Occupy Kiwi Biker Movement

[Scuba_Steve]

Really, which ones? Seem to me that arguably the biggest one (computers) now has a massive industry and accompanying massive r&d budget...

"computers" is a pretty vague topic & if we look at personal side most of the big players now started out with no moneys then; So yes now they have big budgets, but are they really "game changing" anymore with their big budgets like they did back in the days with their pittance?
Most of their best stuff came without the large moneys, nowadays they just use their large moneys to buy up innovative companies actually advancing the industry with no moneys

[bogan]

"computers" is a pretty vague topic & if we look at personal side most of the big players now started out with no moneys then; So yes now they have big budgets, but are they really "game changing" anymore with their big budgets like they did back in the days with their pittance?
Most of their best stuff came without the large moneys, nowadays they just use their large moneys to buy up innovative companies actually advancing the industry with no moneys

They only became game changing once people started using them, and people only started using them once they could mass produce em, and they could only mass produce them with decent investment for production gear. Right way back at the start you have a lot of uncertainty, as the uncertainty dwindles through proof of concept you get more money coming in. Are you really suggesting society should start pouring money into the most uncertain projects based on nothing but a 'I hope it works'? Time travel, zero point energy etc?

[Scuba_Steve]

They only became game changing once people started using them, and people only started using them once they could mass produce em, and they could only mass produce them with decent investment for production gear. Right way back at the start you have a lot of uncertainty, as the uncertainty dwindles through proof of concept you get more money coming in. Are you really suggesting society should start pouring money into the most uncertain projects based on nothing but a 'I hope it works'? Time travel, zero point energy etc?

No I'm just simply stating that the biggest advancements didn't come about due to big moneys, but more through necessity or desire.
In-fact alot of what we see today was created 20yrs ago but moneys made it a financial suicide should they have released it when created, so in that respect moneys actually retards our advancement

[MisterD]

Are you really suggesting society should start pouring money into the most uncertain projects based on nothing but a 'I hope it works'?

Case in point - every "Green job" created by government intervention in the UK costs $200,000 plus 3.7 other real jobs.

[mashman]

Generally because of a combination of three things (in no particular order) it's very well paid, the role carries a lot of mana in society and they enjoy helping people.

I suggest you go an ask a kid why they want to become a doctor. I reckon you'll get 1 out of those 3 answers and it won't be the money or the mana.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the "free" bit of "free market". It's political skewing that causes unnecessary shit to be made and resources to be wasted. In a free market, as resources diminish their value rises and the cost of using them increase making alternatives more attractive.

There is no deliberate human-intervention system that will respond as quickly and accurately as a truly free market. Capitalism has lifted more people out of real poverty than anything else ever invented by man.

It's not political skewing at all. I'm not saying that political interference doesn't have anything to do with the price of shit, but to say that they're causing unnecessary shit to be made is really rather quite outlandish. Can you qualify your statement?

Yes there is. It's called good will and the need to do something because it needs to be done. The truly free market will weigh up how much to spend before they will respond. As for capitalism lifting more people out of poverty etc... "my" system will eradicate poverty within 10 years. Technically the moment it is implemented poverty will be eradicated, so I'm giving a wide margin for error there... but it will be eradicated, not mitigated.

In a financial context it is measured, as a concept it is defined, when you say the financial system causes poverty I assume you mean as the concept is defined. I mean it's blatantly obvious you can no longer measure it financially without a financial system and of absolutely no relevance to your argument unless you want to use it to mislead...

It's biased an naive because you have nothing better to offer.

A resource committee? so you want the average joes to have even less say than we do now? Isn't that just giving the 1% (albeit a different 1%) more power than what they have now?

Ok, using the definition then: "The quality or state of being poor or indigent; want or scarcity of means of subsistence; indigence; need.".

Lack of resources. The resources are available, yet they don't have the funds to purchase them or the funds to import the resources. Plenty of places around the globe with that problem... and not for want of resource scarcity, but for a lack of sharing the abundant resources with all to allow them the ability to provide for their community's. It ALL requires money... yet not all can afford it, so the financial system plays a pivotal role in poverty.

It's better than what we currently have... doubly so as you're offering absolutely no alternative in return.

Sorry if I mislead you to believe that there would only be 1 resource committee. More power? How is that giving them more power to that which they already own? Who will ask the resource committee for resources? Go ahead, use yer brain thingymajig and extrapolate that a little further. At some point a line will have to be drawn as to the frequency we get "stuff". I'm more than happy for that to happen given the positives that will also come about with that sort of "controlled development".

[bogan]

No I'm just simply stating that the biggest advancements didn't come about due to big moneys, but more through necessity or desire.
In-fact alot of what we see today was created 20yrs ago but moneys made it a financial suicide should they have released it when created, so in that respect moneys actually retards our advancement

Ahh, so when money helps people create things or promote its advancement, it's actually the person who does the work. But if the people decide not to put money into creating or advancing something, it is money's fault it failed. Right... that doesn't sound biased at all

[mashman]

Are you really suggesting society should start pouring money into the most uncertain projects based on nothing but a 'I hope it works'? Time travel, zero point energy etc?

Case in point - every "Green job" created by government intervention in the UK costs $200,000 plus 3.7 other real jobs.

bwaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa... time travel and zero point energy can be explored if there is no cost because it removes nothing from other projects.

Ergo Green jobs cannot be afforded.

Fuckin geniuses support a system that limits human endeavor and then you moan and bitch about the costs. PRICELESS bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ah ha ha haaaaaa. Your system does not allow you to have your cake and eat it, mine does

[Scuba_Steve]

Ahh, so when money helps people create things or promote its advancement, it's actually the person who does the work. But if the people decide not to put money into creating or advancing something, it is money's fault it failed. Right... that doesn't sound biased at all

Not my thoughts, but carry on...

[MisterD]

I'm not saying that political interference doesn't have anything to do with the price of shit, but to say that they're causing unnecessary shit to be made is really rather quite outlandish. Can you qualify your statement?

Can I qualify? Have you heard of the Common Agricultural Policy? The system which basically subsidises French farmers and gave us the famous Wine Lake and Butter Mountain.

[bogan]

Ok, using the definition then: "The quality or state of being poor or indigent; want or scarcity of means of subsistence; indigence; need.".

Lack of resources. The resources are available, yet they don't have the funds to purchase them or the funds to import the resources. Plenty of places around the globe with that problem... and not for want of resource scarcity, but for a lack of sharing the abundant resources with all to allow them the ability to provide for their community's. It ALL requires money... yet not all can afford it, so the financial system plays a pivotal role in poverty.

It's better than what we currently have... doubly so as you're offering absolutely no alternative in return.

Sorry if I mislead you to believe that there would only be 1 resource committee. More power? How is that giving them more power to that which they already own? Who will ask the resource committee for resources? Go ahead, use yer brain thingymajig and extrapolate that a little further. At some point a line will have to be drawn as to the frequency we get "stuff". I'm more than happy for that to happen given the positives that will also come about with that sort of "controlled development".

So back to the start then, how can you prove it's the financial system preventing those people's access to the resources? and not human douchebaggery or resource scarcity? It's not a fact unless you can prove it.

I've heard nothing that even comes close to what we have, I'd like to offer something better, but in absence of that I think what we have is the best. This is the point you keep struggling with, the so called 99% have no useful alternative to offer, and will not be taken seriously (even by opposition) until you do.

Currently the free market (despite it no being a perfect free market) is a huge driving force allowing all consumers to have their say in what gets produced, what companies get access to the resources. By shifting that power into a committee you are taking it away from the rest of the people, it doesn't mater who has to ask, it matters who has to decide.

It just seems like you want a dictatorship, but where the dictator is a committee of as many people as you can find who agree with your way of doing things.

[MisterD]

Fuckin geniuses support a system that limits human endeavor and then you moan and bitch about the costs. PRICELESS bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ah ha ha haaaaaa. Your system does not allow you to have your cake and eat it, mine does

I really think you need to ponder on this: If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

Cake and eat it? Hash cake and eaten it, I reckon.

Hint: Costs exist whether you ascribe a monetary value to them or not.

[MisterD]

a committee of as many people as you can find who agree with your way of doing things.

Finally you've explained my feeling of deja vu

[bogan]

bwaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa... time travel and zero point energy can be explored if there is no cost because it removes nothing from other projects.

Removes nothing? How do you expect to get those things done without allocating technical expertise and research resources from other projects?

Are there a lot of wizards in the so called 99% or something?

Not my thoughts, but carry on...

Is that not an accurate summary of what you said then? At what point does the financial system start to be a reflection of people's decisions?

[mashman]

So back to the start then, how can you prove it's the financial system preventing those people's access to the resources? and not human douchebaggery or resource scarcity? It's not a fact unless you can prove it.

I've heard nothing that even comes close to what we have, I'd like to offer something better, but in absence of that I think what we have is the best. This is the point you keep struggling with, the so called 99% have no useful alternative to offer, and will not be taken seriously (even by opposition) until you do.

Currently the free market (despite it no being a perfect free market) is a huge driving force allowing all consumers to have their say in what gets produced, what companies get access to the resources. By shifting that power into a committee you are taking it away from the rest of the people, it doesn't mater who has to ask, it matters who has to decide.

It just seems like you want a dictatorship, but where the dictator is a committee of as many people as you can find who agree with your way of doing things.

Because they haven't got the resources they need. Why don't they have the resources. Because they don't have the money, that the financial system produces, to buy them. Do the resources exist, yes. Is it logistically possible to get the resources from A to B, yes. Then the hold up is the lack of money produced by the financial system. Now perhaps you'll be able to answer this question properly: What product/good/service is free of financial constraint?

Hang on, you're telling me and "my" idea are representative of any solutions being proposed by the 99%. That's a bit silly really isn't it... but yes I agree, they don't seem to be proposing much these days, well, apart from starting a bank that is. Now that is ironic. Pay attention, I will say this only once more: THERE WILL BE NEXT TO NO DIFFERENCES IN THE SHORT TERM EXCEPT THERE WILL BE NO MONEY IN CIRCULATION. EVERYTHING ELSE WILL GO ON AS IT CURRENTLY DOES... and that means everything. Once you've grasped that concept, we can move forwards, until then, you're looking in the wrong places for your answers.

Consumers get a say in what stays on the market yes, but as they are susceptible to advertising and marketing strategy's (like yourself, brand loyalty etc...) then they have proven that they shouldn't have a say. Does that fit better with your perception? Yes. Some shit just does not need to be produced. Some shit just does not need to be produced so frequently. Some shit should be put together much better than it currently is. Those issues need to be addressed and if the only way to do that is to remove certain things from the marketplace, then so be it, the robots will get over it in a remarkably short space of time and everyone will be the better off for it.

Bwaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaa... oh so lervely wrong it's almost poetic.

I really think you need to ponder on this: If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

Cake and eat it? Hash cake and eaten it, I reckon.

Hint: Costs exist whether you ascribe a monetary value to them or not.

I have done, 5/6 years. Are you saying that I read this stuff in a book? or off of the internet? Please see the following statement.

I can help you find your imagination if you like.

I know... hence the reason I say to use them properly and do the things that need to be done.

Removes nothing? How do you expect to get those things done without allocating technical expertise and research resources from other projects?

Are there a lot of wizards in the so called 99% or something?

Errrrr, because they haven't been removed?

Could be.

[bogan]

Because they haven't got the resources they need. Why don't they have the resources. Because they don't have the money, that the financial system produces, to buy them. Do the resources exist, yes. Is it logistically possible to get the resources from A to B, yes. Then the hold up is the lack of money produced by the financial system. Now perhaps you'll be able to answer this question properly: What product/good/service is free of financial constraint?

Hang on, you're telling me and "my" idea are representative of any solutions being proposed by the 99%. That's a bit silly really isn't it... but yes I agree, they don't seem to be proposing much these days, well, apart from starting a bank that is. Now that is ironic. Pay attention, I will say this only once more: THERE WILL BE NEXT TO NO DIFFERENCES IN THE SHORT TERM EXCEPT THERE WILL BE NO MONEY IN CIRCULATION. EVERYTHING ELSE WILL GO ON AS IT CURRENTLY DOES... and that means everything. Once you've grasped that concept, we can move forwards, until then, you're looking in the wrong places for your answers.

Consumers get a say in what stays on the market yes, but as they are susceptible to advertising and marketing strategy's (like yourself, brand loyalty etc...) then they have proven that they shouldn't have a say. Does that fit better with your perception? Yes. Some shit just does not need to be produced. Some shit just does not need to be produced so frequently. Some shit should be put together much better than it currently is. Those issues need to be addressed and if the only way to do that is to remove certain things from the marketplace, then so be it, the robots will get over it in a remarkably short space of time and everyone will be the better off for it.

Bwaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaa... oh so lervely wrong it's almost poetic.

Errrrr, because they haven't been removed?

Could be.

You of course have proof that such resource would make their way to them if money was not a thing? And that it wouldn't just be douchebaggery or nationalism or hoarding that would continue to prevent them getting there if money was not a thing...

I figured you as part of the so called 99% so assumed your idea were indicative of their own, in either case I've seen nothing good from any source to replace or surpass our current system. Shouting a concept is worthless since you have no basis to back up that statement; it's either shit now there is no money I can't buy anything, or, sweet, no money so I can buy everything! Or some other factor you've yet to explain... like the wizards suddenly imbuing everyone with a sense of altruism.

Regardless, removing the people from the driving force in favor of your dictator committee who decides for our common good that we don't need those things anymore, is still removing one of the driving forces all people have a say in.

Are they wizard researchers who can do two things at once? Or do you just have visions of all the top minds sitting around idly going, well if only I had money I could do something with my life. Surely you can see those people and equipment are occupied with existing projects?