Stupid World

[mashman]

Sometimes.

More often I use materials others have made, materials paid for at the agreed price rather than what they or you or some committee decide, (whichever is the prevailing fantasy of the week).

Makes your initial statement a bit silly then dunnit.

Cooperation works. You don't think the boards or committees that currently exist can be thought of as the exact same boards or committees that I'm fantasizing about? Then I suggest you think again.

[mashman]

I mean a dispute with discussion, not just a 'you're wrong cos I don't like it' dispute; use your words, show me how I am wrong.

Interestingly enough, the summary is just that, you are the one attaching negative connotation and roadblocks to it.

Oh look, now word semantics, still being reminded of a certain individual... A very narcissistic trait that one.

Ugh. I can't show you anything that you choose not to see. Blatantly obvious.

I'm attaching nothing as I have offered alternatives. You're the one with status quo thumb up the butt syndrome.

I'm not trying to compete with you on any level. So not twisting anything. I always thought it to be denial, but given that you went for narcissism, I'd say that you telling me that you know what I mean better than I know what I mean is strong evidence to support a position that you are projecting. You're fighting an ego that is of your own making.

[bogan]

Ugh. I can't show you anything that you choose not to see. Blatantly obvious.

I'm attaching nothing as I have offered alternatives. You're the one with status quo thumb up the butt syndrome.

I'm not trying to compete with you on any level. So not twisting anything. I always thought it to be denial, but given that you went for narcissism, I'd say that you telling me that you know what I mean better than I know what I mean is strong evidence to support a position that you are projecting. You're fighting an ego that is of your own making.

Awfully narcissistic focus on the people instead of the content there mashy. Perhaps you need a reminder of the discussion topic:

Path to utopia A; human productivity and production automation reaches levels in which we have no unfulfilled needs and few unfulfilled wants, ownership of property (including intellectual) becomes far less of an issue at this tipping point, and the subsequent sharing assures utopian like existence with regard to resource management.
Change Level: individual.
Cost of change level: high for some individuals, low for others.
Examples: TVP, charitable individuals, etc

Path B; remove money, retain personal ownership, work as much or little as you feel, resource allocation based supplier whims (kickbacks, sexual favors, mates deals etc).
Change level: society wide (minority forced into this system when a majority votes for it), and some extra-society changes
Cost of change level: high for some individuals, low for others, massive for society as whole.
Examples: None

[mashman]

Awfully narcissistic focus on the people instead of the content there mashy. Perhaps you need a reminder of the discussion topic:

Path to utopia A; human productivity and production automation reaches levels in which we have no unfulfilled needs and few unfulfilled wants, ownership of property (including intellectual) becomes far less of an issue at this tipping point, and the subsequent sharing assures utopian like existence with regard to resource management.
Change Level: individual.
Cost of change level: high for some individuals, low for others.
Examples: TVP, charitable individuals, etc

Path B; remove money, retain personal ownership, work as much or little as you feel, resource allocation based supplier whims (kickbacks, sexual favors, mates deals etc).
Change level: society wide (minority forced into this system when a majority votes for it), and some extra-society changes
Cost of change level: high for some individuals, low for others, massive for society as whole.
Examples: None

bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa...

[Ocean1]

Makes your initial statement a bit silly then dunnit.

Cooperation works. You don't think the boards or committees that currently exist can be thought of as the exact same boards or committees that I'm fantasizing about? Then I suggest you think again.

Only in your head.

No, I don't. Current boards and most committees don't decide both supply and purchase sides of the equation. Those that do, (local authorities foe example) are universally despised for supplying very little for their compusary costs.

I'd point you at some research about provider driven markets again but if you bothered looking last time you certainly weren't capable of seeing.

[mashman]

Brand and Baldwin on Keiser

[mashman]

Only in your head.

No, I don't. Current boards and most committees don't decide both supply and purchase sides of the equation. Those that do, (local authorities foe example) are universally despised for supplying very little for their compusary costs.

I'd point you at some research about provider driven markets again but if you bothered looking last time you certainly weren't capable of seeing.

Could well be the case.

So, any strategy to maximise return doesn't decide acceptable margins for trade? How do they project trends?

[bogan]

bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa...

Takes a special kind of stupid to argue somebody is wrong cos they know too much...

[mashman]

Takes a special kind of stupid to argue somebody is wrong cos they know too much...

... bit narcissistic there.

[Ocean1]

So, any strategy to maximise return doesn't decide acceptable margins for trade?

Only in a provider driven market.

For fucks sake do some reading, you have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about. You have to do the comprehend thing also, couple of years of your spare time might do it, see you then.

[bogan]

... bit narcissistic there.

Bit deluded there. Anyway, I added a third path, see if you can guess what it is!

Path to utopia A; human productivity and production automation reaches levels in which we have no unfulfilled needs and few unfulfilled wants, ownership of property (including intellectual) becomes far less of an issue at this tipping point, and the subsequent sharing assures utopian like existence with regard to resource management.
Change Level: individual.
Cost of change level: high for some individuals, low for others.
Examples: TVP, charitable individuals, etc

Path B; remove money, retain personal ownership, work as much or little as you feel, resource allocation based supplier whims (kickbacks, sexual favors, mates deals etc).
Change level: society wide (minority forced into this system when a majority votes for it), and some extra-society changes
Cost of change level: high for some individuals, low for others, massive for society as whole.
Examples: None

Path C; remove money, remove personal personal ownership, work as much as required to ensure adequate production while relying heavily on open source and automation, resource allocation based on filling all primary needs then allotting luxuries equally as available. Govt/management to ensure work output, and fair allotment of luxuries.
Change level: society wide (minority forced into this system when a majority votes for it), and some extra-society changes
Cost of change level: extremely high for some individuals (wealthiest), low for others, massive for society as whole.
Examples: Sounds historically familiar in some aspects...

[mashman]

Only in a provider driven market.

For fucks sake do some reading, you have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about. You have to do the comprehend thing also, couple of years of your spare time might do it, see you then.

I have no need to know these things.

[mashman]

Bit deluded there. Anyway, I added a third path, see if you can guess what it is!

Path to utopia A; human productivity and production automation reaches levels in which we have no unfulfilled needs and few unfulfilled wants, ownership of property (including intellectual) becomes far less of an issue at this tipping point, and the subsequent sharing assures utopian like existence with regard to resource management.
Change Level: individual.
Cost of change level: high for some individuals, low for others.
Examples: TVP, charitable individuals, etc

Path B; remove money, retain personal ownership, work as much or little as you feel, resource allocation based supplier whims (kickbacks, sexual favors, mates deals etc).
Change level: society wide (minority forced into this system when a majority votes for it), and some extra-society changes
Cost of change level: high for some individuals, low for others, massive for society as whole.
Examples: None

Path C; remove money, remove personal personal ownership, work as much as required to ensure adequate production while relying heavily on open source and automation, resource allocation based on filling all primary needs then allotting luxuries equally as available. Govt/management to ensure work output, and fair allotment of luxuries.
Change level: society wide (minority forced into this system when a majority votes for it), and some extra-society changes
Cost of change level: extremely high for some individuals (wealthiest), low for others, massive for society as whole.
Examples: Sounds historically familiar in some aspects...

I'd have to care first.

[Brian d marge]

Bit deluded there. Anyway, I added a third path, see if you can guess what it is!

Path to utopia A; human productivity and production automation reaches levels in which we have no unfulfilled needs and few unfulfilled wants, ownership of property (including intellectual) becomes far less of an issue at this tipping point, and the subsequent sharing assures utopian like existence with regard to resource management.
Change Level: individual.
Cost of change level: high for some individuals, low for others.
Examples: TVP, charitable individuals, etc

Path B; remove money, retain personal ownership, work as much or little as you feel, resource allocation based supplier whims (kickbacks, sexual favors, mates deals etc).
Change level: society wide (minority forced into this system when a majority votes for it), and some extra-society changes
Cost of change level: high for some individuals, low for others, massive for society as whole.
Examples: None

Path C; remove money, remove personal personal ownership, work as much as required to ensure adequate production while relying heavily on open source and automation, resource allocation based on filling all primary needs then allotting luxuries equally as available. Govt/management to ensure work output, and fair allotment of luxuries.
Change level: society wide (minority forced into this system when a majority votes for it), and some extra-society changes
Cost of change level: extremely high for some individuals (wealthiest), low for others, massive for society as whole.
Examples: Sounds historically familiar in some aspects...

where does giving freely come into Example C?

Stephen

[bogan]

where does giving freely come into Example C?

Stephen

Short answer is later.

Idea is with no ownership, luxuries go further (like 87 people using just one lambo) so duplicity saves, all ideas are open source so again that removes duplicity. But it still comes back to that production/use balance, if everything is free there has to be some mechanism to ensure what people want is available, sharing things only goes so far so an allotment type system makes sense to allocate resources that are of limited supply. Of course if things go well, the allotment gets so large as to be rendered obsolete and everything given freely; but if things go shit, one's allotment could fail to cover even the basics...