone can learn the skills to become anything they like.

Plenty is a relative term in this case - if becoming a Lawyer was easy, there would be lots of Lawyers and the demand for lawyers would dictate that they wouldn't be paid so highly. Flipping Burgers is easy - any numbskull can do it, thus they aren't paid highly and there is Never a 'Burger Flipper' shortage. but in many High paying jobs there is a massive Shortage - my own field of IT for example does not have enough people to fill all the roles - thus I get paid a shit load by my company to make sure I don't move else where.


The skills can be learned, not being the demonstratable best does not mean you do not have the skills. You demonstrate this point adequately, by claiming that if being a lawyer was easy, we'd all be laywers. According to your logic, everyone would want to be a lawyer because it's easy. Why aren't we all grass cutters then? Oh this one again... lawyers are more important than burger slippers this time. Ugh... is a lawyer more important than a bin man or a cleaner or a nurse or a teacher or a farmer etc... they must be, coz they get paid more.



Because being a Lawyer is difficult - it takes time, Sacrifice, Patience, Intelligence, Dubious Morals, Very high Academic Marks.

Actually I am not being silly - what would happen in a Free Market economy is that the Wage of those 2 million lost jobs would increase as an incentive for people to work them - Basic Economics of Supply and Demand - if there is an excess in Demand and a shortage in Supply - the Price goes up.


No it doesn't. It takes knowledge of the law and some skill to apply it. Period!

Is that before or after we've all died out coz lawyers get paid well? what about the Doctors and Nurses that have become Lawyers instead? Or the sewerage worker or bin men? supply and demand does not drive the choices of the majority of people... just those who want money. Those actions take money away from people who work just as long hours and just as hard.



Even if you remove a Single Mechanism for triggering a Behavior - it will still get triggered by other Mechanisms, proving that it is not the Trigger that is the Problem, the underlying behavior is the problem. Money is not the problem and since NOW doesn't fix People being Cunts, it is pointless in the manner in which you describe - why go through all these changes if the problems will keep occuring? Its not a better solution unless it addresses the current problems and as you rightfully pointed out - People will still be Cunts under NOW.


In which case... as the majority of people aren't cunts and will always remain non-cunty, then NOW won't have any issues with people not doing what they are currently doing. I seem to remember something about prisoners helping out during the Chch earthquake. Usually you have to be a cunt to end up in jail. OH FUCK NO... you're wrong again in your perception of the drivers of human behaviour. Our immediate environment drives our behaviour. It is not inate in our action, it is not human nature. The funny thing is, when I say that people will still be cunts under NOW, it'll be those who decide that they don't want to do anything because others are getting stuff for free, not necessarily the current crop of cunts.



That isn't how a Debate works - you asserted something is X, then the burden of Proof falls to you to prove it. Can't provide a source? then "That which is submitted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence"

Head Shrinking and Human Sacrifice are manifestations of underlying Human Nature - every culture at one point or another has engaged in Human Sacrifice - normally to appease God(s) or to ensure the prosperity of the Tribe/Village - the notion that if you want something good to happen, you have to sacrifice something of Value is a pretty universal concept (value could mean money, could mean time, or 100 years ago in the Amazon in a time of Famine could be your first born)


You're asserting all over the place without evidence, yet I choose to move the debate forwards by discussing your assertion... given that there is the possibility that your assertion holds water. You go ahead and get bogged down in semantics, but I won't be apologising for not doing so. Do your own search... it ain't that I can't, it's that I won't.

Why aren't we exhibiting those behaviours anymore if we cannot fight human nature?



I see now that I am arguing with a Zealot with Faith - The standard of proof which you require to contradict your claims is Infinite, yet the standard of Proof you require to support your claims is infinitesimal. I see in your words the same as I see from a Religious Fanatic, no theory or proof or Evidence will ever be good enough when it comes to disproving because:


No you're not. You simply have to convince me that I am incorrect. You haven't... yet. Oh, and I've already proven to myself on many occassions that I am willing to listen to reason and logic. Display some please.



And heed this - blind Faith to ANY system is a one way path down to oblivion, I am sure you will want proof of this, so I will ask you - look at history and the Horrors committed in the name of Faith and ask yourself if this is not proof enough, what will be?

a few Final question then - How does international Travel work in the NOW System as when you go overseas - you still need money. Does the NOW OmniBank provide you with all the Cash you require at the Border? and how does International Tourism work (one of NZ's Key industries)

If I was a tourist and found I could pick up a car in NZ without paying for it - I would pickup several, ship them overseas and sell them at an immense profit.

How would our consumer culture change under NOW? if there is no Financial incentive to repair or rebuild - people will just replace (because that is easier). If I can just go to a dealer and pickup a car for free - why would I bother taking my car to a Panel Beater after it got a Scratch? there is no financial incentive or disadvantage not to, and if I can get a new car there and then instead of having to wait for the panel beater - why would I inconvenience myself?

Finally - what safeguard(s) is there to stop the NOW OmniCorporation from turning Malevolent? In a true free Market Economy the Safeguard is that people will move their business to a competitor - yet that can't happen under NOW - so what Safeguard is there? that the Heads of this organization will somehow remain good? Remember - All power Corrupts, and if you think the heads of this organization will turn into anything other than the heads of the current system which you decree as being so wrong - well, let's just say I hope to be around then to laugh and say 'I told you so"


No need for proof in regards to your explanation of blind faith assertion. I agree. I can look at modern day and see the horrors committed in the name of the financial system. Similar to religion, it's a small number of zealots that start wars for their own gain... no WMD were found. The war with Iraq was over money and oil. If poverty isn't enough to prove that the financial system doesn't work, then nothing will convince you. If that is the case, then pick up a mirror and heed your own words.

International travel: You have to book a holiday right? You generally order money right? You generally have a credit card for emergencies right? It's up to you whether you try to take the piss or not. Doesn't mean that the person booking the holiday for you will though. International travel currently happens, I see no reason why it shouldn't continue in exactly the same way. If people start taking the piss, the systemin place will have to change. I have the money to go abroad every year. I haven't been out of the country, on holiday, in 4 years. We don't all need or want overseas travel. Again, personal responsibility. In regards to people coming here, think of NZ as an all inclusive resort.

So you're expecting lax border controls in regards to shipping and what is shipped?

Why wouldn't we repair or rebuild? If a repair or a rebuild is required, then why wouldn't we do it? If there is no penalty for dinging your rental car, why wouldn't you report the ding? If you can get a new car, then get a new car... who knows, if you call to say that your car is fooked, maybe someone will grab their fishing rod/gun/towel and sunscreen and drive it to you.

Why wouldn't you be able to change provider? If someone is screwing NZ Inc, then they'll go to jail for life if caught. After all, they will have screwed everyone in the country. We can't stop that happening in the not so free market economy. Trust is a bitch, but hopefully we'll learn that again. Neither system has a safeguard, just a stick if you get caught. Fortunately, if that happens, the local economy should suffer minimally... but that'll depend on the scale of the theft. You can only hope that people won't screw the country... exactly the same as currently happens. I'm sure there will be those who will go for the money grab. They currently do it and I agree that they will try to do it under NOW. Let's hope your behavioural profile will show them up before they get there.

[mashman]

So I guess your not keen on NOW then? :yawn:

Seems like they're scared of losing something. Fucked if I know what they're going to lose. No, hang on, they're scared of people getting something that they don't believe that those people deserve. Which currently happens. So much fear.

[mashman]

I made no guesses whatsoever, you're the one who reckons there aren't any more jobs. All I did was point out that you didn't have a clue and you were pulling shit out of your arse to suit your own agenda. Again.

Of course you're guessing. You reckon you've got me pegged. You've got no idea. Therefore every comment you make in regards to why I want certain things a certain way is nothing more than a guess. Pretty repetitive and boring... yet true to form. Funny though, I didn't say there weren't any more jobs, I was querying where the 170,000 jobs the govt stated they were going to create were is all. I guess that didn't suit your agenda though eh. Again.



I have a job. Nothing unfortunate about it, I earned it and I continue to earn what it pays. If there's people unemployed it's because there's an artificial lower limit in how much jobs can pay. Arsehole minimum wage controls and there'd be plenty of jobs for those who's work isn't worth paying much for.

Ok, we can change the subject if you like... which was Bennett saying that there weren't enough jobs available for everyone. Somethingabout suiting ones agenda rattling around.... meh. Go fish. Money is infinite, unless you're talking of another artificial low limit? :rofl:@ditching the minimum wage as being a stimulus. I don't agree with slavery and neither do many others, bawss.



Because it's not the job that defines the value of the person doing the work, it's the person paying for it: the market. Which defines the root of your problem, you see everyone's work effort as being identical in value, which is not only factually but ethically wrong. The fact that so many believe that their effort should be rewarded at so much more than anyone else is prepared to pay for is the real cause of unemployment, not the evel corporations and banks conspiring against them.

So, given that in your fevered imaginings hard working well trained and clever people don't benefit any more than lazy, uneducated and stupid people, and that you not only expect such a system to "work" but insist that it's a perfectly fair and reasonable one then I'd say it's tolerably obvious that your level of idiocy trumps pretty much anything you might like to compare it with.

Ethically wrong? There's your problem right there... your entitlement complex. Yeah, squirreling trillions in offshore accounts has nothing to do with the amount of money available for job creation. Whilst you cold hearted logic makes a perverse sense, valuing people so that they have to be susidised by the public might have something to do with unemployment. Your beloved free market would compound this even further if the minimum wage arseholed. Like I said, people don't like slavery... some actively fight against it. Having said that, go for it, arsehole the minimum wage and I'll sit back with a big fat doobey as the chaos ensues.

Your assumption that everyone cares about the bad bad people who don't do anything is just that, an assumption. It currently happens and we pay for it. I see no difference... other than less crime and less poverty that is. Wahh wahh wahh but he's more stupiderer/lazier than I am, I deserve more. Such moronic childish entitlement bullshit. I expect to hear that in the playground, not from a so called grown man. You need a hug doncha.

[Akzle]

SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU LOT

this discussion has been had before and you're neither moving your respective ideologies forward.

bogan is wrong. btw.

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4945484258673080&pid=1.7

[Akzle]

just found this and couldn't go past it.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3014/3035518467_a72721f342.jpg?v=1226875086

[mashman]

Well I thought I'd try to get the perspective of the wimmins in the house. The Wife and the eldest Daughter (10).

The questions: Who should be paid more? Who is more important?

The subjects: Doctor and Bin man.

Question to Daughter: Who is more important? (concept of money not fully embedded into her psyche yet... I blame her father).
Answer: The Doctor because he saves lives.

Question to Wife: Who should be paid more?
Answer: The Doctor, because he trains for the position, takes on debt, and has qualifications... and anyone can be a bin man.

Question to Wife: Who is more important?
Answer: The Doctor, because he saves lives.

Response to Daughter: If there is no bin man, the rubbish will collect everywhere and the Doctor may find it harder to drive to work. Also the "filth" will bring with it mice and rats and disease. The Doctor will be overrun with patients and as the Doctor gets overwhelmed with patients and can't treat them all, people will start to die.

Daughter: Oh, ok... silence.

Questions again to Wife and Responds: Squnits, smiles (grrrrr, love that smile), and responds with, they're both as important as each other and therefore should be paid equally as they rely on each other... although the Doctor should be paid more as he will have taken on more debt.

Daughter: Her hand goes up, she is asked to wait.

Response to Wife: So if higher education were free like it once was and the Doctor was trained for free, they should be both paid the same?

Daughter: Her hand goes up, she is asked to wait.

Wife: Yes.

Daughter: The bin man is more important. If the bin man doesn't do his job, more people will die than the Doctor can save, so the bin man saves more lives than the Doctor.

Response to Daughter: But the bin man might need the Doctor if he hurts himself. They should be paid the same and are both as important.

Daughter: Yes. But the Doctor doesn't save as many lives as the bin man. So he is more important. EDIT: If there is disease, then the Doctor, who is treating diseased patients, could catch the disease and die and there would be less and less Doctors.

At which point both my Wife and I had to agree with our Daughter. So not only does she think you smart fuckers and your value system are full of shit, and rightly so, she also ignored the financial rewards entirely and focused on the lives being saved. She did concede that both were needed, but maintained that the bin man was more important.

I haz lotz of pridez. They should teach that sort of stuff at school. Faster broadband as a policy for running for govt... fuck that, my Daughter for PM!

[avgas]

So did the wife raise your allowance for taking out the trash?

[Kickaha]

Response to Daughter: If there is no bin man, the rubbish will collect everywhere and the Doctor may find it harder to drive to work. Also the "filth" will bring with it mice and rats and disease. The Doctor will be overrun with patients and as the Doctor gets overwhelmed with patients and can't treat them all, people will start to die.

What a load of drivel

Did you ever think that maybe people will start taking there own shit to the dump?

[Akzle]

What a load of drivel

Did you ever think that maybe people will start taking there own shit to the dump?

you ever been to south auckland? those niggers put out 5 black sacks a week. no recycling. and instead of taking shit to the dump, they chuck it in the mangroves.

they'll take it to the dump

[mashman]

What a load of drivel

Did you ever think that maybe people will start taking there own shit to the dump?

:killingme... you've obviously never lived through a bin strike. And that was 30+ years ago... there's a more rubbish today on account of their being more people. Plus it's pretty tricky to do without a car if the local tip is 10k's away. Nice sentiment, but.........

Edity: come to think of it, if disease does raise its ugly head and everyone is taking their own shit to the dump, other than just chucking the shit around the edge, more people would end up with disease and the same thing would happen.

[mashman]

So did the wife raise your allowance for taking out the trash?

She raised somefink...

[Kickaha]

:killingme... you've obviously never lived through a bin strike. And that was 30+ years ago...

No, but I've lived when/where there was no collection, hey guess what people took there own shit to the dump

[Kickaha]

you ever been to south auckland? those niggers put out 5 black sacks a week. no recycling. and instead of taking shit to the dump, they chuck it in the mangroves.

Auckland is a giant fucking tip anyway, we should just dump all our rubbish there

[mashman]

No, but I've lived when/where there was no collection, hey guess what people took there own shit to the dump

Me too. Even still, the logic of the 10 year old reigns supreme. But nice try... hang on, here she is, I'll put your argument to her...

Daughter to Kickaha: Hmmmmmmmmm. Then everyone is as important as the Doctor as they are all saving lives.

[Akzle]

Auckland is a giant fucking tip anyway, we should just dump all our rubbish there

i can't disagree.

but who will sort it?

it would be nice if everyone took responsibility for their shit, but they dont. cos theyre dicks.

[BoristheBiter]

:killingme... you've obviously never lived through a bin strike. And that was 30+ years ago... there's a more rubbish today on account of their being more people. Plus it's pretty tricky to do without a car if the local tip is 10k's away. Nice sentiment, but.........

Edity: come to think of it, if disease does raise its ugly head and everyone is taking their own shit to the dump, other than just chucking the shit around the edge, more people would end up with disease and the same thing would happen.

So on one hand you say that everything will work under NOW but we can't survive a bin strike?







Oh fuck I've done it again. sorry Bandit.

[BoristheBiter]

Me too. Even still, the logic of the 10 year old reigns supreme. But nice try... hang on, here she is, I'll put your argument to her...

Daughter to Kickaha: Hmmmmmmmmm. Then everyone is as important as the Doctor as they are all saving lives.

In the mind of a 10 year old maybe, but in the real world they are not.

Both jobs might be important but not equal.

[mashman]

So on one hand you say that everything will work under NOW but we can't survive a bin strike?

Oh fuck I've done it again. sorry Bandit.

Obviously we can survive a bin strike. We can survive without Doctors too.

Don't sweat it, you'll only get detention.


In the mind of a 10 year old maybe, but in the real world they are not.

Both jobs might be important but not equal.

Bullshit. Try living without either, which was the point of the exercise. You've been indoctrinated to think in such a way, she hasn't. And I'm unlearning that indoctrination.

Define not equal.

[BoristheBiter]

Bullshit. Try living without either, which was the point of the exercise. You've been indoctrinated to think in such a way, she hasn't. And I'm unlearning that indoctrination.

Define not equal.

easy, through out history people have gone to doctors/healers etc for their knowledge on how to heal someone.
I can't say I've ever heard of bin collectors being sort for their knowledge of rubbish collecting.

you know apples and oranges :msn-wink:

[Kickaha]

Bullshit. Try living without either, which was the point of the exercise. You've been indoctrinated to think in such a way, she hasn't. And I'm unlearning that indoctrination.

Define not equal.
You mean you're indoctrinating her your way

Given the choice between the two, I'd rather live without the bin man any day of the week, a doctor has been far more use to me in my lifetime than any bin man

[mashman]

easy, through out history people have gone to doctors/healers etc for their knowledge on how to heal someone.
I can't say I've ever heard of bin collectors being sort for their knowledge of rubbish collecting.

you know apples and oranges :msn-wink:

Fair point. They are not equal in knowledge. Doesn't mean they should earn more.


You mean you're indoctrinating her your way

Given the choice between the two, I'd rather live without the bin man any day of the week, a doctor has been far more use to me in my lifetime than any bin man

She's gonna find her own way... but she will get the other side of the coin from me. That's fair isn't it?

So you'd happily go into a town that has rubbish all over the place and buy the fly covered produce?

[Kickaha]

So you'd happily go into a town that has rubbish all over the place and buy the fly covered produce?
Why would I need to go into town when I can grow my own, you're also making the assumption no one will clean up after themselves

[scumdog]

:killingme... you've obviously never lived through a bin strike. And that was 30+ years ago... there's a more rubbish today on account of their being more people. Plus it's pretty tricky to do without a car if the local tip is 10k's away. Nice sentiment, but.........
.


That will learn you for living in a freakin' city...

[mashman]

Why would I need to go into town when I can grow my own, you're also making the assumption no one will clean up after themselves

Lucky you. I am assuming that, but only because I've seen that happen. As you say, we may all go to the tip and dump our own... apart from those who don't have transport.


That will learn you for living in a freakin' city...

I know. De missus ain't so keen to change that.

[TheDemonLord]

If it's a natural progression it's a natural progression. Is it possible that over the claimed 4.7 billion years that in comparison to today that 99.9% of species are extinct?

not sure on the point you are trying to make here?


Who said there was going to be a single entity supplying resources? Not the same.

People are more than capable of looking after themselves and if you provide an environment that allows them to focus on cooperation, you WILL see a positive shift in behaviour.

You did - you said there was a single virtual Bank controlling the import and export of Resources in NOW



Who said anything about new Ferrari's? One thing you fail to take into account is that some people may well be happy with the 5k - 10k car that gets them from A to B. How many cars are already in the country? How many people who need cars don't have them? I ask from the perspective that not everyone drives into or out of town. They may only go to the station etc...

So you have problems exercising personal responsibility for the good of your fellow country men. In theory it IS possible to get everyone a car. It may not be the best car in the world, but it's a car, get over it. It's even possible, in theory, to for all of us to drive Ferrari's, but a you highlight, we may only end up getting 10 or 20 into the country each year because other country's will be buying them... and from what I know of Ferrari ownership, you get invited to buy new one's. But yeah, if you can;t be personally responsible for the good of your fellow country men, maybe you'll find your Ferrari on fire some day. Not through envy, but revenge for you being an inconsiderate wanker.

If there aren't a list of specific providers currently, then NOW won't need them easier because the mechanisms and the products are already in place to bring in the variants. Who knows, maybe having a preferred supplier for certain items NZ may get a better deal for a better product.

The GDP must remain a close to the current GDP as possible to avoid financial shocks around the world.

So NO, removing customer choice has nothing to do with NOW.

:killingme QED? that's gold man, pure gold.

PS - It's called personal responsibility.



PS - It's called personal responsibility.



personal responsibility.

And now we get to the Biggest Fallacy in your theory - Personal Responsibility. an individual may have personal Responsibility, but people sure as Fuck don't

Don't believe me? lets look at some non-financial crimes (so you can't blame money) that wouldn't exist if people have personal responsibility

Speeding
Drink Driving
Unsafe Cars (WOF violations)
Domestic Abuse
Child Abuse
Drug Abuse
Arson

I can keep going on, but you get the point - No one has personal Responsibility - and under NOW they won't have personal Responsibility oh and FYI: your remark in that spiel:


It may not be the best car in the world, but it's a car, get over it.

Is exactly what NOW will implement when it takes away your consumer choice to choose what car you want - you will be presented with a list of 'approved' cars and when you complain you will be told "It may not be the best car in the world, but it's a car, get over it." - so again, I have proved under your NOW system, consumer choice will be lost.



Just showing that human nature isn't inate and that it is learned behaviour. Once upon a time men bludgeoned children that aren't there own. They don't any more. Their behaviour has changed. It can't change if it's human nature... coz if human nature changes, then you're shifting the goal posts to suit the new behaviour. Human nature is learned behaviour, nothing more, nothing less... this is evidence by people thinking differently and acting differently to the same situation depending on how they feel at the time.

I'm not saying that behaviour can't be predicted... but you are predicting behaviour, not human nature.

Okay, quick lesson in the difference between inate human nature and Learned Behaviour - in the UK, we shake hands, in Europe, a kiss on the Cheek, in Maori culture - we touch noses, in Japan we bow. - these are all greetings but they are learned - we can tell they are learned because there are regional and cultural differences.

An inate behaviour is Identical in such a high percentage of different cultural and regional sample groups that it can be proved to be Common across all People. As we grow up we learn to repress/control/channel these behaviours - but that is Learned. the Behaviours are still there.

Don't believe me? well go to each one of those countries I listed above and try and take a Child from its mother - and if you repeat the experiment enough times, you will notice that the results are the same in such a high percentage of experiments that the behaviour is inate.


Once I can afford to pay people for their time, the system will get designed.

But people will just want to work for you? I mean some people will still be builders because they like to build right? isn't that what you have been saying? Or are you conceeding that people need a reward (financial, monetary or other) to do work for others? Cause it sounds like that is what you saying - which kinda invalidates half of your arguements




The skills can be learned, not being the demonstratable best does not mean you do not have the skills. You demonstrate this point adequately, by claiming that if being a lawyer was easy, we'd all be laywers. According to your logic, everyone would want to be a lawyer because it's easy. Why aren't we all grass cutters then? Oh this one again... lawyers are more important than burger slippers this time. Ugh... is a lawyer more important than a bin man or a cleaner or a nurse or a teacher or a farmer etc... they must be, coz they get paid more.

Not all skills can be learned - sorry. Creative problem solving is one that cannot be learned - sure you can learn the Rote method of Problem solving, but when that fails, you need somone with the ability to think outside the box.

as for why we aren't all grass cutters - simple, it pays like shit, Because it is easy.


No it doesn't. It takes knowledge of the law and some skill to apply it. Period!

Is that before or after we've all died out coz lawyers get paid well? what about the Doctors and Nurses that have become Lawyers instead? Or the sewerage worker or bin men? supply and demand does not drive the choices of the majority of people... just those who want money. Those actions take money away from people who work just as long hours and just as hard.

All NZ Statutes are online and free to read - if all it takes it some Knowledge then everyone would be lawyers right? except it doesn't. It takes intelligence, it takes Law school (one of my Good friends is a Lawyer, one of the Smarter people I know and he admits Law school was difficult). Simple truth is that Idiots (or anyone with a Low IQ) can't intepret, apply and use abstract concepts and arguments that are necessary in Lawyering

As for you last part - Wah Fucking Wah - These people get paid more than me because their job requires intelligence and mine doesn't. Given the ready availability of Education in this country - don't like it? Get a Student loan and take a course!

Oh Wait, thats right, the people that often complain about that are the same people that fail those courses because "they are too hard" - to sum up - Tall Poppy Syndrome in the extreme.


In which case... as the majority of people aren't cunts and will always remain non-cunty, then NOW won't have any issues with people not doing what they are currently doing. I seem to remember something about prisoners helping out during the Chch earthquake. Usually you have to be a cunt to end up in jail. OH FUCK NO... you're wrong again in your perception of the drivers of human behaviour. Our immediate environment drives our behaviour. It is not inate in our action, it is not human nature. The funny thing is, when I say that people will still be cunts under NOW, it'll be those who decide that they don't want to do anything because others are getting stuff for free, not necessarily the current crop of cunts.

Seriously Mashman - take out a History book and look at our Long and well documentated history of humans being Cunts to one another. You will probably try and blame money or something else, but the real blame is with the people that were doing the Cunty actions - sometimes in the full knowledge that what they were doing was wrong... but did it anyway. for every 1 example you can provide me of people not being Cunts - I can provide you with 10 were they where - which roughly translates to a ratio of People are cunts 90% of the time.


You're asserting all over the place without evidence, yet I choose to move the debate forwards by discussing your assertion... given that there is the possibility that your assertion holds water. You go ahead and get bogged down in semantics, but I won't be apologising for not doing so. Do your own search... it ain't that I can't, it's that I won't.

I provided sources where I quoted specific stats or data sets - I asked you to back up one of your points - you have advised you won't - in Debating rules, thats an automatic Win for me.


Why aren't we exhibiting those behaviours anymore if we cannot fight human nature?

I must have missed the Memo where people have stopped killing each other, and fucking each other over

Oh wait, thats right, people still do that - so yep we are still exhibiting those Behaviours on a Daily basis.


No you're not. You simply have to convince me that I am incorrect. You haven't... yet. Oh, and I've already proven to myself on many occassions that I am willing to listen to reason and logic. Display some please.

There is not a Stat, Example, Lesson from History, Mathematical equation or intervention from a higher power that will convince you, you are incorrect. I have displayed much logic and Reason and where needed to, backed up with objective facts - you declined to backup some of your points with the same, so stop calling the Kettle black and display the courtesy of which you accuse me of lacking.




No need for proof in regards to your explanation of blind faith assertion. I agree. I can look at modern day and see the horrors committed in the name of the financial system. Similar to religion, it's a small number of zealots that start wars for their own gain... no WMD were found. The war with Iraq was over money and oil. If poverty isn't enough to prove that the financial system doesn't work, then nothing will convince you. If that is the case, then pick up a mirror and heed your own words.

At least with Financially backed wars - and I am not going to say that they weren't (not because I believe they were purely financially backed, I just don't need to for this point) we have not commited the atrocities enacted by those of Faith - even the Worst Abuses in Abu Graib where a walk in the part compared to what some of the Religous warlords are doing in central Africe as we speak.

I would rather a war over money without the Genocide, than a war over Faith with.



International travel: You have to book a holiday right? You generally order money right? You generally have a credit card for emergencies right? It's up to you whether you try to take the piss or not. Doesn't mean that the person booking the holiday for you will though. International travel currently happens, I see no reason why it shouldn't continue in exactly the same way. If people start taking the piss, the systemin place will have to change. I have the money to go abroad every year. I haven't been out of the country, on holiday, in 4 years. We don't all need or want overseas travel. Again, personal responsibility. In regards to people coming here, think of NZ as an all inclusive resort.

I don't order Money - I wish I did, I EARN money and then convert it. Without the Earnt money to convert in the first place - how do I go overseas.

I can't have a Credit Card under NOW - not only will I have no money to make the Repayments, but a Credit Card is part of that Evil Financial system we are Abolishing remember - so again I ask, how will I go overseas under NOW?

As for your comment about 'we don't all need or want to go overseas' is exactly the attitude as to why it will Fail - I was born in the UK, I still have family there and I still NEED to go for important Family events - just because you don't want to go and are so shortsighted to see why anyone else will need to go, doesn't mean they need to.



So you're expecting lax border controls in regards to shipping and what is shipped?

Yep, its called smuggling and people will RAPE NZ to score a profit overseas



Why wouldn't we repair or rebuild? If a repair or a rebuild is required, then why wouldn't we do it? If there is no penalty for dinging your rental car, why wouldn't you report the ding? If you can get a new car, then get a new car... who knows, if you call to say that your car is fooked, maybe someone will grab their fishing rod/gun/towel and sunscreen and drive it to you.

Cause New is preferable to repaired/second hand/damaged - again look at our culture - we repair when we have to, we replace when we can. With no obsticle to replace all the time, people won't


Why wouldn't you be able to change provider? If someone is screwing NZ Inc, then they'll go to jail for life if caught. After all, they will have screwed everyone in the country. We can't stop that happening in the not so free market economy. Trust is a bitch, but hopefully we'll learn that again. Neither system has a safeguard, just a stick if you get caught. Fortunately, if that happens, the local economy should suffer minimally... but that'll depend on the scale of the theft. You can only hope that people won't screw the country... exactly the same as currently happens. I'm sure there will be those who will go for the money grab. They currently do it and I agree that they will try to do it under NOW. Let's hope your behavioural profile will show them up before they get there.

The same reaosn people can't change the current financial system - a small group hold all the controls - and NOW will be no different

[oldrider]

The same reaosn people can't change the current financial system - a small group hold all the controls - and NOW will be no different

Absolutely correct unless this point is sorted out nothing else will be "allowed to succeed" because that small group (Deathly dedicated) hold all the aces! :doh:

Nothing more left to say really ... fix it or forget it and just go with the flow! :mellow:

[avgas]

She raised somefink...
Inflation rate?

[BoristheBiter]

Fair point. They are not equal in knowledge. Doesn't mean they should earn more.



it's called supply and demand.

[avgas]

Fair point. They are not equal in knowledge. Doesn't mean they should earn more.
So if your smarter you shouldn't earn more.
Didn't work so well for Russia.

Also a guy named Ponzi rings a bell when assuming that just because people earn the same.....one won't rip off another?

[Ocean1]

They are not equal in knowledge. Doesn't mean they should earn more.

Should?

According to who?

'Cause the people paying for that knowledge don't agree with you.

Which kinda makes your opinion on what they "should" earn completely irrelevant.

But like I keep saying, you go right ahead and offer whoever you want whatever you like for their knowledge and the work they use it for, don't let the fact that nobody else agrees with you slow you down.

[mashman]

not sure on the point you are trying to make here?

You said: "That a pretty incompatible system if 99.9% of it has to be destroyed so that 0.1% can exist". That's life I said. Things die as a natural progression, so essentially you're saying that life is an incompatible system. The financial system should be next.



You did - you said there was a single virtual Bank controlling the import and export of Resources in NOW


I said that banking would control the money. Just like payroll don;t run the country, they merely pay the bills.



And now we get to the Biggest Fallacy in your theory - Personal Responsibility. an individual may have personal Responsibility, but people sure as Fuck don't

Don't believe me? lets look at some non-financial crimes (so you can't blame money) that wouldn't exist if people have personal responsibility

Speeding
Drink Driving
Unsafe Cars (WOF violations)
Domestic Abuse
Child Abuse
Drug Abuse
Arson

I can keep going on, but you get the point - No one has personal Responsibility - and under NOW they won't have personal Responsibility oh and FYI: your remark in that spiel:


But we're talking financial crimes. As for personal responsibility, make your mind up, either people have it or they don't. Hint: an indicidual is a member of the people :facepalm:. In a system that legislates for the ripping off of people, it's hardly surprising that it happens. The law has replaced morality, in fact when morality comes into the argument, some folks generally trot out all sort of little meme's like, hippy, lefty, doo-gooder etc... and all to hide their own lack of morals. NOW can provide an environment where that is less likely to happen on a day to day basis. Doesn't mean that that will happen across the board, you'd have to be mad to think ptherwise... but it certainly doesn't mean that things wouldn't change for the better... far from it.

What are the reasons for non-financial crime? There are many. One of them will be financial stress (payiong for Doctors, ever increasing bills, 55% of the population struggling to the point where they need to be subsidised etc...). MAYBE, so of your list could be addressed through less stress.



Is exactly what NOW will implement when it takes away your consumer choice to choose what car you want - you will be presented with a list of 'approved' cars and when you complain you will be told "It may not be the best car in the world, but it's a car, get over it." - so again, I have proved under your NOW system, consumer choice will be lost.


It's what currently happens! If there is a car on a car lot (yes, they will exist), thenyou have your choice of those cars. There will be no list. As I said, get over it. A debate is a two way street. It requires some understanding of both sides of the argument in order to make sweeping generalisations. I understand both sides of the argument. You don't. So all you have proven is that you don't understand NOW in the slightest.



Okay, quick lesson in the difference between inate human nature and Learned Behaviour - in the UK, we shake hands, in Europe, a kiss on the Cheek, in Maori culture - we touch noses, in Japan we bow. - these are all greetings but they are learned - we can tell they are learned because there are regional and cultural differences.

An inate behaviour is Identical in such a high percentage of different cultural and regional sample groups that it can be proved to be Common across all People. As we grow up we learn to repress/control/channel these behaviours - but that is Learned. the Behaviours are still there.

Don't believe me? well go to each one of those countries I listed above and try and take a Child from its mother - and if you repeat the experiment enough times, you will notice that the results are the same in such a high percentage of experiments that the behaviour is inate.


:killingme@a quick lesson. A greeting is not inate. It has been learned and is seen as a sign of respect. I don't greet everyone I meet with a handshake/kiss/bow etc... It is learned behaviour. Go shake hands with someone who has never chaken handsbefore and you're going to have to explain why you want to shake hands.



But people will just want to work for you? I mean some people will still be builders because they like to build right? isn't that what you have been saying? Or are you conceeding that people need a reward (financial, monetary or other) to do work for others? Cause it sounds like that is what you saying - which kinda invalidates half of your arguements


WTF have you been smoking man. You told me to design the system. I told you I needed to get money so that I could pay for people's time. It's how it currently happens. End of.



All NZ Statutes are online and free to read - if all it takes it some Knowledge then everyone would be lawyers right? except it doesn't. It takes intelligence, it takes Law school (one of my Good friends is a Lawyer, one of the Smarter people I know and he admits Law school was difficult). Simple truth is that Idiots (or anyone with a Low IQ) can't intepret, apply and use abstract concepts and arguments that are necessary in Lawyering

As for you last part - Wah Fucking Wah - These people get paid more than me because their job requires intelligence and mine doesn't. Given the ready availability of Education in this country - don't like it? Get a Student loan and take a course!

Oh Wait, thats right, the people that often complain about that are the same people that fail those courses because "they are too hard" - to sum up - Tall Poppy Syndrome in the extreme.


:facepalm: you have no idea.



Seriously Mashman - take out a History book and look at our Long and well documentated history of humans being Cunts to one another. You will probably try and blame money or something else, but the real blame is with the people that were doing the Cunty actions - sometimes in the full knowledge that what they were doing was wrong... but did it anyway. for every 1 example you can provide me of people not being Cunts - I can provide you with 10 were they where - which roughly translates to a ratio of People are cunts 90% of the time.


:facepalm: you have no idea.



I provided sources where I quoted specific stats or data sets - I asked you to back up one of your points - you have advised you won't - in Debating rules, thats an automatic Win for me.


I didn't ask for stats. You used them to backup your argument. I didn't read the links. Yeah, you win. I didn;t argue the statistics :rofl:



I must have missed the Memo where people have stopped killing each other, and fucking each other over

Oh wait, thats right, people still do that - so yep we are still exhibiting those Behaviours on a Daily basis.


Does the majotiry of the population kill? No. You said human nature needs to be common trait. Get your story straight son.

WE aren't, a small number of people are... as it is THEY wanting war, and they PAY people to act on their behalf. Why did the majority of the US/UK not want war with Iraq? Why do the Palestinian and Israeli people not fight to the death?



There is not a Stat, Example, Lesson from History, Mathematical equation or intervention from a higher power that will convince you, you are incorrect. I have displayed much logic and Reason and where needed to, backed up with objective facts - you declined to backup some of your points with the same, so stop calling the Kettle black and display the courtesy of which you accuse me of lacking.


Of course there is. You telling me that you know me better than I know me only makes me laugh and marvel at the stupidity of you so called smart people. I have refuted your logic and reason, therefore it is not logic and reason, so so far you have had my courtesy. You putting words into my mouth is not courtesy.



At least with Financially backed wars - and I am not going to say that they weren't (not because I believe they were purely financially backed, I just don't need to for this point) we have not commited the atrocities enacted by those of Faith - even the Worst Abuses in Abu Graib where a walk in the part compared to what some of the Religous warlords are doing in central Africe as we speak.

I would rather a war over money without the Genocide, than a war over Faith with.


Fuck off, I read the first 6 words and refuse to read that paragraph any further. There is no justification for war.



I don't order Money - I wish I did, I EARN money and then convert it. Without the Earnt money to convert in the first place - how do I go overseas.

I can't have a Credit Card under NOW - not only will I have no money to make the Repayments, but a Credit Card is part of that Evil Financial system we are Abolishing remember - so again I ask, how will I go overseas under NOW?

As for your comment about 'we don't all need or want to go overseas' is exactly the attitude as to why it will Fail - I was born in the UK, I still have family there and I still NEED to go for important Family events - just because you don't want to go and are so shortsighted to see why anyone else will need to go, doesn't mean they need to.


How do you convert the money? You order it at the bank (estate agency, bureau de change etc...), if it's there, you pick it up there and then. I don't understand what you mean in the rest of your sentence.

Did I say you couldn't have a credit card under NOW? No, you made it up. Repayments requires money :facepalm:.

:killingme... I didn't say noone could go. I didn't say everyone can't go. I'm from the UK too and I don't NEED to go back for every important family events. As I said, I'm not saying that NOW will stop you either. You're making shit up again... do try to stop it.



Yep, its called smuggling and people will RAPE NZ to score a profit overseas


I disagree.



Cause New is preferable to repaired/second hand/damaged - again look at our culture - we repair when we have to, we replace when we can. With no obsticle to replace all the time, people won't


Not content with putting words into my mouth, you go ahead and put words into everyone else's mouth too.



The same reaosn people can't change the current financial system - a small group hold all the controls - and NOW will be no different


I've already explained how NOW will be different in regards to the groups holding the controls. If you don't accept that, that's your problem.

[mashman]

Absolutely correct unless this point is sorted out nothing else will be "allowed to succeed" because that small group (Deathly dedicated) hold all the aces! :doh:

Nothing more left to say really ... fix it or forget it and just go with the flow! :mellow:

Under NOW, will that small group still have the power that they currently have?

How's about a 3rd option, change it.


Inflation rate?

Excellent.


it's called supply and demand.

It's called stupidity.


So if your smarter you shouldn't earn more.
Didn't work so well for Russia.

Also a guy named Ponzi rings a bell when assuming that just because people earn the same.....one won't rip off another?

It doesn't work in the financial system, coz measuring smart by profession is like measuring the temperature of what is on the other side of the universe :shifty:. We ain't following the Russian system man.

How can you rip someone off if there's no money? Why rip someone off when the thing you want is free?


Should?

According to who?

'Cause the people paying for that knowledge don't agree with you.

Which kinda makes your opinion on what they "should" earn completely irrelevant.

But like I keep saying, you go right ahead and offer whoever you want whatever you like for their knowledge and the work they use it for, don't let the fact that nobody else agrees with you slow you down.

Me, Daughter, Wife and others that I have spoken to.

I'm paying for that knowledge, as is my Wife, as are those I have spoken with. And we agree.

Which kinda makes your last sentence about as fully thought through as everything else you trot out in a half baked fashion. As my Wife points out. It's the workers who do the work that should be receiving the rewards for a good job, not the management who oversee them. That doesn't happen. Your romanticism is somewhat flawed... but don't let that slow you down.

It's that people, who haven't thought things through up til the point in time when we have a conversation, do agree with me that I won't slow down. You're supposed to be smart, right?

[Ocean1]

Me, Daughter, Wife and others that I have spoken to.

So, very approximately: fuck all.

The bin man doesn't count.


I'm paying for that knowledge, as is my Wife, as are those I have spoken with. And we agree.

Then you obviously don't have a problem paying the market rate.

What's your beef again?


Which kinda makes your last sentence about as fully thought through as everything else you trot out in a half baked fashion. As my Wife points out. It's the workers who do the work that should be receiving the rewards for a good job, not the management who oversee them. That doesn't happen. Your romanticism is somewhat flawed... but don't let that slow you down.

So what about the vast majority of managers that contribute more than the workers they're responsible for? Do they get to dictate how much they should get paid too? Or is it just "workers" defined by your approval?

See, your fantasy about managers stealing the "infinite" money made available by the extreme exertions of the downtrodden worker simply isn't real. In the real world people are paid largely in accordance to an agreement with their client.


It's that people, who haven't thought things through up til the point in time when we have a conversation, do agree with me that I won't slow down. You're supposed to be smart, right?

Yes. Smart enough to be able to earn pretty much whatever I want. Smart enough to have thought through the generally accepted understanding that anyone attempting to dictate prices outside of buyer and seller is a thief.

That's not necessarily very smart. And yet you continue to insist that you can't live with your own convictions until everyone else behaves like you want them to. Which simply makes you a thief without the courage to do anything about it. Not a very smart one.

[oldrider]

Under NOW, will that small group still have the power that they currently have? How's about a 3rd option, change it.

Yes you are right ... change it by all means but the "small group" are (currently) untouchable and unless they are exposed (world wide) they will soon infiltrate and control or destroy your (our any other) new idea to their advantage!

Financial control of the world is central the groups ambitions so if you tinker with finance you are kicking their rice bowl!

Many powerful world figures or groups have already tried this at their (and our) peril.

"Give me control of the finances of the world I care not who makes the laws" is a very very powerful statement!

Regardless of who makes or made the statement it is a line drawn deep into the sand if they can back it up!

The small group in control of world finance can and do back it up to the extent (and beyond) of causing and controlling world wars!

[Ocean1]

Yes you are right ... change it by all means but the "small group" are (currently) untouchable and unless they are exposed (world wide) they will soon infiltrate and control or destroy your (our any other) new idea to their advantage!

He don't need any stinkin' bank's help!


Financial control of the world is central the groups ambitions so if you tinker with finance you are kicking their rice bowl!

How did China avoid becoming controlled by that "small group"?

And how are they now more powerful than those untouchables?

[mashman]

So, very approximately: fuck all.

The bin man doesn't count.

Then you obviously don't have a problem paying the market rate.

What's your beef again?

:yawn:



So what about the vast majority of managers that contribute more than the workers they're responsible for? Do they get to dictate how much they should get paid too? Or is it just "workers" defined by your approval?

Maybe they should have more 360 reviews... there's a reason that they're frowned upon.



See, your fantasy about managers stealing the "infinite" money made available by the extreme exertions of the downtrodden worker simply isn't real. In the real world people are paid largely in accordance to an agreement with their client.

:yawn:




Yes. Smart enough to be able to earn pretty much whatever I want. Smart enough to have thought through the generally accepted understanding that anyone attempting to dictate prices outside of buyer and seller is a thief.

So you're blinkered and only chasing the $. That explains quite a few things. Interesting admission though.



That's not necessarily very smart. And yet you continue to insist that you can't live with your own convictions until everyone else behaves like you want them to. Which simply makes you a thief without the courage to do anything about it. Not a very smart one.

I'm smart enough to realise that I am not an island and that my family requires money in order to suffer because I feel differently about things. SO no, again, you're assertion is wrong. I'd say try again, but you're getting a tad boring.

[mashman]

Yes you are right ... change it by all means but the "small group" are (currently) untouchable and unless they are exposed (world wide) they will soon infiltrate and control or destroy your (our any other) new idea to their advantage!

Financial control of the world is central the groups ambitions so if you tinker with finance you are kicking their rice bowl!

Many powerful world figures or groups have already tried this at their (and our) peril.

"Give me control of the finances of the world I care not who makes the laws" is a very very powerful statement!

Regardless of who makes or made the statement it is a line drawn deep into the sand if they can back it up!

The small group in control of world finance can and do back it up to the extent (and beyond) of causing and controlling world wars!

I understand that. How do they maintain their influence?

That's why NOW virtualises the financial system. It's there, producing GDP, but it isn't.

Then when I get my ducks in a row and am perilised, you can say you told me so. :D

It is. And it has been proven to be true.

They can, until they can't. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/davos-billionaires-oblivious-to-the-coming-revolution-2014-01-25)... coz that sort of battle is going to require a group of very loyal soldiers to quell their population.

Now you're just making stuff up :shifty: Didn't you know that war is human nature and cannot be stopped.

[mashman]

How did China avoid becoming controlled by that "small group"?

And how are they now more powerful than those untouchables?

They control their own money supply and have the same military might... something that simply can't be taken/controlled. Unless of course China capitulates. Same as a nuclear deterrent.

[mashman]

So, very approximately: fuck all.

And the Pope.

“Inequality is the root of social ills ... as long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any problems.”

[TheDemonLord]

You said: "That a pretty incompatible system if 99.9% of it has to be destroyed so that 0.1% can exist". That's life I said. Things die as a natural progression, so essentially you're saying that life is an incompatible system. The financial system should be next.

You put it forward as a compatable system that had no centreal governance - now you are agreeing with me it is Incompatable - which is it?


But we're talking financial crimes. As for personal responsibility, make your mind up, either people have it or they don't. Hint: an indicidual is a member of the people :facepalm:. In a system that legislates for the ripping off of people, it's hardly surprising that it happens. The law has replaced morality, in fact when morality comes into the argument, some folks generally trot out all sort of little meme's like, hippy, lefty, doo-gooder etc... and all to hide their own lack of morals. NOW can provide an environment where that is less likely to happen on a day to day basis. Doesn't mean that that will happen across the board, you'd have to be mad to think ptherwise... but it certainly doesn't mean that things wouldn't change for the better... far from it.

What are the reasons for non-financial crime? There are many. One of them will be financial stress (payiong for Doctors, ever increasing bills, 55% of the population struggling to the point where they need to be subsidised etc...). MAYBE, so of your list could be addressed through less stress.

I wasn't talking about just Financial crimes - I have proved people will be cunts with NOW or without, so one of the core reasons to switch to NOW doesn't exist. As for the last part is probably the biggest criminal apologist lines I have ever heard 'Oh, they are just criminals cause they are Stressed' I get Stressed yet I don't commit any of those crimes - Either I must be the lord high saint of Holiness or I just have stronger will power


It's what currently happens! If there is a car on a car lot (yes, they will exist), thenyou have your choice of those cars. There will be no list. As I said, get over it. A debate is a two way street. It requires some understanding of both sides of the argument in order to make sweeping generalisations. I understand both sides of the argument. You don't. So all you have proven is that you don't understand NOW in the slightest.

Or I understand NOW better than you think I do - The Cars that will be Imported into this country will be those that are approved within whatever Budgeting system NOW uses to deal with the rest of the world. There will be no high end BMW, Audi, No Ferraris or Lamborgini, if there is not my choice to go from a Mazda Car lot to a BMW Car lot (because I want a BMW) then NOW has removed my Choice to choose.

Unless of course the Cars on the Car lot will magic into existence or NZ suddenly starts Car manufacturing again.


:killingme@a quick lesson. A greeting is not inate. It has been learned and is seen as a sign of respect. I don't greet everyone I meet with a handshake/kiss/bow etc... It is learned behaviour. Go shake hands with someone who has never chaken handsbefore and you're going to have to explain why you want to shake hands.

Actually Greetings are innate - its impossible to have a Social Group without it, but the Form a Greeting takes is Learned - they are seperate Concepts - like IQ and Knowledge.


WTF have you been smoking man. You told me to design the system. I told you I needed to get money so that I could pay for people's time. It's how it currently happens. End of.

And I said - Why would you need Money? Afterall, I imagine the same proponents of this Scheme would be all to happy to contribute to design it for free. earlier in the Debate you asserted that not all people currently do things for Money - I asserted that People do things for Reward (be it financial or otherwise) if I am right - then currently to design such a system, you will need to pay people. if you are right - you will be able to get people to do it for the love of Doing it.

You saying that you need to pay people confirms my position and invalidates yours.


:facepalm: you have no idea.

:facepalm: you have no idea.

You know that your opponent has lost a debate when he can't come back at you with a counter arguement - I think the above brings me to Match point I dare say, but to be content with just this cutting remark would mean that I hadn't submitted a counter arguement so very quickly

Bosnia/Serbia
Rwanda
Iraq and the Kurds
Somalia

The list goes on - all long chapters in the very long book of Humans being Inhuman to one another - so clearly I do have an Idea - but better than an Idea, I have something to back up my arguements with



I didn't ask for stats. You used them to backup your argument. I didn't read the links. Yeah, you win. I didn;t argue the statistics :rofl:

Still on Match point then


Does the majotiry of the population kill? No. You said human nature needs to be common trait. Get your story straight son.

Remember I said Violence - Violence can be anything from throwing a punch to going on a killing spree - my Facts are completely straight, I merely chose killing as the ultimate expression of our Violent evolutionary past.


WE aren't, a small number of people are... as it is THEY wanting war, and they PAY people to act on their behalf. Why did the majority of the US/UK not want war with Iraq? Why do the Palestinian and Israeli people not fight to the death?

That's a different arguement - but for what its worth, I support the war for Iraq, not for the reasons given (they were flimsier than your NOW theory) but because at the end of the day, Saddamn was a Genocidal nut case who used Chemical weapons on his own people.


Of course there is. You telling me that you know me better than I know me only makes me laugh and marvel at the stupidity of you so called smart people. I have refuted your logic and reason, therefore it is not logic and reason, so so far you have had my courtesy. You putting words into my mouth is not courtesy.

Actually, I am saying I know better And here is why. You have refuted nothing, you have a system that will only work if everyone works together for the common good of the Community, if everyone exercises a high level of Personal Responsibility and no one tries to fuck other people over.

and I have said - based on the long and colourful history of humanity - both when similar systems were tried and without needing to try it ourselves that it will fail - because those 3 factors required are incompatible with Humans.


Fuck off, I read the first 6 words and refuse to read that paragraph any further. There is no justification for war.

Hit a Nerve did I there? Let me ask you this, you are standing on the Borders of Rwanda, watching Men, Women and Children getting mutilated, Raped and Tortured in the most horrific and cruel fashion by tribesmen with Machetes. You are currently the commander of a Tank battalion from a different country.

Crossing the border means you start a war.

Do you cross?

if Yes - then there is clearly justification for wars - to stop a greater evil. It must be the absolute last resort, but still be an option.
if no - then you are a despicable human being for being able to stand by and watch cruelty to happen, with the power to stop it, yet do nothing.

Oh and the situation I picked has occured, and I am betting, will occour with similar circumstances again.


How do you convert the money? You order it at the bank (estate agency, bureau de change etc...), if it's there, you pick it up there and then. I don't understand what you mean in the rest of your sentence.

You Exchange money, you don't Order it. you need to have the money first - if you don't have the money (as under NOW) then you have nothing to Exchange.


Did I say you couldn't have a credit card under NOW? No, you made it up. Repayments requires money :facepalm:.

if there are no tills and no where to pay, no Credit Card companies (because money has been removed) how and why would I have a Credit Card?


:killingme... I didn't say noone could go. I didn't say everyone can't go. I'm from the UK too and I don't NEED to go back for every important family events. As I said, I'm not saying that NOW will stop you either. You're making shit up again... do try to stop it.

No, your comment inferred that you didn't see a reason why people would want or need to travel overseas - I called you out on this being incredibly short sighted, but I will give you some grace on this, maybe it was a poorly worded comment.

Of course, if you had the same education as a Lawyer, maybe you would have been able to word the comment to reflect what you mean?


I disagree.

Cool - I think we can safely establish we Disagree


Not content with putting words into my mouth, you go ahead and put words into everyone else's mouth too.

I look at what people currently do and base my assumptions/theories off that - if there was a major shift in how we interacted with our fellow humans, then I might change my tune a little, but we haven't changed much in how we interact in around 2000 years of recorded history, so I don't see any changes happening soon.


I've already explained how NOW will be different in regards to the groups holding the controls. If you don't accept that, that's your problem.

Ya Know, This is almost exactly what Lenin and Marx said 100 years ago - funnily enough, it didn't end up different - did it?

in fact, it ended up much worse and resulted in the largest country on earth collapsing in under itself.

[Ocean1]

:yawn:

What? You've got more support than your wife, daughter and the bin man?
You do have a problem paying the market rate?
You don't want to answer the question on account of your advanced idiocy?


Maybe they should have more 360 reviews... there's a reason that they're frowned upon.

Suits me, consultants do quite well managing them.


:yawn:

What, cat got yer tongue dude?
Managers do steal infinitely available cash from their downtrodden employees?
People shouldn't be free to agree the price of their own shit?
You reckon removing money will prevent that devious practice?
Gwarne, we're all friends here, you can say why you'd like to get involved in everyone else's god damned business with impunity.

Honest.


So you're blinkered and only chasing the $. That explains quite a few things. Interesting admission though.

Eyes wide open sport, I'm interested in the money that represents the value my clients agree my services are worth. And I'm fully aware that you'd like to dictate that price, but the fact of the matter is there's no reason you should have any say in that process whatsoever.


I'm smart enough to realise that I am not an island and that my family requires money in order to suffer because I feel differently about things. SO no, again, you're assertion is wrong. I'd say try again, but you're getting a tad boring.

So again, you don't want to expose yourself or your family to the effects of your plan to enforce uniform income and associated benefits until your in a position to force everyone else to comply as well?

Do you really expect any buy-in to that from anyone outside your family?


Ok, ok: And the bin man.




Oh all RIGHT: And few serial underachievers that haven't got a hope of ever earning a median wage.

[oldrider]

How did China avoid becoming controlled by that "small group"? And how are they now more powerful than those untouchables?

Good question but are you only assuming that they (China) are not already under the "small groups" interest or control!

Besides which if needed there are always the guns of America and the rest of the "free world" to call upon should they be required! (All been done before)

[oldrider]

They can, until they can't. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/davos-billionaires-oblivious-to-the-coming-revolution-2014-01-25)

Small fry not even in the same ball park as those who control world money and events! :oi-grr:

[mashman]

You put it forward as a compatable system that had no centreal governance - now you are agreeing with me it is Incompatable - which is it?


A natural progression.



I wasn't talking about just Financial crimes - I have proved people will be cunts with NOW or without, so one of the core reasons to switch to NOW doesn't exist. As for the last part is probably the biggest criminal apologist lines I have ever heard 'Oh, they are just criminals cause they are Stressed' I get Stressed yet I don't commit any of those crimes - Either I must be the lord high saint of Holiness or I just have stronger will power


You have proven nothing. You have assumed. I agreed with your assumption. It's still an assumption. You just haven't been in a position to stress you then.



Or I understand NOW better than you think I do - The Cars that will be Imported into this country will be those that are approved within whatever Budgeting system NOW uses to deal with the rest of the world. There will be no high end BMW, Audi, No Ferraris or Lamborgini, if there is not my choice to go from a Mazda Car lot to a BMW Car lot (because I want a BMW) then NOW has removed my Choice to choose.

Unless of course the Cars on the Car lot will magic into existence or NZ suddenly starts Car manufacturing again.


You quite obviously don't. :facepalm: You no listen.



Actually Greetings are innate - its impossible to have a Social Group without it, but the Form a Greeting takes is Learned - they are seperate Concepts - like IQ and Knowledge.


What, you can't just walk into a room without greeting people?



And I said - Why would you need Money? Afterall, I imagine the same proponents of this Scheme would be all to happy to contribute to design it for free. earlier in the Debate you asserted that not all people currently do things for Money - I asserted that People do things for Reward (be it financial or otherwise) if I am right - then currently to design such a system, you will need to pay people. if you are right - you will be able to get people to do it for the love of Doing it.

You saying that you need to pay people confirms my position and invalidates yours.


Not everyone does everything for reward either. You really don't get it bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa. My 10 year old does. It won't be forcing anyone to do anything, neither will NOW.

Given the current system I will be paying people for the design of NOW. It's not a hard concept to grasp as that's what currently happens.



You know that your opponent has lost a debate when he can't come back at you with a counter arguement - I think the above brings me to Match point I dare say, but to be content with just this cutting remark would mean that I hadn't submitted a counter arguement so very quickly

Bosnia/Serbia
Rwanda
Iraq and the Kurds
Somalia

The list goes on - all long chapters in the very long book of Humans being Inhuman to one another - so clearly I do have an Idea - but better than an Idea, I have something to back up my arguements with


I'm not competing. Again, something you fail to grasp. You won 30 posts ago... not sure what, but you did, now go and reward yourself. Cutting remark? Where, I must have missed it.

Are those wars still on? I'm surprised the US and their Nobel Prize winning puppet hasn't stopped them.



Still on Match point then


Like I said, you won. :yawn:



Remember I said Violence - Violence can be anything from throwing a punch to going on a killing spree - my Facts are completely straight, I merely chose killing as the ultimate expression of our Violent evolutionary past.


You must greet people in the strangest of ways.



That's a different arguement - but for what its worth, I support the war for Iraq, not for the reasons given (they were flimsier than your NOW theory) but because at the end of the day, Saddamn was a Genocidal nut case who used Chemical weapons on his own people.


So IS Mugabe... but they still haven't gone after him. I agree with removing him a la Osama, but not the war that took place.



Actually, I am saying I know better And here is why. You have refuted nothing, you have a system that will only work if everyone works together for the common good of the Community, if everyone exercises a high level of Personal Responsibility and no one tries to fuck other people over.

and I have said - based on the long and colourful history of humanity - both when similar systems were tried and without needing to try it ourselves that it will fail - because those 3 factors required are incompatible with Humans.


Not everyone needs to work together, show personal responsibility etc... Similar is not the same.



Hit a Nerve did I there? Let me ask you this, you are standing on the Borders of Rwanda, watching Men, Women and Children getting mutilated, Raped and Tortured in the most horrific and cruel fashion by tribesmen with Machetes. You are currently the commander of a Tank battalion from a different country.

Crossing the border means you start a war.

Do you cross?

if Yes - then there is clearly justification for wars - to stop a greater evil. It must be the absolute last resort, but still be an option.
if no - then you are a despicable human being for being able to stand by and watch cruelty to happen, with the power to stop it, yet do nothing.

Oh and the situation I picked has occured, and I am betting, will occour with similar circumstances again.


Yeah you did. It was a real doozy to.. I don't think I'm ever going to recover from it.

:yawn:




You Exchange money, you don't Order it. you need to have the money first - if you don't have the money (as under NOW) then you have nothing to Exchange.


Oh right... I'll remember to remind the travel agent not to order me any money until I give them mine first.



if there are no tills and no where to pay, no Credit Card companies (because money has been removed) how and why would I have a Credit Card?


Did I say there were no tills? Did I say there were no Credit Car companies?



No, your comment inferred that you didn't see a reason why people would want or need to travel overseas - I called you out on this being incredibly short sighted, but I will give you some grace on this, maybe it was a poorly worded comment.

Of course, if you had the same education as a Lawyer, maybe you would have been able to word the comment to reflect what you mean?


No, you translated what you thought I meant incorrectly. As you have every single time you've put words into my mouth.



I look at what people currently do and base my assumptions/theories off that - if there was a major shift in how we interacted with our fellow humans, then I might change my tune a little, but we haven't changed much in how we interact in around 2000 years of recorded history, so I don't see any changes happening soon.


People don't change eh? :killingme You don't look very hard do ya.



Ya Know, This is almost exactly what Lenin and Marx said 100 years ago - funnily enough, it didn't end up different - did it?

in fact, it ended up much worse and resulted in the largest country on earth collapsing in under itself.


Why, what happened to them?

Did they run out of money?

[mashman]

What? You've got more support than your wife, daughter and the bin man?
You do have a problem paying the market rate?
You don't want to answer the question on account of your advanced idiocy?



Suits me, consultants do quite well managing them.



What, cat got yer tongue dude?
Managers do steal infinitely available cash from their downtrodden employees?
People shouldn't be free to agree the price of their own shit?
You reckon removing money will prevent that devious practice?
Gwarne, we're all friends here, you can say why you'd like to get involved in everyone else's god damned business with impunity.

Honest.



Eyes wide open sport, I'm interested in the money that represents the value my clients agree my services are worth. And I'm fully aware that you'd like to dictate that price, but the fact of the matter is there's no reason you should have any say in that process whatsoever.



So again, you don't want to expose yourself or your family to the effects of your plan to enforce uniform income and associated benefits until your in a position to force everyone else to comply as well?

Do you really expect any buy-in to that from anyone outside your family?


Ok, ok: And the bin man.




Oh all RIGHT: And few serial underachievers that haven't got a hope of ever earning a median wage.

Just for a change, you fill in the blanks yourself.

[mashman]

Small fry not even in the same ball park as those who control world money and events! :oi-grr:

Probably not. A recruitment drive perhaps :laugh:

[Ocean1]

Good question but are you only assuming that they (China) are not already under the "small groups" interest or control!

No.

They're not under the control of the "small group" because they didn't borrow money from them.

They're currently more powerful than those bogymen for the same reason: they've lent rather a lot more money than those "small groups".

Neither a borrower nor a lender be....


Besides which if needed there are always the guns of America and the rest of the "free world" to call upon should they be required! (All been done before)

In which case China is in rather a better position to purchase more and better guns.

Financed, I might add, via the good offices of western consumers and their very own cheap as chips peasant labourers.

[oldrider]

No.

They're not under the control of the "small group" because they didn't borrow money from them.

They're currently more powerful than those bogymen for the same reason: they've lent rather a lot more money than those "small groups".

Neither a borrower nor a lender be....



In which case China is in rather a better position to purchase more and better guns.

Financed, I might add, via the good offices of western consumers and their very own cheap as chips peasant labourers.

1) China may only be where they are because the "small group" wanted it that way and are pulling their strings accordingly.

2) Unbelevibly the chess pieces in this world game are completely under their control they have been at it for centries and have almost every eventuality covered.

3) Whatever direction the future takes it will cost countless innocent people their lives, as has been past practice for this dominant group!

This can be brushed aside as pure fantasy and dismissed accordingly but that is how people felt way back before the advent of the two world wars!

Unfortunately they and all the unbelevible subsequent "mini conflicts" have been real and are still continueing at the will and behest of this same group!

It would be gratifying to be proved wrong about this but unfortunately I believe that will not be the case! :oi-grr:

[Ocean1]

It would be gratifying to be proved wrong about this but unfortunately I believe that will not be the case! :oi-grr:

No free will whatsoever, eh?

Sounds just a little fatalistic John.

I don't believe that any group employing the methods you suggest could fail to be a bloody sight more obvious about their activities than has been the case over that timeframe.

You can fool only some of the people all of the time...

[oldrider]

No free will whatsoever, eh?

Sounds just a little fatalistic John.

I don't believe that any group employing the methods you suggest could fail to be a bloody sight more obvious about their activities than has been the case over that timeframe.

You can fool only some of the people all of the time...

Fair enough, I came into this world at the start of WW2 and at the end of that I tried to find out for my own peace of mind how such a thing could happen.

Information gathering was not as easy as it is today and the common denominator that always came up even way back then has always been this "small group"!

Subsequent world event causes continue to point in the direction of the same group right up to today and even looking beyond.

When you narrow everything down as to who benefits it still leads to the same group so until that is changed progress in any direction will always be subject to their will.

What to do about it? Frankly I have no idea, powerful world figures have tried and had paid for their efforts with their lives as have countless millions of innocents!

To know about it is one thing to try and counter it is beyond my comprehension!

There are times when I wish that I had never bothered to try to understand. :facepalm: Ignorance they say, is bliss! :shutup:

[Ocean1]

What to do about it? Frankly I have no idea, powerful world figures have tried and had paid for their efforts with their lives as have countless millions of innocents!

I thought we'd cleared that bit up: Don't borrow their money. It's not a lot different to the advice you'd probably give about how to deal with any group who's behaviour you believe to be obnoxious: Don't play in their sandpit.

Why would you, (personally or nationally) give them power over you by dealing with them? You reap what you sew, the whole concept of saving for your stuff seems to have gone by the wayside, and until that changes the bogymen will continue to hold sway.

[oldrider]

I thought we'd cleared that bit up: Don't borrow their money. It's not a lot different to the advice you'd probably give about how to deal with any group who's behaviour you believe to be obnoxious: Don't play in their sandpit.

Why would you, (personally or nationally) give them power over you by dealing with them? You reap what you sew, the whole concept of saving for your stuff seems to have gone by the wayside, and until that changes the bogymen will continue to hold sway.

True but as the saying goes "no man is an island" we are so dependant on each other and the systems that our forebears have evolved for us to use it is difficult to swim against the current or even ignore it and go our own way without great difficulty or even experiencing ultimate failure.

Then again as mashman is experiencing the difficulty in persuading others that there may be another way is a long complicated road to take.

If he were to win then the group in question will infiltrate and iether take over or kill the initiative to regain their current situation.

My wife and I have no debt but that is very much under threat daily with constantly rising costs just to simply exist, it is even getting almost too expensive to die today!

Our plan is to make sure that we do not out live our money supply but that too is getting trickier by the day, more especially when changes of government occur!

If we die and have no means it places the burden on our children to carry the cost of our funeral, failing that it falls upon the taxpayer.

My signature tells it as I see it and even the "whole banking industry" is subject to the will of the masters of that same small group at the controlling end.

[avgas]

Wait. We still talking about .com?

[TheDemonLord]

A natural progression.

So then, it is not a completely compatible system - thus my original point that I raised on this - that in order to achieve compatability some form of central governance is required stands


You have proven nothing. You have assumed. I agreed with your assumption. It's still an assumption. You just haven't been in a position to stress you then.

I base my assumptions on empirical and Anecdotal evidence, what have you based your assumptions on?

How do you know I have never been in a position of Stress? how do you define or even Rank Stress? Does the 'Stress' of some Dole Bludging layabout that they feel cause they can't get their pack of smokes compare to say the Stress of a Soldier who is pinned down by automatic fire and has watched some of his best friends get shot? There are times I have been stressed and not once have I ever thought of Turning to crime.


You quite obviously don't. :facepalm: You no listen.

I read the information you provided, and agree its a nice theory, but without rewarding people relative to their contribution, it will fail.


What, you can't just walk into a room without greeting people?

You can, but if everyone did that, Society would fail (people would never talk, communicate, have relationships, have children etc.) again - impossible to have a social society without social interactions of which greeting is the first social interaction.


Not everyone does everything for reward either. You really don't get it bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa. My 10 year old does. It won't be forcing anyone to do anything, neither will NOW.

Given the current system I will be paying people for the design of NOW. It's not a hard concept to grasp as that's what currently happens.

Which is it then? either some people do things without reward - in which case you can design your system NOW (pun intended) or no one does things without reward and you need to pay them.

And to throw you a Bone - some people do do things for the love of Doing them - I believe you referenced Linux as an example so I put a challenge to you - if Linus can create an OS that has been improved by multiple programmers from different nationalities, faiths, backgrounds etc. and subsequently formed into a fully working OS (I have Ubuntu and Xubuntu running somewhere, used to have a Debian box but Decommed it)

Why can't you fully form your financial system?


I'm not competing. Again, something you fail to grasp. You won 30 posts ago... not sure what, but you did, now go and reward yourself. Cutting remark? Where, I must have missed it.

Sweet, if I won, then you conceed that NOW isn't a perfect solution and without accounting for the human factor is doomed to failure?


Are those wars still on? I'm surprised the US and their Nobel Prize winning puppet hasn't stopped them.

Somalia certainly is - remember many pages ago I made the critique of the US picking and choosing which wars it fights, whereas there are many countries that are suffering horrendous civil conflicts that IMO equally deserve attention.


Like I said, you won. :yawn:

See above


You must greet people in the strangest of ways.

Don't we all?


So IS Mugabe... but they still haven't gone after him. I agree with removing him a la Osama, but not the war that took place.

You are right, Mugabe needs his front door kicked in with a Tank Shell, see above and previously for my thoughts on this


Not everyone needs to work together, show personal responsibility etc... Similar is not the same.

Actually, everyone does need to work together, because the moment enough people realise they can get all they want for free, without any effort, they will. and then the Stack of Cards falls down - Capitalism doesn't suffer this problem because if people refuse to work, they don't get provided with anything - the system lives on.


Yeah you did. It was a real doozy to.. I don't think I'm ever going to recover from it.

:yawn:

You didn't answer the question - Do you Cross the border? Is there sometimes a justification for War?


Oh right... I'll remember to remind the travel agent not to order me any money until I give them mine first.

so your travel agent orders you money for free without you paying them for it?

Cool - whats the name of your Travel Agent again? I have some holidays I need to book and some Free money to order.


Did I say there were no tills? Did I say there were no Credit Car companies?

Virtual Money means Virtual Tills as there is no change, there is no need for a Till - its an extension of Logic. Virtual money also means Virtual Credit Cards - same reason


No, you translated what you thought I meant incorrectly. As you have every single time you've put words into my mouth.

Then your explanation was poor as it left room to be interpreted other than what you meant. This is something Lawyers have to learn how to do, writing documents in Legal English in order to avoid mis-interpretation


People don't change eh? :killingme You don't look very hard do ya.

Lets compare now to 2,000 years ago then:

Are we still killing people over which God(s) is better - Yup
Are we still fighting wars with each other - Yup
Do we still have Capital punishment in the Western World - Yup
Are the Jews still getting Persecuted - Yup
Do we still build armies/weapons for defence - Yup
Do we still have politicians that Argue and Debate - Yup
Do we still rely on those less fortunate than us for menial labour - Yup
Do we still have Families - Yup

(I could go on, but you get the idea, yes there has been some major advances in technology and some advances in Law and Human rights, but ultimately, there are many things that we are still doing now that we did 2000 years ago and this is the essence of my point, we haven't changed much in this regard)


Why, what happened to them?

Did they run out of money?

No, the Population stopped working hard and innovating because there was little to no reward to. Once the population stops working hard, productivity drops, the GDP drops, your power to import goods and services into the country drops, meaning there is another drop in productivity (can't make items without resources) etc. etc.

Exactly what will happen under NOW.

[oldrider]

Wait. We still talking about .com?

In a way ... yes ... so what the fuck has KDC got to offer NZ other than a minor one horse strategy that suits his "own" ends? :confused:

[mashman]

I've changed the order of some posts and ignored many of them to try to keep us in the NOW. But this should address the posts that I haven't responded to directly also:



I read the information you provided, and agree its a nice theory, but without rewarding people relative to their contribution, it will fail.

You're speaking for everyone without asking them and drawing a conslusion based on the behaviour of people under the system that currently exists. The outcome is unknown. You say it will fail. I disagree.



Sweet, if I won, then you conceed that NOW isn't a perfect solution and without accounting for the human factor is doomed to failure?

I've stated that NOW isn't a perfect solution, but you seem to be under the illusion that human beings are suddenly going to change. I'm not. They can, but I doubt it's going to matter too much unless a critical mass of people decide to do fuck all and we have to go back to a financial system. That critical mass will likely be calculated by some smart fulla when the time comes.



No, the Population stopped working hard and innovating because there was little to no reward to. Once the population stops working hard, productivity drops, the GDP drops, your power to import goods and services into the country drops, meaning there is another drop in productivity (can't make items without resources) etc. etc.

Exactly what will happen under NOW.

Why will this happen under NOW? You're throwing financial terms around where NOW doesn't rely on a financial system. You have to realise that if the critical mass have voted for NOW that they'll understand that there will be no financial system i.e. no financial reward etc... If they have voted for it, then they have accepted that. At which point in time, NOW will work. There is no logic or reason you can throw into the mix that can deny that as a statement of fact. The ONLY thing will be if a critical mass of workers stop... and then you get your "Russian" example.



Which is it then? either some people do things without reward - in which case you can design your system NOW (pun intended) or no one does things without reward and you need to pay them.

And to throw you a Bone - some people do do things for the love of Doing them - I believe you referenced Linux as an example so I put a challenge to you - if Linus can create an OS that has been improved by multiple programmers from different nationalities, faiths, backgrounds etc. and subsequently formed into a fully working OS (I have Ubuntu and Xubuntu running somewhere, used to have a Debian box but Decommed it)

Why can't you fully form your financial system?

Nearly fell off my chair when I saw the question mark. Only those who seek financial rewards will be affected. As we haven't asked everyone, we'll have to wait and see whether there are sufficient enough numbers i.e. when it's voted on. I saw a lead Doctor on TV the other day (was on Max Keiser) and they were discussing the privatisation of the NHS. Keiser mentioned that his salary would quadruple if he worked for a private contractor, to which he answered, it's not about the money, it's about helping people. Perhaps there are more people out there doing the really important jobs than you or I know... but this is why I would like to find out.

When I said Ubuntu, I wasn't referencing an operating system:



A story of Ubuntu – I am what I am because of who we all are :)

An anthropologist studying the habits and customs of an African tribe found himself surrounded by children most days. So he decided to play a little game with them. He managed to get candy from the nearest town and put it all in a decorated basket at the foot of a tree.

Then he called the children and suggested they play the game. When the anthropologist said “now”, the children had to run to the tree and the first one to get there could have all the candy to him/herself.

So the children all lined up waiting for the signal. When the anthropologist said “now”, all of the children took each other by the hand ran together towards the tree. They all arrived at the same time divided up the candy, sat down and began to happily munch away.

The anthropologist went over to them and asked why they had all run together when any one of them could have had the candy all to themselves.

The children responded: “Ubuntu. How could any one of us be happy if all the others were sad?”

Ubuntu is a philosophy of African tribes that can be summed up as “I am what I am because of who we all are.”

How long did it take Linus to write his OS and how many people have since helped him "upgrade" it? My financial system is fully formed, however you don't like the answer. Quite simply put, all jobs currently being done, all imports currently being imported/exports, all behaviours that an individual exhibits stay the same and the financial system is virtualised. You have a functioning system, because it currently functions and NOW isn't changing that. It will respond to any changes that the smart people believe will make "efficiencies" (that involves the devolution of central governance into localised areas, councils if you will), but that's entirely secondary. As you say, nice idea, but what about the reaction of the people... Will they keep doing their jobs etc...? NOW can deal with a critical mass of people not doing their jobs. Here's where we get into reward, well, punishment for those "lazy bludgers". Local society MAY not "serve" those "bludgers" other than to "serve" them the bare essentials. The more devolved the governnance, the easier it will be to identify the "bludger". If there is a mechanism required for identifying "bludgers", then I'm sure some smarty pants will come up with one, but it won't be one that financially penalises them, as there will be no money.

The virtualisation of money is nothing more than not haveing currency floating around in the local economy. People will still need to invoice where they invoice, beep a checkout point where they beep it, scan a card etc... if for no other purpose than we're still going to need a stocktake. The money will go into NZ Inc bank (individual accounts for failover) and life will go on.

[mashman]

In a way ... yes ... so what the fuck has KDC got to offer NZ other than a minor one horse strategy that suits his "own" ends? :confused:

Wot J said.

Edity: Let's give the guy some credit for a second.

The media are reporting that KDC will eat into the labour/green vote. This is only a bad thing if for labour/green if KDC then takes his vote to national. For arguments sake let's say he keeps it on the left. IF KDC has gotten the disenfranchised off of their arses to vote, then it would stand to reason that a coalition of labour/green & internez party would topple the natz. This only really proves that the media haven't got a fuckin clue... and the outcome is that w end up under a different govt with a slightly different ideology, which as we know means absolutely fuck all in the grand scale of things. Although having said that, I do find it much more hilarious when the right whinge start to moan about business suffering due to a more socially focused policy than vice versa.

[Akzle]

i've got the fucking munchies and nothing to munch.

[puddytat]

i've got the fucking munchies and nothing to munch.

Fuck...no weetbix?
I just had a dot.com size bowlfull...now for a wafer:blink:

[Akzle]

Fuck...no weetbix?
I just had a dot.com size bowlfull...now for a wafer:blink:

got weetbix, but im off carbs :S

[avgas]

got weetbix, but im off carbs :S
I hear bullshit is high in fiber.

[TheDemonLord]

You're speaking for everyone without asking them and drawing a conslusion based on the behaviour of people under the system that currently exists. The outcome is unknown. You say it will fail. I disagree.

I am speaking for people based on their actions, and as we know, Actions speak louder than words


I've stated that NOW isn't a perfect solution, but you seem to be under the illusion that human beings are suddenly going to change. I'm not. They can, but I doubt it's going to matter too much unless a critical mass of people decide to do fuck all and we have to go back to a financial system. That critical mass will likely be calculated by some smart fulla when the time comes.

So then, the people must change their attitudes first before a NOW type will work - but it cannot work before, which was my point.


Why will this happen under NOW? You're throwing financial terms around where NOW doesn't rely on a financial system. You have to realise that if the critical mass have voted for NOW that they'll understand that there will be no financial system i.e. no financial reward etc... If they have voted for it, then they have accepted that. At which point in time, NOW will work. There is no logic or reason you can throw into the mix that can deny that as a statement of fact. The ONLY thing will be if a critical mass of workers stop... and then you get your "Russian" example.

And what stops the critical mass of workers stopping if everything is provided for them?


Nearly fell off my chair when I saw the question mark. Only those who seek financial rewards will be affected. As we haven't asked everyone, we'll have to wait and see whether there are sufficient enough numbers i.e. when it's voted on. I saw a lead Doctor on TV the other day (was on Max Keiser) and they were discussing the privatisation of the NHS. Keiser mentioned that his salary would quadruple if he worked for a private contractor, to which he answered, it's not about the money, it's about helping people. Perhaps there are more people out there doing the really important jobs than you or I know... but this is why I would like to find out.

If you would like to know first, then by all means, but surely it would be prudent to find out first? - if the status quo is maintained and you are right - nothing bad happens, but if there is a change and I am right - it is a disaster.


How long did it take Linus to write his OS and how many people have since helped him "upgrade" it? My financial system is fully formed, however you don't like the answer. Quite simply put, all jobs currently being done, all imports currently being imported/exports, all behaviours that an individual exhibits stay the same and the financial system is virtualised. You have a functioning system, because it currently functions and NOW isn't changing that. It will respond to any changes that the smart people believe will make "efficiencies" (that involves the devolution of central governance into localised areas, councils if you will), but that's entirely secondary. As you say, nice idea, but what about the reaction of the people... Will they keep doing their jobs etc...? NOW can deal with a critical mass of people not doing their jobs. Here's where we get into reward, well, punishment for those "lazy bludgers". Local society MAY not "serve" those "bludgers" other than to "serve" them the bare essentials. The more devolved the governnance, the easier it will be to identify the "bludger". If there is a mechanism required for identifying "bludgers", then I'm sure some smarty pants will come up with one, but it won't be one that financially penalises them, as there will be no money.

I think the first few Linux Kernals were done between 92 and 94, since it was released - thousands of people have contributed to the Linux Kernal, but you dodged the challenged (again) - so you now claim the system is fully formed, so lets go with this:

there is now no incentive other than the love of the job to go through higher education - I grant you that some people will still go through higher education as that is the career choice they want but a significant percentage won't as there is no additional tangible value, there is also no tangible value in enduring the additional pressures and stresses of the more demanding jobs.

As for the Bludgers - what do you define as the bare essentials? Bread and Water? and without Financial pressure, what do you replace it with as an incentive to these people to not be Bludge?


The virtualisation of money is nothing more than not haveing currency floating around in the local economy. People will still need to invoice where they invoice, beep a checkout point where they beep it, scan a card etc... if for no other purpose than we're still going to need a stocktake. The money will go into NZ Inc bank (individual accounts for failover) and life will go on.

So without Currency, why would you need Credit? and therefore a Credit Card?

you still haven't answered my challenge for what safeguards are there on NZ Inc Bank to not turn corrupt - if one organization controls the finances for an Entire country then that one organisation by your owne assertion - controls the country.

[Akzle]

I hear bullshit is high in fiber.

its normally coming out of my mouth than vicey versey...

Also, i have no idea what the fuck that has to do with snacks or carbohydrates...

[Akzle]

Fuck...no weetbix?
I just had a dot.com size bowlfull...now for a wafer:blink:

fuck. Did i completely miss the python.
Have i mentioned the drugs?

[mashman]

I am speaking for people based on their actions, and as we know, Actions speak louder than words


Yes actions do speak louder than words... but as yet, some (the majority most likely) of the people don't know about the alternatives that are available. If you knew how they'd react, then those with whom I've spoken would have said no instantly. Oddly enough most of them did... but after a few mins of discussion (sometimes longer) they're thinking for themselves, they understand the benefits and "change" their own mind. Which is the key point. I am not trying to change anyone's mind, I realise the futility in that, but people do change theirs based on what they perceive a particular system may offer. Some behaviours change too. Ask me to assassinate Mugabe and I'd tell you to go away, offer me $20 million and a safe haven and I may reconsider. Speaking for everyone based on their current actions within the current confines of the system is one thing, them making up their own minds with the alternatives explained is another thing entirely.



So then, the people must change their attitudes first before a NOW type will work - but it cannot work before, which was my point.


No. They only need to choose to carry on the way they currently are. Acceptance is all that is required... a personal choice.



And what stops the critical mass of workers stopping if everything is provided for them?


Nothing, only themselves. No man is an island. If you remove the bin men it could quite easily all go tits, as it could do through any industry downing tools for whatever reason. A critical mass of people are required to keep society functioning and vice versa.



If you would like to know first, then by all means, but surely it would be prudent to find out first? - if the status quo is maintained and you are right - nothing bad happens, but if there is a change and I am right - it is a disaster.


We'll find out when it's available to vote on. Of course there will ahve to be some form of citizens initiated binding referendum to get it on the table in the first place... unless an existing political party takes it on board that is... even then the govt of the day will want signatures. It doesn't matter who's right, only that we find out if we can make it work, surely? Given the direction we're headed (you may see no problem with our current direction, but there are those who do), is it not better to have tried and failed than to have not tried at all? For the record, I don't class changing financial policy as trying anything other than to fool the people. If it fails why would there be disaster? Well, true, going back to the financial system would be a disaster :laugh:.



I think the first few Linux Kernals were done between 92 and 94, since it was released - thousands of people have contributed to the Linux Kernal, but you dodged the challenged (again) - so you now claim the system is fully formed, so lets go with this:

there is now no incentive other than the love of the job to go through higher education - I grant you that some people will still go through higher education as that is the career choice they want but a significant percentage won't as there is no additional tangible value, there is also no tangible value in enduring the additional pressures and stresses of the more demanding jobs.

As for the Bludgers - what do you define as the bare essentials? Bread and Water? and without Financial pressure, what do you replace it with as an incentive to these people to not be Bludge?


I gave you the an answer that was the equivalent of your question. Not providing me with all of the business logic and detailed application domain interfaces (you're in IT, you know what I mean), along with complete interface documentation down, including socket level instructions... then you must communicate that to the entire user base and have them understand exactly how that works, then I'll give you what you believe you were asking for. You're going to have to extrapolate a few things for yourself if you want to understand how NOW might work. NOW will also have had thousands of people contributing to the system design by the time it is ready for release.

Have you held a survey of every single person in the country as to why they do their job. And by survey, I don'tmean interview 50,000 and then apply a statistical model to it. What additional stresses and pressures of what more demanding jobs?

Bare essentials is food, water, a house, electricity and access to transport (and likely a few other things). There is no way to guarantee that a mate of theirs doesn't decide to see them right in other things, exactly the same as currently happens. NOW won't be perfect remember. The incentive is that you will be helping others out and keeping society ticking over.



So without Currency, why would you need Credit? and therefore a Credit Card?

you still haven't answered my challenge for what safeguards are there on NZ Inc Bank to not turn corrupt - if one organization controls the finances for an Entire country then that one organisation by your owne assertion - controls the country.


Because you need to prove that your GDP isn't artificially inflated else the rest of the world call foul. Therefore we must still "spend", but virtually.

I did answer it.



If someone is screwing NZ Inc, then they'll go to jail for life if caught. After all, they will have screwed everyone in the country. We can't stop that happening in the not so free market economy. Trust is a bitch, but hopefully we'll learn that again. Neither system has a safeguard, just a stick if you get caught. Fortunately, if that happens, the local economy should suffer minimally... but that'll depend on the scale of the theft. You can only hope that people won't screw the country... exactly the same as currently happens. I'm sure there will be those who will go for the money grab. They currently do it and I agree that they will try to do it under NOW. Let's hope your behavioural profile will show them up before they get there.


Not quite. I said that the money controllers were nothing more than a payroll department and a payroll department doesn't own the company does it?

[mashman]

its normally coming out of my mouth than vicey versey...

In which case, swallow, don't spit.

[TheDemonLord]

Ask me to assassinate Mugabe and I'd tell you to go away, offer me $20 million and a safe haven and I may reconsider. Speaking for everyone based on their current actions within the current confines of the system is one thing, them making up their own minds with the alternatives explained is another thing entirely.

I'd Assassinate Mugabe on Principle - I would only ask for a Rifle and a place to take a shot.

To sum up then - You are asserting that presented with alternatives, the population at large will change their behaviour and embrace change.

Noble Sentiments truly - but based on lessons from history, let the people change their behaviour first, then implement the alternative.


Nothing, only themselves. No man is an island. If you remove the bin men it could quite easily all go tits, as it could do through any industry downing tools for whatever reason. A critical mass of people are required to keep society functioning and vice versa.

I don't know about you - but I find that a truly terrifying prospect - with nothing to stop them, society can in effect be held hostage by anyone with nefarious intent - if your system could be modified in a way that safeguards against this, then perhaps you might have a viable alternative IMO.


Given the direction we're headed (you may see no problem with our current direction, but there are those who do), is it not better to have tried and failed than to have not tried at all? For the record, I don't class changing financial policy as trying anything other than to fool the people. If it fails why would there be disaster? Well, true, going back to the financial system would be a disaster :laugh:.

I agree on the principle here, but not the practice - when a different financial system is implemented and it fails, the consequences tend to be long lasting and catastrophic, its not a case of someone going "oh well, that hasn't worked" then flipping a switch and everything is back to the way it was.


I gave you the an answer that was the equivalent of your question. Not providing me with all of the business logic and detailed application domain interfaces (you're in IT, you know what I mean), along with complete interface documentation down, including socket level instructions... then you must communicate that to the entire user base and have them understand exactly how that works, then I'll give you what you believe you were asking for. You're going to have to extrapolate a few things for yourself if you want to understand how NOW might work. NOW will also have had thousands of people contributing to the system design by the time it is ready for release.

Until it is in a ready to release state (so in keeping with the IT analogy, at least in Beta) it is premature to discuss it as a viable possible alternative.


Have you held a survey of every single person in the country as to why they do their job. And by survey, I don'tmean interview 50,000 and then apply a statistical model to it. What additional stresses and pressures of what more demanding jobs?

You know as well as I that a survey of every single person in the country, regardless of the question asked is never going to recieve 100% participation so any survey will require extrapolation. Also as you and I know, Surveys tend to be written with leading questions (in order to have the results be in line with what is asked)

Additional Stresses and pressures like "do I address the Aerterial bleeding in the arm or the shattered rib cage" with the consequences being life or death. Compared to "Do I cut the long grass over there first, or start here?"


Bare essentials is food, water, a house, electricity and access to transport (and likely a few other things). There is no way to guarantee that a mate of theirs doesn't decide to see them right in other things, exactly the same as currently happens. NOW won't be perfect remember. The incentive is that you will be helping others out and keeping society ticking over.

That Incentive is luke warm at best - Especially when not everyone has to keep Society ticking over.


Not quite. I said that the money controllers were nothing more than a payroll department and a payroll department doesn't own the company does it?

But a Payroll department can certainly shaft all the employees if they cock it up - which is why there need to be safeguards, currently the safeguards are with the Ballot and with the ability to take business to a competing Bank.

[mashman]

I'd Assassinate Mugabe on Principle - I would only ask for a Rifle and a place to take a shot.

To sum up then - You are asserting that presented with alternatives, the population at large will change their behaviour and embrace change.

Noble Sentiments truly - but based on lessons from history, let the people change their behaviour first, then implement the alternative.


A safe getaway would be nice.

Not change their behaviour, that's a MIGHT based on the fact that human's can change their behaviour given a favourable environment. Similarly with change, but I think most of us want change, unfortunately we're not offered the alternatives and informed about the benefits.

People are already changing their behaviour, or should I say exploring other sides of it. Even still, the environment change can speed that up.



I don't know about you - but I find that a truly terrifying prospect - with nothing to stop them, society can in effect be held hostage by anyone with nefarious intent - if your system could be modified in a way that safeguards against this, then perhaps you might have a viable alternative IMO.


I do... but it currently happens, hence my looking for alternatives/coming up with an addition (the missing link?) to an old idea. The only safeguards that are in place is that payroll can only release money based on the signature of a company CEO, as it happens now. Payroll just pay the bills. Maybe them dodgy folk could be charged with treason, if caught, and put to death? Am sure the smart folk will come up with alternative safeguards... but nothing is inherently safe.



I agree on the principle here, but not the practice - when a different financial system is implemented and it fails, the consequences tend to be long lasting and catastrophic, its not a case of someone going "oh well, that hasn't worked" then flipping a switch and everything is back to the way it was.


True. Either way we will know as payroll will have to keep an eye on what's going in and what's coming out and whether we're heading for a fall. I think the GFC shows that there are no safeguards in that respect.



Until it is in a ready to release state (so in keeping with the IT analogy, at least in Beta) it is premature to discuss it as a viable possible alternative.


I'm with ya in regards to the jargon as I'm an A/P... amongst other things. There will be no soft release as it really the kind of thing you can rollout. It should't be too complicated as we'll have a year or two to prepare for it, vote on whether we still want it, then implement it. The Parallel run will be permanent as we'll still be keeping a financial tally, just virtually.



You know as well as I that a survey of every single person in the country, regardless of the question asked is never going to recieve 100% participation so any survey will require extrapolation. Also as you and I know, Surveys tend to be written with leading questions (in order to have the results be in line with what is asked)

Additional Stresses and pressures like "do I address the Aerterial bleeding in the arm or the shattered rib cage" with the consequences being life or death. Compared to "Do I cut the long grass over there first, or start here?"


Which is why I suggest it be put to a vote. Those who care will vote, those who don't, won't. Could be an interesting voter turnout eh. That gets around the leading questions too.

They're both trained to deal with those situations. Whenever I hear about Doctors complaining, it's usuall because they are being over-worked, not that they find it hard to do the job. Sure being a Doctor will be more stressful, but they chose to do that job. I'm hoping that everyone who wants to be a Doctor will be able to become one, therefore giving us more Doctors, which should then shorten their hours... should they wish to work less.



That Incentive is luke warm at best - Especially when not everyone has to keep Society ticking over.


Luke warm for you, for me I won't care about the incentive as I'll be contributing and enjoying life. Currently we have unemployment and people who don't contribute, but they're a relatively small number of people and I don't begrudge their choice given the environment they are faced with. With any luck, they'll darwin themselves in some way.



But a Payroll department can certainly shaft all the employees if they cock it up - which is why there need to be safeguards, currently the safeguards are with the Ballot and with the ability to take business to a competing Bank.


It happens. Even the banks with all of their top end systems fail BACS runs on occassion and cause people to miss payments etc... some places have smart A/P's that reintegrate the systems in hours instead of weeks ;). Either way, with people not requiring money, it'd be one less thing to be concerned with.

[Ocean1]

Just for a change, you fill in the blanks yourself.

I'm disappointed. I'd have thought you had at least the basics figured out before you make any claims about any new system.

Seein' as how you're doing so well with understanding the technical jargon; do you know what a negative feedback control loop is dude? The current system removes much of the performance benefits from our top earners, it removes all of the disincentives of non-performance from those that don't contribute. That distortion is already seen as a significant brake on GDP.

What mechanisms do you plan for your system that will reward high performance to the extent required to equal or better current productivity?

That's productivity in every field, not just the ones you consider worthy.

[mashman]

I'm disappointed. I'd have thought you had at least the basics figured out before you make any claims about any new system.

Seein' as how you're doing so well with understanding the technical jargon; do you know what a negative feedback control loop is dude? The current system removes much of the performance benefits from our top earners, it removes all of the disincentives of non-performance from those that don't contribute. That distortion is already seen as a significant brake on GDP.

What mechanisms do you plan for your system that will reward high performance to the extent required to equal or better current productivity?

That's productivity in every field, not just the ones you consider worthy.

I do. You didn't like it. Your objections were read and noted. And that's all I really have to say about thaaaaat.

I get the concept behind a negative concept loop. So give all of the money to business and see what happens. You will incentivise the non-performers into an action that you really don't want, therefore causing the mother of all negative feedback loops. Then again, everyone may just roll over and die nicely. Of course it's seen as a brake on GDP, and looking at it from the other end, it's seen as a brake on social cohesion.

None. Unless, of course, you take gratitude and your own pride as incentive and reward alike.

Understood.

[Ocean1]

What are the reasons for non-financial crime? There are many. One of them will be financial stress (payiong for Doctors, ever increasing bills, 55% of the population struggling to the point where they need to be subsidised etc...)

Ignoring, for the moment how financial stress might be the reason for non-financial crime, I'm interested in what you see as the reason that 55% might be under any stress in paying their bills.

[mashman]

Ignoring, for the moment how financial stress might be the reason for non-financial crime, I'm interested in what you see as the reason that 55% might be under any stress in paying their bills.

THE reason? I don't see financial stress as the sole reserve of the "poor". Making the bills can be tricky depending on the weeks/months unexpected expenditure and not being able to meet the requirements of the unexpected expenditure because you have paid the bills can all lead to financial stress. Some people will feel it, some won't. Why you're picking 55%?

[Ocean1]

I do. You didn't like it. Your objections were read and noted. And that's all I really have to say about thaaaaat.

I have seen absolutely nothing that suggests you have any idea about what drives an economy. Quite the reverse.


I get the concept behind a negative concept loop. So give all of the money to business and see what happens. You will incentivise the non-performers into an action that you really don't want, therefore causing the mother of all negative feedback loops.

That first sentence sorta proves that you don't have any idea what a negative CONTROL loop is.

The second is current practice, business being the class of entity that actually generates the money in the first place.

The third simply demonstrates that you don't know that, AND further demonstrates that you have no idea what a negative control loop is, and again reveals the real reason for your plan: You don't like the idea that businesses actually earn money.


Of course it's seen as a brake on GDP, and looking at it from the other end, it's seen as a brake on social cohesion.

Were you sick the day teacher explained you about the pyramid of needs?

Without an adequate reward system for productivity you don't have product, and without product you don't have a society to enjoy cohesion. Or anything else.

The side you need to get everyone on is the PRODUCTIVE one, not the one that promises to doll out anything anyone wants no matter what they produce...



None. Unless, of course, you take gratitude and your own pride as incentive and reward alike.

...A promise, I might add that is very difficult to believe given the complete lack of incentive to produce anything other than a vague "love thy fellow man".

It simply doesn't add up, dude. As any honest appreciation of similar philosophies throughout history would have demonstrated.

[Ocean1]

THE reason? I don't see financial stress as the sole reserve of the "poor". Making the bills can be tricky depending on the weeks/months unexpected expenditure and not being able to meet the requirements of the unexpected expenditure because you have paid the bills can all lead to financial stress. Some people will feel it, some won't. Why you're picking 55%?

It's not. It's a simple function of the gap between expectations and reality.

And I didn't pick 55%, you did, I quoted you. In fact you originally got it from me.

At the time I was interested to see if you saw the sublime irony of a socialist policy that took so much tax from someone who earned more than average that they had to subsidise him.

I see the penny still hasn't dropped.

[mashman]

I have seen absolutely nothing that suggests you have any idea about what drives an economy. Quite the reverse.

People. Money is just a token to facilitate exchange.



That first sentence sorta proves that you don't have any idea what a negative CONTROL loop is.

The second is current practice, business being the class of entity that actually generates the money in the first place.

The third simply demonstrates that you don't know that, AND further demonstrates that you have no idea what a negative control loop is, and again reveals the real reason for your plan: You don't like the idea that businesses actually earn money.

Go on then Prof, unleash thy wisdom and condense it for us thicko's.

:yawn:

I don't care if business earns money or not, I care that they waste resources and don;t do things for the benefit of the people.



Were you sick the day teacher explained you about the pyramid of needs?

Without an adequate reward system for productivity you don't have product, and without product you don't have a society to enjoy cohesion. Or anything else.

The side you need to get everyone on is the PRODUCTIVE one, not the one that promises to doll out anything anyone wants no matter what they produce...

Maslow's wrong way up bullshit?

You're right, WTF was I thinking.

Not everyone.



...A promise, I might add that is very difficult to believe given the complete lack of incentive to produce anything other than a vague "love thy fellow man".

It simply doesn't add up, dude. As any honest appreciation of similar philosophies throughout history would have demonstrated.

You don't have to believe it. It isn't solely down to you. I'm alright with "dude, I'll do my job if you do yours and I'll see you at fishin next week", before grabbing the next bin as my mate heads off to his job.

For you it doesn't, man. We live in a different age, things have changed. Time to change with them or forever suffer budget constrained advances.

[TheDemonLord]

Mashman,

I haven't quoted your last post as there is nothing I feel I need to rebut directly, but it seems we have reached some conclusion

There are points we have agreed on that the NOW theory is not yet complete and that additional work is needed.

There is a possibility that once these points are addressed it may be a viable alternative - I myself still doubt this, but I would have to look at the system with the modifications before reaching a final judgement.

[mashman]

Mashman,

I haven't quoted your last post as there is nothing I feel I need to rebut directly, but it seems we have reached some conclusion

There are points we have agreed on that the NOW theory is not yet complete and that additional work is needed.

There is a possibility that once these points are addressed it may be a viable alternative - I myself still doubt this, but I would have to look at the system with the modifications before reaching a final judgement.

Fair enough. I don't disagree with any points you've raised there... i's do need to be dotted and t's do need to be crossed. Yes that's right, I have doubts myself and as said earlier, it's the people I run the idea past that keep more on the positive side of things.

Perhaps you could offer some modifications that are acceptable to you? I can't think of everything and a fresh perspective is always welcome whether it seems that way or not.

Cheers

Gordon

[Akzle]

you motherfucker.
I guess repetition does work on some people.

[mashman]

you motherfucker.
I guess repetition does work on some people.

:killingme... I wish that was what happened coz it'd fuckin easy then.

[Ocean1]

People.

People do drive the economy. Which is why it's important to encourage them to produce shit others consider valuable. That's what the economy is, after all, the value of the collective goods and services available.


Money is just a token to facilitate exchange.

It is. But that very function means it's also an accounting unit, (the measure of an asset's value) and a potential store of value.

So without it you can't accurately value shit, and you can't reliably save anything.


Go on then Prof, unleash thy wisdom and condense it for us thicko's.


Remember your mum telling you to do your homework, 'cause it might be the only chance you have to learn something?

She was right.

Gwarne, you can cut/paste it into google can't ya?



I don't care if business earns money or not, I care that they waste resources and don;t do things for the benefit of the people.

Businesses ARE the people. What's more almost all of the money they earn is paid directly to their employees. How is that wasting anything? how does that not benefit people?

Or are you solely focussed on the populist, socialist view of business being some of the more unsavoury International corporations? In which case possibly your idea of what a company is needs recalibrating.


Maslow's wrong way up bullshit?

Exactly. And it is indeed perfectly clear that you consider social niceties to be more important than food and shelter, which you routinely claim is everyone's absolute god given right.

Whereas most would consider breathing, sleep, water etc to be a precondition of self actualisation.

Which means that the economy is indeed more important than any charity you might feel due your fellow man, because unless you produce more than you need you've got nothing to give.


You're right, WTF was I thinking.

I couldn't possibly comment.

With a straight face.


Not everyone.

Of course not everyone, if you gave everyone what they earned you wouldn't be able to give those that didn't earn as much what they wanted, would you?


You don't have to believe it. It isn't solely down to you. I'm alright with "dude, I'll do my job if you do yours and I'll see you at fishin next week", before grabbing the next bin as my mate heads off to his job.

The trouble is anyone who does have an honest appreciation of similar philosophies throughout history also won't believe you. Which doesn't leave you with a very educated or substantial following, does it?

Especially if you let on that the first order of business is to take every other week off to go fishing instead of contributing to the cause.


For you it doesn't, man. We live in a different age, things have changed. Time to change with them or forever suffer budget constrained advances.

Aye. The current age is populated by those who have never been more insulated from the consequences of any lack of productivity. I'll retain the values that got me where I am, they've proven effective so far and nobody, least of all you has so far demonstrated to me that there was an effective alternative to hard work in achieving anything at all.

And time will indeed tell whether I'm correct or not.

[mashman]

People do drive the economy. Which is why it's important to encourage them to produce shit others consider valuable. That's what the economy is, after all, the value of the collective goods and services available.

But they only do it for money?



It is. But that very function means it's also an accounting unit, (the measure of an asset's value) and a potential store of value.

So without it you can't accurately value shit, and you can't reliably save anything.

No fuckin way. How do you assign a value to something that doesn't exist?

You can value something as important by how scare it is i.e. only 12 million trees left, trees required for the next 10 years, 12 million and 1. No money, but the trees will most definitely be valued and with any luck, saved. Something your precious money grabbing economy doesn't give a shit about.



Remember your mum telling you to do your homework, 'cause it might be the only chance you have to learn something?

She was right.

Gwarne, you can cut/paste it into google can't ya?

I know she was. Didn't stop me from not doing my homework.

Tell me.



Businesses ARE the people. What's more almost all of the money they earn is paid directly to their employees. How is that wasting anything? how does that not benefit people?

Or are you solely focussed on the populist, socialist view of business being some of the more unsavoury International corporations? In which case possibly your idea of what a company is needs recalibrating.

I wish they were. Having a degree qualified anything that works at Macca's because the positions have been filled is a waste.

I want businesses to thrive... but not with a financial focus. In fact I reckon they'd be better without money as they could have as many staff as they like to produce the best product they can. My recalibration isn't complete yet, but it's going in the opposite direction that you believe it should



Exactly. And it is indeed perfectly clear that you consider social niceties to be more important than food and shelter, which you routinely claim is everyone's absolute god given right.

Whereas most would consider breathing, sleep, water etc to be a precondition of self actualisation.

Which means that the economy is indeed more important than any charity you might feel due your fellow man, because unless you produce more than you need you've got nothing to give.

It should be entirely flat.

...

They are as important as each other. As you say, the People are the economy and vice versa.



I couldn't possibly comment.

With a straight face.


Restraint? That's twice in 1 day that I've nearly fallen off my chair.



Of course not everyone, if you gave everyone what they earned you wouldn't be able to give those that didn't earn as much what they wanted, would you?

You said everyone.



The trouble is anyone who does have an honest appreciation of similar philosophies throughout history also won't believe you. Which doesn't leave you with a very educated or substantial following, does it?

Especially if you let on that the first order of business is to take every other week off to go fishing instead of contributing to the cause.

Some people prefer to be lied to... given that the victor writes history n all. They don't have to be very educated.

Didn't say I was gonna take every other week off... however if things work as I expect, that may well be a possibility.



Aye. The current age is populated by those who have never been more insulated from the consequences of any lack of productivity. I'll retain the values that got me where I am, they've proven effective so far and nobody, least of all you has so far demonstrated to me that there was an effective alternative to hard work in achieving anything at all.

And time will indeed tell whether I'm correct or not.

Did I say that hard work wasn't required?

Here's hopin you're not entirely correct.

[mashman]

It's not. It's a simple function of the gap between expectations and reality.

And I didn't pick 55%, you did, I quoted you. In fact you originally got it from me.

At the time I was interested to see if you saw the sublime irony of a socialist policy that took so much tax from someone who earned more than average that they had to subsidise him.

I see the penny still hasn't dropped.

One man's ice cream is another man's nipple raising cream.

You did, but I never said that that 55% were under financial stress, I said they were struggling to the point where the govt has to subsidise them.

I don't care. At best it's just another financial policy that's failed to work.

Some things you just need to spell out.

[Ocean1]

But they only do it for money?

Nope, but money is how others value their efforts. Which is entirely appropriate because that money represents their own efforts.

And that'll deal with the rest of your answers too.



Except this:

Here's hopin you're not entirely correct.

You can take my word for it, hard work is always necessary to meet the expectations of anyone with any aspirations worthy of human endeavour.

Which is why I tend to have little respect for anyone who wants anything whatsoever without going to the trouble of earning it.

[Ocean1]

One man's ice cream is another man's nipple raising cream.

Gibberish isn't an acceptable form of debate, dude.


You did, but I never said that that 55% were under financial stress, I said they were struggling to the point where the govt has to subsidise them.

Yes you did:


What are the reasons for non-financial crime? There are many. One of them will be financial stress (payiong for Doctors, ever increasing bills, 55% of the population struggling to the point where they need to be subsidised etc...)



I don't care. At best it's just another financial policy that's failed to work.

Some things you just need to spell out.

I know. It doesn't fit your world view, so it's ignored or denied.

Here's the spelling: Instead of taxing most people so much that you have to give some of it back so they can afford the basics why don't you simply take less off them in the first place?

A question, I see that's on the minds of an unprecedented majority of readers here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9652164/Labour-promises-60-a-week-for-new-babies

[Banditbandit]

Gibberish isn't an acceptable form of debate, dude.




But at least it was amusing ...

[Banditbandit]

Here's the spelling: Instead of taxing most people so much that you have to give some of it back so they can afford the basics why don't you simply take less off them in the first place?

A question, I see that's on the minds of an unprecedented majority of readers here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9652164/Labour-promises-60-a-week-for-new-babies

Yeah .. I could not get my head around Labour raising taxes so they can pay people with babies $60 a week - why the hell not just reduce taxes??? Or make children tax deductible for the first year ..

[Ocean1]

Yeah .. I could not get my head around Labour raising taxes so they can pay people with babies $60 a week - why the hell not just reduce taxes??? Or make children tax deductible for the first year ..

... Or charge them $60 a week for imposing the wee bastards on the rest of us in the first place.

[TheDemonLord]

you motherfucker.
I guess repetition does work on some people.

Well, my objections were based on points where I believe the system will fail in its current state, if those points are addressed then it could be a viable alternative..

So then, to address those points (as I was challenged) although I must stress that I still think the overall concept of NOW and the ability to provide incentives to keep people in higher work are mutually exclusive, I am not one to shy away from a challenge.

First off the real question is how do you Incentivize people without money?

People have to feel adequately rewarded for the job they do in order to keep them doing it. Whether that Reward is Money or other, people have to feel rewarded.

So I had some thoughts on this - first thought was to have some form of Tiered system, but then that is really just importing one of the key problems from the current financial system and will create Financial-style NOW crimes

Since there isn't Money things like Perks (yah know, company car, company lappie etc.) won't work either

Possibly more Holiday time, but seeing as there won't be the financial pressure to not come to work, Holiday won't be as important - people will just go AWOL.

So the best idea I could come up with was some form of gay-ass appreciation day.

But then the problem is for each of the career paths that require significant higher education, they would all need their own appreciation day, thus not making it special.

Maybe someone could come up with better ideas, but yeah, without some form or monetary or item based rewards, I can't think how to give people an incentive to put in the hard yards for the higher jobs and stay in them.

as for sticks to keep people in work - the only ideas I had was either forcing people to work (which isn't a society I want to live in) or being unemployed means you are able to be requsitioned by the State to do any number of Menial tasks (like picking up litter in the Park etc.)

[mashman]

Nope, but money is how others value their efforts. Which is entirely appropriate because that money represents their own efforts.

And that'll deal with the rest of your answers too.


I thought the result was how their effort was valued. Meh.



You can take my word for it, hard work is always necessary to meet the expectations of anyone with any aspirations worthy of human endeavour.

Which is why I tend to have little respect for anyone who wants anything whatsoever without going to the trouble of earning it.


I'll say it again: Did I say that hard work wasn't required?

You have made that clear. Your choice.

[mashman]

Gibberish isn't an acceptable form of debate, dude.

Doesn't stop you.



Yes you did:

Check the context and try again... if you choose.



I know. It doesn't fit your world view, so it's ignored or denied.

Here's the spelling: Instead of taxing most people so much that you have to give some of it back so they can afford the basics why don't you simply take less off them in the first place?

A question, I see that's on the minds of an unprecedented majority of readers here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9652164/Labour-promises-60-a-week-for-new-babies

I gave you a reason for it being ignored.

:killingme... gold

There have always been mainstream popularist pitch fork wielding people... likely always will be.

[GCSB Thought Police]

Yeah .. I could not get my head around Labour raising taxes so they can pay people with babies $60 a week - why the hell not just reduce taxes??? Or make children tax deductible for the first year ..

So, the chance of you voting for them has just dropped a notch ?

[Banditbandit]

Doh ...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/education/news/article.cfm?c_id=35&objectid=11192426&ref=rss


"They do a good job, but corporate welfare, or corporate largesse, is not the solution to serious poverty and inequity. It is a responsibility of the state to make sure we have the economic settings right so families have enough to feed their kids."

So the Government is going to pay for their food ??? Fail ..

[BoristheBiter]

Well, my objections were based on points where I believe the system will fail in its current state, if those points are addressed then it could be a viable alternative..

So then, to address those points (as I was challenged) although I must stress that I still think the overall concept of NOW and the ability to provide incentives to keep people in higher work are mutually exclusive, I am not one to shy away from a challenge.

First off the real question is how do you Incentivize people without money?

People have to feel adequately rewarded for the job they do in order to keep them doing it. Whether that Reward is Money or other, people have to feel rewarded.

So I had some thoughts on this - first thought was to have some form of Tiered system, but then that is really just importing one of the key problems from the current financial system and will create Financial-style NOW crimes

Since there isn't Money things like Perks (yah know, company car, company lappie etc.) won't work either

Possibly more Holiday time, but seeing as there won't be the financial pressure to not come to work, Holiday won't be as important - people will just go AWOL.

So the best idea I could come up with was some form of gay-ass appreciation day.

But then the problem is for each of the career paths that require significant higher education, they would all need their own appreciation day, thus not making it special.

Maybe someone could come up with better ideas, but yeah, without some form or monetary or item based rewards, I can't think how to give people an incentive to put in the hard yards for the higher jobs and stay in them.

as for sticks to keep people in work - the only ideas I had was either forcing people to work (which isn't a society I want to live in) or being unemployed means you are able to be requsitioned by the State to do any number of Menial tasks (like picking up litter in the Park etc.)

easy.

everyone is educated exactly the same until they are 13.
then a ballot is done and they are given what their jobs will be and they will be trained accordingly.
If you don't like the job you have been given you will have a month to find the job you want and swap with that person.

The bigger issue is, as a species, we are lazy slack arses.

[mashman]

easy.

everyone is educated exactly the same until they are 13.
then a ballot is done and they are given what their jobs will be and they will be trained accordingly.
If you don't like the job you have been given you will have a month to find the job you want and swap with that person.

The bigger issue is, as a species, we are lazy slack arses.

They made a movie about a system like that: Bee Movie.

[mashman]

Doh ...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/education/news/article.cfm?c_id=35&objectid=11192426&ref=rss


"They do a good job, but corporate welfare, or corporate largesse, is not the solution to serious poverty and inequity. It is a responsibility of the state to make sure we have the economic settings right so families have enough to feed their kids."

So the Government is going to pay for their food ??? Fail ..

Cutting nose off to spite face comes to mind.

[Banditbandit]

So, the chance of you voting for them has just dropped a notch ?

As you should well know there is already NO CHANCE of me voting for the right leaning pack of wankers ...

[oldrider]

As you should well know there is already NO CHANCE of me voting for the right leaning pack of wankers ...

Pity that ... with your head screwed on the right (pun) way you would be as good as any other pretender that I have seen in there! :yes:

[BoristheBiter]

They made a movie about a system like that: Bee Movie.

Maybe should look to them, or ants, to form the new world order.

[mashman]

Maybe should look to them, or ants, to form the new world order.

:rofl:... I think that's where the new world order is heading anyway.

[BoristheBiter]

:rofl:... I think that's where the new world order is heading anyway.

yep, kill off the sick, old and those that don't want to work.

[mashman]

yep, kill off the sick, old and those that don't want to work.

Nahhhh... they need all of those scrounging bastards to kick, else they'd each the rich (whatever the fuck rich is... personally I'd prefer to eat the sweet)

[oldrider]

Nahhhh... they need all of those scrounging bastards to kick, else they'd each the rich (whatever the fuck rich is... personally I'd prefer to eat the sweet)

Hey Mashie if John Key and the National party said that they would impliment your NOW scheme ... would you vote for them? :blip:

[mashman]

Hey Mashie if John Key and the National party said that they would impliment your NOW scheme ... would you vote for them? :blip:

Yes. I know I could trust them to fulfil their promise. But in all seriousness, absolutely if they actually looked as though they were doing it i.e. they put the system on the ballot before their re-election to govt and educated the people in regards to what NOW was.

[BoristheBiter]

Nahhhh... they need all of those scrounging bastards to kick, else they'd each the rich (whatever the fuck rich is... personally I'd prefer to eat the sweet)

It is only the left, and those scrounging, that say that.

[Ocean1]

I thought the result was how their effort was valued. Meh.

Wrong. If you want to keep the result of your effort then presumably you worked out that the effort was worth the result before you started.

If the result of your effort is to exchange for other stuff then the person buying it values it in terms of market value, in units called money.


II'll say it again: Did I say that hard work wasn't required?

Oh I know you understand that hard work would still be needed. What you don't understand is that, given that everything about your plan is aimed at removing the link between producer and consumer and controlling rewards yourself you simply won't be getting any hard work. I don't care how altruistic you claim everyone is, the fact is almost all hard work is done as the result of reward. No reward: No work.

FFS you currently get no work from a significant part of the population that are rewarded anyway, what the fuck makes you think that situation would improve if you removed ALL of the incentive to work?

No, let's be honest, you're arseholeing of money is a moronic reaction to your cultural dislike of the "upper class". A dislike so ingrained it discolours everything you see. You're a sad, irrelevant wee man a hundred years late for a minor class war that happened half a planet away.


You have made that clear. Your choice.

Excellent. I look forward to hearing how you plan on remunerating all that hard work you claim would continue unabated in your brave new world. Actually I look forward to my evening constitutional crap with more enthusiasm, but apparently I have to practice being polite.

And I plan on continuing to exercise that choice.

[Ocean1]

Doesn't stop you.

No, what stops me is the need for coherence in communication.

Something you might try... if you choose.


Check the context and try again... if you choose.

Context? Fuck off, you said you didn't say something, I proved you did, you were wrong.

Again.


I gave you a reason for it being ignored.

I just told you the reason, the facts don't fit your story, you do it every time you don't like the facts.


:killingme... gold

Like that.


There have always been mainstream popularist pitch fork wielding people... likely always will be.

Otherwise known as a voting majority. A distinction you like to reserve for opinions you agree with.

[mashman]

Wrong. If you want to keep the result of your effort then presumably you worked out that the effort was worth the result before you started.

If the result of your effort is to exchange for other stuff then the person buying it values it in terms of market value, in units called money.

It's not a given that the result of ones effort is financial. Pretty hard for anyone to take that away.

That is not always the case. Those who work for free i.e. volunteers, don't count their results in financial terms. In fact sharing information without any exchange is another example. But yeah, certain things are valued financially, go figure given that we live in a financial economy. Tis just another unrequired middleman along with the system that supports it.



Oh I know you understand that hard work would still be needed. What you don't understand is that, given that everything about your plan is aimed at removing the link between producer and consumer and controlling rewards yourself you simply won't be getting any hard work. I don't care how altruistic you claim everyone is, the fact is almost all hard work is done as the result of reward. No reward: No work.

FFS you currently get no work from a significant part of the population that are rewarded anyway, what the fuck makes you think that situation would improve if you removed ALL of the incentive to work?

No, let's be honest, you're arseholeing of money is a moronic reaction to your cultural dislike of the "upper class". A dislike so ingrained it discolours everything you see. You're a sad, irrelevant wee man a hundred years late for a minor class war that happened half a planet away.

Why should I understand that when it can't be predicted? You're looking into a future at a system you don't understand and you're stating that everyone in the country won't work hard, when required, because they aren't going to receive a reward. Bit arrogant speaking for everyone wouldn't you say. Who's claiming that people are altruistic? It's far simpler than thinking about why you're doing something. As for reward... jesus you really think that everyone looks at the transaction between themselves and their employer in terms of no reward, no work. If that was the case we'd all be getting paid up front. We do a job and get money. Amusing that you see that as a reward, I don't, neither does the highly capitalistic Mrs M. Yes, if she wasn't getting paid she wouldn't go to work, but she certainly doesn't see it as a reward. Would she still go to her job under NOW, yes she would. I hope that little bombshell didn't pop anything important. Now answer me, why would she still go to work under NOW?

You might want to read that FFS sentence again as it answers an awful lot of questions that you seem to be having trouble understanding. Hint: The are incintivised, they are rewarded, yet you get no work from them.

bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa... You got me bang to rights. You put Derren Brown to shame. I'm glad you know my mind better than I do... I feel so much better NOW, I might just cry. Then again I could just ask if you feel better after your highly amusing, utterly missing the point mini rant?



Excellent. I look forward to hearing how you plan on remunerating all that hard work you claim would continue unabated in your brave new world. Actually I look forward to my evening constitutional crap with more enthusiasm, but apparently I have to practice being polite.

And I plan on continuing to exercise that choice.

I didn't say unabated and I've already explained that there will be no remuneration... so you'll be waiting a long time.
If the lady is leaning in your ear, say hi from me, give kisses n hugs etc... but tell her to mind her own business and deal to me as you will, coz you've got fuck all old man.

Good for you, you must feel so excited.

[mashman]

No, what stops me is the need for coherence in communication.

Something you might try... if you choose.

I try not to speak capitalist anymore... it makes me feel unclean.



Context? Fuck off, you said you didn't say something, I proved you did, you were wrong.

Again.

And I said you didn't have the correct context... ya know, I reckon I know better on this occasion.

Again.




I just told you the reason, the facts don't fit your story, you do it every time you don't like the facts.

That wasn't the reason I gave.



Like that.

Sorry, you said something stupid and instead of dignifying it with a response I decided to laugh.



Otherwise known as a voting majority. A distinction you like to reserve for opinions you agree with.

They are... doesn't make them right if they're ill-informed though does it? That just makes them sheep. Is that how you like 'em, young, dumb and preferably covered with dags? :rofl: putting words in my mouth again eh. Really? Are you really not over that yet? Don't worry, I'll be patient.

[puddytat]

fuck. Did i completely miss the python.
Have i mentioned the drugs?

Nah, you didn't mention the drugs but thanks for reminding me....
I need a bong after the last 3 pages :yes: :doobey: :thud:

[Banditbandit]

fuck. Did i completely miss the python.
Have i mentioned the drugs?

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/animals-john_cleese-parrots-paracetamol-drugs-suicide-nbe0028l.jpg

[Akzle]

[IMG]

nope.

"...but monsieur, it is wafer thin?"

[mashman]

Finally something vitally important for NZers to have a referendum on. (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/21142944/key-backs-flag-change-referendum-possible/#)... I know I can't wait to not vote on that either.

[Akzle]

Finally something vitally important for NZers to have a referendum on. (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/21142944/key-backs-flag-change-referendum-possible/#)... I know I can't wait to not vote on that either.

HEY!

that shit fucking matters, OK?

[puddytat]

How about this?

293100

[oldrider]

Yeh those can replace the Southern cross stars! :yes:

[mashman]

HEY!

that shit fucking matters, OK?


But, I'm not Silver or Black.

[Akzle]

But, I'm not Silver or Black.

no. It matters because it will give more defacto legitimacy to teh govt.
The only flag LEGALLY recognised (by royal assent) is the fed tribes.
The jack and blue is the nz ENSIGN, not flag.
LEGALLY accepting another flag would, by statute, null and void the sovereignty of the fed flag.

Flags are normally changed by revolution/regime. I dont support jewkeys regime.
Dont get conned into voting for that shit.

[BoristheBiter]

no. It matters because it will give more defacto legitimacy to teh govt.
The only flag LEGALLY recognised (by royal assent) is the fed tribes.
The jack and blue is the nz ENSIGN, not flag.
.

So
1) why is it not a flag,
2) if it isn't then why did it become NZ's flag in 1902.

[Akzle]

So
1) why is it not a flag,
2) if it isn't then why did it become NZ's flag in 1902.

you tell me jemius.

[Banditbandit]

So - DonKey will accept the findings of this referendum will he???



How about this?

image

Naaa .. been done ... unless we are going to become a state of the great satan ...

[TheDemonLord]

John Key uses Distraction!

Its Super Effective!

[Akzle]

So - DonKey will accept the findings of this referendum will he???



this would be, ahem, an binding referendum, being that it was initiated by politicians, not riff raff, sorry i mean, 'citizens'

[BoristheBiter]

you tell me jemius.

Sorry I asked you as you posted so you must know what you're talking about. :nya:

[Akzle]

Sorry I asked you as you posted so you must know what you're talking about. :nya:

educate yourself, floorsweep.

the NZ ENSIGN was given "authority" to be used by the "NZ ENSIGN BILL 1901" the BILL received assent acknowledging the ENSIGN.

the FEDERATED TRIBES FLAG, received royal assent ABOUT SEVENTY YEARS EARLIER.
under INTERNATIONAL LAW, acknowledging the SOVEREIGNTY of the people of this land.


fucksake. moron.

[BoristheBiter]

educate yourself, floorsweep.

the NZ ENSIGN was given "authority" to be used by the "NZ ENSIGN BILL 1901" the BILL received assent acknowledging the ENSIGN.

the FEDERATED TRIBES FLAG, received royal assent ABOUT SEVENTY YEARS EARLIER.
under INTERNATIONAL LAW, acknowledging the SOVEREIGNTY of the people of this land.


fucksake. moron.

Go back and reread the question.

[Akzle]

Go back and reread the question.

go back and reread the answer.

it's not a flag because it's an ensign. it's an ensign because it was legislated as one.
you're getting to SV level retard here borris...

[mashman]

educate yourself, floorsweep.

the NZ ENSIGN was given "authority" to be used by the "NZ ENSIGN BILL 1901" the BILL received assent acknowledging the ENSIGN.

the FEDERATED TRIBES FLAG, received royal assent ABOUT SEVENTY YEARS EARLIER.
under INTERNATIONAL LAW, acknowledging the SOVEREIGNTY of the people of this land.


fucksake. moron.

Gotcha


Go back and reread the question.

Dickhead

[Quasievil]

Akzle and Boris are actually Gay lovers...............did anyone else know that ?
good bit of gossip lol

[BoristheBiter]

go back and reread the answer.

it's not a flag because it's an ensign. it's an ensign because it was legislated as one.
you're getting to SV level retard here borris...

I didn't ask why it is ensign I asked why isn't called a flag you stupid cunt.

It's call an ensign when its on a fucking boat you complete fucktard otherwise it is called a fucking flag.

[BoristheBiter]

Gotcha



Dickhead

And you're just as fucking dumb as the green posting twat.

[BoristheBiter]

Akzle and Boris are actually Gay lovers...............did anyone else know that ?
good bit of gossip lol

And there is no level of retard for you, iq doesn't go that low.:motu:

[Akzle]

I didn't ask why it is ensign I asked why isn't called a flag you stupid cunt.

It's call an ensign when its on a fucking boat you complete fucktard otherwise it is called a fucking flag.

oh dear. Were straying into admiralty law and jurisdiction issues.

Pray, where does it say, by statute, that its a flag on land?
(where does it say nz is land, for that matter)

The naval ensign is red with blue stars, just btw.

[caseye]

More POP CORN Quick!

[mashman]

And you're just as fucking dumb as the green posting twat.

So I'm going up in the world


oh dear. Were straying into admiralty law and jurisdiction issues.

Pray, where does it say, by statute, that its a flag on land?
(where does it say nz is land, for that matter)

The naval ensign is red with blue stars, just btw.

bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... as soon as you said ensign I knew where this was going. So don't confuse the poor boy, he might learn something. I'd love to see the penny drop when he realises that he isn't who he thinks he is.

[BoristheBiter]

oh dear. Were straying into admiralty law and jurisdiction issues.

Pray, where does it say, by statute, that its a flag on land?
(where does it say nz is land, for that matter)

The naval ensign is red with blue stars, just btw.

No just definition. no need for admiralty or jurisdiction.

Actually the navel ensign is white with red stars. :bleh:
The civil ensign is blue with white stars. :bleh:

and when is it only a banner?

[BoristheBiter]

So I'm going up in the world



bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... as soon as you said ensign I knew where this was going. So don't confuse the poor boy, he might learn something. I'd love to see the penny drop when he realises that he isn't who he thinks he is.

Don't flatter yourself.

You should read up on shit before you agree with someone that is wrong, it just makes you look like a dick, but that has never stopped you before ever stopped you?

So who do I think I am and who am I really?

[phill-k]

Akzle and Boris are actually Gay lovers...............did anyone else know that ?
good bit of gossip lol

As the original gay bastard on here u would know that I guess:baby:

[Akzle]

No just definition. no need for admiralty or jurisdiction.

Actually the navel ensign is white with red stars. :bleh:
The civil ensign is blue with white stars. :bleh:

and when is it only a banner?

where is the legal definition, champ?
Everything comes to jurisdiction and most to admiralty law.

Have some wiki:

"At the same time, the red ensign (which was
designated in 1864 as the
flag for merchant shipping)
was used by merchantmen of
those colonies which
obtained an Admiralty warrant. Not all colonies
obtained an Admiralty
warrant, however; the ones
that did tended to be larger,
and included Canada (1892); New Zealand (1899); Australia (1901)..."

Not all naval activity, certainly not the "navel activity", as you say. Just the merchant navy under admiral law.
The white ensign was under dominion navy, ie, RNZN. Also didnt come into play until the 70s, we're now a whole century past legitimate, champ...

[Akzle]

http://www.marinewaypoints.com/cgi-bin/flags.pl?ship=1&signal=1&input=suck+a+dick+boris

mooo!

[TheDemonLord]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw

[BoristheBiter]

where is the legal definition, champ?
Everything comes to jurisdiction and most to admiralty law.

Have some wiki:

"At the same time, the red ensign (which was
designated in 1864 as the
flag for merchant shipping)
was used by merchantmen of
those colonies which
obtained an Admiralty warrant. Not all colonies
obtained an Admiralty
warrant, however; the ones
that did tended to be larger,
and included Canada (1892); New Zealand (1899); Australia (1901)..."

Not all naval activity, certainly not the "navel activity", as you say. Just the merchant navy under admiral law.
The white ensign was under dominion navy, ie, RNZN. Also didnt come into play until the 70s, we're now a whole century past legitimate, champ...


http://www.marinewaypoints.com/cgi-bin/flags.pl?ship=1&signal=1&input=suck+a+dick+boris

mooo!

Flag
The official banner of a state or nation, often decorated with emblems or images that symbolize that state or nation.

Go back and look at your post numb nuts as you say navel not merchant which use the civil ensign and regardless of warrent it is still a civil fleet hence flying the civil ensign.

The nz navy came into being in 1941 and In 1968 the New Zealand White Ensign replaced the British White Ensign that had previously been used by ships of the Royal New Zealand Navy.

So it was the sixty's not the 70's.

http://www.marinewaypoints.com/cgi-bin/flags.pl?ship=1&signal=1&input=bite+me+dickhead
And i'm flattered that you would go to such lengths to abuse me but it now concerns me that seem to have a great fascination with people sucking dicks.
I hope you don't live near a school.

Champ.

Why has this thread not gone to PD yet?