My first poll for the NZ public

[bogan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bogan]

You've noticed too eh?

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

[scumdog]

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

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

[mashman]

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

[Ocean1]

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

It's a special type of logic.

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

[mashman]

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

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

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

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

Why didn't it work in Guernsey?

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

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

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

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

Sorry, forgot that money trumps anything

[bogan]

Why didn't it work in Guernsey?

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

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

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



Sorry, forgot that money trumps anything

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

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

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

[mashman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[mashman]

It's a special type of logic.

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

It describes your logic to a T.

[bogan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[mashman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[mashman]

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

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

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

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

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

[bogan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ocean1]

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

They can't. Ever.

What they can do is work towards a better job.

Or not.

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

[scumdog]

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

Wot a lod o' codswallop.

What about items of property including fruit, veges etc

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