The value of money has dropped by two thirds in 30 years

[Banditbandit]

15 pages of political and economic dross means

IT'S SILLY HAT TIME

[Akzle]

got this one of Ed:


but i think it's time to class it up:

[sidecar bob]

15 pages of political and economic dross means

IT'S SILLY HAT TIME

Im astounded how well we're coping in the absence of a Pope at the moment.
You would hardly notice the difference.

[mashman]

us is slightly different as their government was constitutionally formed. australia and NZ suffer a de-facto goverment that came about when the league of nations was re structured and NZ and australia got their own chair and carafe, rather than continuing as a colony of the uk.

the uk got their government from an historic monarchy, and started making democratic noises in about 1293 when the magna carta was forced on the then-king by the people. (i think this may be the get-out-of-tax document, but it's been a while since i've read up on it.)
fun fact: the magna carta is still in force in NZ today by the imperial laws application act. first in time is best at law, so any subsequent act that contravenes the magna carta can be safely ignored. (provided you can baffle cops and judges with bullshitery)

as far as case law: the "person" argument was presented and won at manukau in south auckland, that was a case v. the IRD (the guy stopped paying tax), so yes, i'd say there's precedent...
of course the stenographer was absent that morning, because having shit like that on record might give other people ideas about a free and better way of doing things.

I guess one tax loophole is as good as another and one that allows one to get away with all of your loot would be spendid for so many people. I just hope they don;t complain when they have to raise more tax to cover them thar legitimate losses.

I wonder how one would argue that one is a person .

[mashman]

I guess one of the key differences in our beliefs is that I see a need for money in order for an economy to function and you don't. I see money as an essential gear in a control mechanism, and you see it as the direct cause of inequity and hardship.

Now what’s required to explain those differenced in view? A difference in the perception of what money represents, yes? I see money as representing work done or the promise of work to be done. You see it as an object of desire which causes people to behave in ways you don’t like.

Given that, I see the way new money is distributed into the system (the promise of work to be done) to be a viable control on the economy. You see it as some arsehole plucking more “cause of inequity” from thin air.

I’d like the way new money is distributed to change, to control things other than just inflation. You just want the whole monetary system scrapped.

We both believe our way would provide a better environment in which people would be able to enjoy more freedom in their choices of lifestyle.

You believe that removing money will effectively remove any constraints on people’s choices because they’ll be able to live comfortably even if they don’t contribute what’s actually wanted. I believe society’s better served by those who work hard and take risks to provide what’s actually wanted, and that the best way to allow them to do that is to refrain from penalising them for doing so.

I do see it as the cause of inequity and hardship and much much much more, because it is. I also understand how you see the financial system as I once saw it the same way... and that is what I would say is the key difference. I've thought it through and the only consideration is "human nature". I don't rank human nature as being a problem. If it is then "my" system won't be adopted, if it isn't then it will and people will have voted it in knowing full well that failure to get on and play by whatever rules there are will mean a return to the financial system. My money, eventually, will be on the latter being the case.

Most of the rest is bang on including the last paragraph, except I believe that socirty will still be served by those who work hard (not guaranteeing a good salary by any means under a financial system) and take risk to provide what's wanted. I see no reason why that would stop. So it would seem that you are happy with the financial system penalising those who wish to be teachers, by allowing the to train to be a teacher and then not offering them a guaranteed position at the end of it. The same can be said for anyone who is trained in a particular field that has to work in a non-related field. the only reason that they aren't practicing in that field is due to there being a finite amount of money available funding X number of positions.

It's not, you've removed that primary gear, you have no way of valuing product, you have no way of accumulating value, you have no way of storing it and therefore you have no way of investing it. And that, not the lack of technology is what requires the various sects to work non-stop in order to survive. And it amuses me that you figure that all it'll take to get your way is that everyone else needs to disbelieve centuries of history about how economies work and, ignoring the holes in your theories to have faith in your beliefs. Sound familliar?

It's also significant that you require everyone else to abandon their existing lifestyles, because otherwise your idea won't work. If it won't work on a small scale what makes you think it'll work on a larger one?

That gear is only representing value. If the work is still undertaken but without a value on it, the job is still being done and the value that was once attributed to that job still exists. So the gear will remain. Certainly in the short-term the gear will remain in a transitory state, where the perception of that value will have to remain in order to deal with the rest of the world. The only difference being that it isn't physically available to that person in the form of a money, ya get yer shit for free. Shrodingers Cat and trees falling without a sound as there's noone to hear it spring to mind... but it will be there.

I haven't ignored the holes in the theory at all, primarily because there is only 1 potential hole in my "theory". In regards to why I believe it will work on a larger scale: Some of it is sheer weight in numbers and the rest is because the country will have voted for it. Sheer weight of numbers mitigating single points of failure. Currently money is a single point of failure. Pull it and chaos ensues. Remove it by choice and avoid the chaos.

Quote Originally Posted by mashman View Post
All I'm saying is that we make proper use of it and use it to its potential and not to a budget limit. We have the people. We have the resources. Fuckloads of us have the will.

Who says what constitutes "proper use"? 'Cause that's the issue, innit? Control. The existing arrangement has it’s faults, but it does allow people to decide what to do with their lives knowing pretty much how those decisions will pan out. With your utopia there aren't any negative consequences to your choice of contribution and how effectively you choose to pursue it. As long as it's deemed "proper use". On the other hand there's no positive consequences, either. The world would be full of scientists with no training and no laboratory, astronauts with no training and no spacecraft, artists with no training and no talent. Given no consequences everyone takes the easy path at least sometimes. Most take the easy path most of the time.

Speaking of artists with no talent, did you know that the French once decided that artists were unfairly discriminated against in that their income was dependant on them selling their art, a product the value of which was simply a matter of opinion, and some of them were starving. Their solution was for the government to pay for their work. What do you suppose happened next?

Proper use is that which is needed/wanted in the community. It will be decided at community level. It will be actioned at community level as far as possible. That will rely on the community leaders and the community themselves. There are negatives, but they're for someone else to point out and I've yet to see anyone give it enough consideration to figure out what those negatives are. but where there are negatives, there's always some bright spark that can come up with a solution . The positives are huge. No poverty is a good start I'd say. A fuckload less crime being another. Shit getting built to the highest standard that it can be built to being another. Advancement and knowledge share for the entire country being another. Second to none education and healthcare systems (including recurring and pre-existing injuries ). What's wrong with artists with no training or talent? Have you seen how much a Jackson Pollock goes for? Scientists will have access to very high levels of training and exceptionally well equipped laboratories. Astronauts, erm, no 8 and gaffer, naaaaaaa, no fucker would be mad enough and the rest of the world are throwing people into space... doesn't mean we can't be a world class observatory though. The consequence is the return to the financial system... and again, if it has been voted out, I would imagine people will put in whatever effort is required to keep it that way. Why do I say this in the face of your French example? We have the dole as a path of least resistance. why isn't everyone on the dole?

Well, it’s your failure, hopefully you find something above to help you, there.

heh... it is, but I still don't see any reason whay we'd go backwards in terms of how we live.

Now why’s that? Has society let them down? Or did they make poor decisions that led to the circumstances they find themselves in? And why did they make those choices? Is it possible that they were told that they would be comfortably off even if they didn’t stay at school? Didn’t put in a few extra yards when work got busy? That they should feel free to take a day off whenever they felt the need?

I see nothing funny about that. Given a free hand I'd ask those that tell people such things to pay for the consequences of their beliefs.

Mind numbing drudgery is sometimes the lot of unlucky people, but mostly it’s the natural consequence of making poor choices. What do you suppose might be the consequences of encouraging the whole world to make poor choices?

Yes society has let them down. It doesn't provide enough jobs in the field that the person is trained and doesn't offer enough opportunity to be promoted where an entrentched and useless bloater is ignoring innovation to keep their job. That shit goes on and I've met very few managers that I would say are good at their jobs, so I'm going for it being a real problem. It's generally not a person's choice to be unemployed either, yet the financial system gives plenty of people no choice but to take a pay cut in many cases. Even those who are qualified up the wazoo have difficulties finding a job. ever heard the phrase "sorry, but you're a bit over qualified for this position"? Code for, we think you're using us as a stop gap and are likely to leave as we have nothing here to challenge you with. Even still, plenty have put in plenty of hard yards yet still live in your 55% net loser of the population. They're not being paid enough.

Mind numbing drudgery comes in many forms. In the case of a neighbour she hates it when there's no work on. Me too to be honest. Yet she generally enjoys her job when it's busy. We all grow up at different ages and some of us know what we want to do at an early age, some mid 20's, some mid 30's etc... yet there is no provision for any of us to retain in something entirely different without sacrificing huge amounts of time and money in order to break the cycle. That's not getting the best out of a person imho and a waste, and it isn't all down to poor choices by any means.

[mashman]

[Akzle]

I wonder how one would argue that one is a person .

errr. your job is to argue that you are NOT a person (corporation).

in the instance i referenced, that was done by taking a berth certificate and saying "there is the legal person - talk to them"
a bit of judge yelling and harrumf and eventually went away quietly.

they argue that you ARE based on any sign-nature you've provided, and any joinder you accept. like if they say "Mr. Smith, step up" and you step up, well, you must be mr smith, who has a 20, 000$ tax bill to pay...

-edit-
sorry. no hat.

http://hdwallpapers.be/wallpapers/wp...ls-hat-hay.jpg

[scumdog]

a berth certificate

Sort of a ticket to park ships???

[Akzle]

Sort of a ticket to park ships???

not far wrong...
a registration process for a berth in, say, citizen-ship.
admiralty law mann. tis the basis of now-times "law" it's all about semantics. tricky latin fucks.

it's a wonder you're allowed to be gainfully employed as a cop, then, if you had some kind of clue, you probably wouldn't.

[Ocean1]

I believe that socirty will still be served by those who work hard (not guaranteeing a good salary by any means under a financial system) and take risk to provide what's wanted. I see no reason why that would stop.

Simple, it’d stop dead simply because with no concept of value there’s no possible relationship between work done and reward returned.

That gear is only representing value. If the work is still undertaken but without a value on it, the job is still being done and the value that was once attributed to that job still exists. So the gear will remain.

Yeah, that statement sorta reinforces the fact that you’ve really got no idea what money is. In fact it’s already society that assigns the value of almost all goods and services, and they back that decision up by comparing them to their own effort, their income. You simply don’t agree with society’s value assessment of a bunch of products and services and the easiest way you can think of to take control of that is to abolish the value unit. It’s simplistic bullshit, a sort of idiot communism.

Proper use is that which is needed/wanted in the community. It will be decided at community level. It will be actioned at community level as far as possible. That will rely on the community leaders and the community themselves.

So, instead of the guy needing a product or service deciding the value of a product/service you’ve got some council who’ve had fuck all to do with the product/service and have no idea of its value, (because that’s irrelevant) dictating how much of it to make available to everyone for free? Sorry mate, if one of those hard working, risk taking dude’s you reckon will still be hard at work in your brave new world need something I’d say they’d probably tell any community committee suggesting that it doesn’t matter how hard they have to work for that product/service to fuck off. I know I would.

Why do I say this in the face of your French example? We have the dole as a path of least resistance. why isn't everyone on the dole?

But as we’ve already discovered, 55% of them effectively are to some extent, it’s just a matter of how much they’re paid. Did you find out what happened to all those artists?

Yes society has let them down. It doesn't provide enough jobs in the field that the person is trained

What the fuck makes you think they’re entitled to depend on society, (that’s all of the rest of us) to guarantee them a living? It’s not society’s role to provide jobs, if someone, having chosen their career, (or failed to do so at all) subsequently discovers that few people have a need for their services then how does it ever become a good idea to reimburse them as if their services were actually worth more than they are?

On the other hand I reckon society (that’s all the rest of us) is entitled to expect each of us to contribute something of actual value, as opposed to, y’know, just whatever the fuck they can be bothered doing.

It's generally not a person's choice to be unemployed either, yet the financial system gives plenty of people no choice but to take a pay cut in many cases. Even those who are qualified up the wazoo have difficulties finding a job. ever heard the phrase "sorry, but you're a bit over qualified for this position"? Code for, we think you're using us as a stop gap and are likely to leave as we have nothing here to challenge you with. Even still, plenty have put in plenty of hard yards yet still live in your 55% net loser of the population.

The financial system has fuck all to do with unemployment. The market decides what the product’s worth, and if the labour required to provide it is more than the market wants to pay then that labour's redundant. And yes the market does have the right to decide the value of that product and that labour, it was the market’s labour that generated the ability to pay for it in the first place.

That's not getting the best out of a person imho and a waste, and it isn't all down to poor choices by any means.

You’re right, it’s not getting the best out of a person. But I’m afraid that far and away the biggest factor in getting the best out of a person is… that person. So, much as you’d like the problem to go away it really does boil down to personal choices. To make “society” responsible for tailoring jobs for individuals is to take that responsibility away from those individuals, and while I’m sure there’s people around that like that idea there’s also a bunch of people that recognise that being responsible for your own decisions is the only way you’ll personally ever achieve anything at all.

Having a communal hand holding circle meeting to decide that everyone’s effort is worth the same don’t make it so, and it doesn’t go anywhere close to eliminating the concept of value. It’s just another in a long, long history of pathetic attempts to make all pigs equal.

[mashman]

Simple, it’d stop dead simply because with no concept of value there’s no possible relationship between work done and reward returned.

The value is in the outcome of the work being completed. It serves its purpose.

Yeah, that statement sorta reinforces the fact that you’ve really got no idea what money is. In fact it’s already society that assigns the value of almost all goods and services, and they back that decision up by comparing them to their own effort, their income. You simply don’t agree with society’s value assessment of a bunch of products and services and the easiest way you can think of to take control of that is to abolish the value unit. It’s simplistic bullshit, a sort of idiot communism.

Oh really. Go and watch the 7 sharp clip again and actually listen to what the economist says instead of screaming "BULLSHIT" at the monitor. It's ALL based on perception. That's an intersting statement. Society sets the value blah blah blah. If that was the case then why aren't my bank charges $0? Why doesn't my house cost $0 to manufacture? You've said yourself that people expect things to be handed to them. The control is in the doing and should NOT be in the making a good/service scarce to drive prices up or flooding the market to lower the prices or fixing the market for a "guaranteed" return etc... I'm wanting the value unit to change as it's utterly damaging to society as a whole... and as for idtiotic communism, that only serves to show your lack of understanding, or want to understand, common sense in regards to how a system would run without a financial system. Capitalism is failing comrade. It's overly complicated and egocentric core is overflowing with bullshitters with bullshit ideas and no concern for those who suffer because of it. It should be called Savagism, coz it ain't that far from being out of the primordial soup from where I'm looking at it.

So, instead of the guy needing a product or service deciding the value of a product/service you’ve got some council who’ve had fuck all to do with the product/service and have no idea of its value, (because that’s irrelevant) dictating how much of it to make available to everyone for free? Sorry mate, if one of those hard working, risk taking dude’s you reckon will still be hard at work in your brave new world need something I’d say they’d probably tell any community committee suggesting that it doesn’t matter how hard they have to work for that product/service to fuck off. I know I would.

See, you're writing the "council" off without even understanding their function and equating them to the beaureaucratic plonkers that we have today. If the risk taking dude's idea has merit in the grand scheme of things, then I fail to see why any "council" would knock it back. We'd be Proactive instead of Reactive. What's the best that we currently have to offer? develop the waterfront for the tourists? spend 12 billion on roading? more urban sprawl? good god that's depressing.

But as we’ve already discovered, 55% of them effectively are to some extent, it’s just a matter of how much they’re paid. Did you find out what happened to all those artists?

True, they are, and as you have said, that's what happens when society doesn't value their effort. Couldn't find anything on the painters and to be honest didn't try too hard, but I assume every man and his dog became a painter and they all lived happily ever after? Was that about the same time your distant relative John Law stepped in to save France with his monetary system?

What the fuck makes you think they’re entitled to depend on society, (that’s all of the rest of us) to guarantee them a living? It’s not society’s role to provide jobs, if someone, having chosen their career, (or failed to do so at all) subsequently discovers that few people have a need for their services then how does it ever become a good idea to reimburse them as if their services were actually worth more than they are?

On the other hand I reckon society (that’s all the rest of us) is entitled to expect each of us to contribute something of actual value, as opposed to, y’know, just whatever the fuck they can be bothered doing.

Because we all depend on society. Businesses don't run without society. If we don't provide jobs, then don't moan and bitch that there are "excess" people that need to be supported. The alternative is returning to fully blown slavery. Every contribution is required, that's why it's a good idea. Or would you rather keep paying for them on the dole?

In which case give them an equal share of any value that they contribute towards. After all, without their contribution you'll end up with less value using your rules.

The financial system has fuck all to do with unemployment. The market decides what the product’s worth, and if the labour required to provide it is more than the market wants to pay then that labour's redundant. And yes the market does have the right to decide the value of that product and that labour, it was the market’s labour that generated the ability to pay for it in the first place.

The why when the financial system goes into meltdown does unemployment rise? If it had fuck all to do with unemployment then the market wouldn't need to change the value of their products/services. No, you said above that society sets the value, make your mind up. It was the labour of people that allowed the market to have value in the first place. There's no chicken and egg here. No people, no market.

You’re right, it’s not getting the best out of a person. But I’m afraid that far and away the biggest factor in getting the best out of a person is… that person. So, much as you’d like the problem to go away it really does boil down to personal choices. To make “society” responsible for tailoring jobs for individuals is to take that responsibility away from those individuals, and while I’m sure there’s people around that like that idea there’s also a bunch of people that recognise that being responsible for your own decisions is the only way you’ll personally ever achieve anything at all.

Having a communal hand holding circle meeting to decide that everyone’s effort is worth the same don’t make it so, and it doesn’t go anywhere close to eliminating the concept of value. It’s just another in a long, long history of pathetic attempts to make all pigs equal.

Then if you want to get the best out of the person you're going to have to meet in the middle. Currently it's all one way traffic, here's the job, this is the process, don't go all Marvin on me. You can't have it both ways. You're either going to breed a disaffected workforce, which we are, or you're going to have to replace your business practices (which costs too much money and poor management NEVER like), or you're going to have to change the model to have entirely flexible work hours (including working from home and exercising one's responsibility by allowing people to walk out of work when you can't be arsed without excuse). There really aren't that many options open to a person where they are locked into a job and being locked in like that is ALL due to money. They're there to get paid and that's it, there's no incetive to do anything other than the bare minimum in 55% of the cases. How the fuck are they then supposed to achieve anything? Rack up a load of debt going to Uni to come out to a non-guaranteed job and most likely one that won't pay well enough to allow you to get rids of that debt. All of these things go through people's minds, all are capable of something else, yet the financial system hamstrings them from minute 1... unless of course they have money to burn or are prepared to live in debt forever. Saying that they have made bad choices through no other fault than of their own is writing people off without even considering that they may have reasons for their decisions other than ability/drive/motivation etc... you do that well.

I agree, not everyone's effort will be the same, meh. I will work harder than some, some will work harder than me, that's the way of the world. Eliminating the value by accepting that certain jobs will be physical, certain jobs will require brain power, certain jobs will require both etc... will do exactly that. There is a job to do, I am the best person for it (thus far), I will do my best because others are relying on me, end of! Not complicated by value.

[Ocean1]

The value is in the outcome of the work being completed.

Absolutely correct. And the owner of that value is the dude that did the work. He's the one that chose what work to do and how much of it, and he's got the ethical right to use the value he's created in any way he sees fit. It's not up to anyone else, or a collection of anyone elses to decide what he’s got to pay for anything, and that's precisely what you propose your "council" do.



The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

[mashman]

Absolutely correct. And the owner of that value is the dude that did the work. He's the one that chose what work to do and how much of it, and he's got the ethical right to use the value he's created in any way he sees fit. It's not up to anyone else, or a collection of anyone elses to decide what he’s got to pay for anything, and that's precisely what you propose your "council" do.

The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

From your standpoint yes, there is an owner of value. From mine, society is the owner and the driver for the project.

That's also a problem with capitalism by the looks of things. It's all debt remember i.e. someone else's money. There'll be no money in "my" society, so that won't be the limiting factor. There's also the maxim: Just because you can doesn't mean you should, that would guide production. Something that capitalism ignores.

[Ocean1]

From your standpoint yes, there is an owner of value. From mine, society is the owner and the driver for the project.

There is no fucking "standpoint", the dude that produces the goods/services owns the resulting value, it's as basic as ethical concepts gets. There's just two valid reasons the state gets to punch that ticket on the way past, to pay for the cost of national infrastructure and to pay for those that CAN'T work. I already pay more in tax than I end up keeping, and that adds up to a fairly healthy quantity of infrastructure with enough left over to pay for a seriously sizable contribution to charity. I always wondered if some arsehole would turn up and demand the rest, you'd better come fucking well armed.

That's also a problem with capitalism by the looks of things. It's all debt remember i.e. someone else's money. There'll be no money in "my" society, so that won't be the limiting factor. There's also the maxim: Just because you can doesn't mean you should, that would guide production. Something that capitalism ignores.

It's fuck all to do with capitilism, Socialist states have money too, just a fucking sight less of it. They have loans, also, and I promise you they're more expensive than ours. Debt? Mate, I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that them bills in my back pocket are all mine. In fact I used a couple to buy a loaf of bread on the way home and the nice lady at the bakery was of the same opinion. Money doesn't become debt until you borrow it, something clever people try to do as little as possible, if you don't like the cost or even simply the concept of debt then I suggest that you do the same, and keep your thieving fingers out of everyone else's back pocket.

[mashman]

There is no fucking "standpoint", the dude that produces the goods/services owns the resulting value, it's as basic as ethical concepts gets. There's just two valid reasons the state gets to punch that ticket on the way past, to pay for the cost of national infrastructure and to pay for those that CAN'T work. I already pay more in tax than I end up keeping, and that adds up to a fairly healthy quantity of infrastructure with enough left over to pay for a seriously sizable contribution to charity. I always wondered if some arsehole would turn up and demand the rest, you'd better come fucking well armed.

It's fuck all to do with capitilism, Socialist states have money too, just a fucking sight less of it. They have loans, also, and I promise you they're more expensive than ours. Debt? Mate, I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that them bills in my back pocket are all mine. In fact I used a couple to buy a loaf of bread on the way home and the nice lady at the bakery was of the same opinion. Money doesn't become debt until you borrow it, something clever people try to do as little as possible, if you don't like the cost or even simply the concept of debt then I suggest that you do the same, and keep your thieving fingers out of everyone else's back pocket.

There is a standpoint where 2 party's disagree and I'm very much disagreeing with you. It's not even truly ethical from my standpoint. I get therefore others don't. It's a total and utter selfish attitude that's rotting society to its core. The govt can punch the ticket anyway they like as far as I'm concerned as they're the ones looking after those who have been abandoned by the money seekers. Boohoo, I pay tax too, quite possibly half once all added up half, but I don't moan and bitch about it and congratulate myself on how much I can earn and how much I can give away to appease my conscience. But hey, we're all different. If and when I turn up it'll be with the majority of a country at my back and I won't fancy your odds.

And capitalism exists within socialist states. You're off your fuckin rocker trying to separate the two and saying that capitalism and socialism require different amounts of money to look after their populations only serves to confirm that. Every single cent in circulation has been borrowed, therefore every cent that you have in your pocket of bakery lady has in her til/bank account/stockings is a debt that someone somewhere owes. Debt is here and here to stay. Debt levels will only ever rise and if people stop borrowing, the baker lady will be going out of business coz no fucker will be able to afford the price of her bread... and that will have fuck all to do with her effort, but it will have everything to do with money.