Prime Minister Dotcom?

[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!

[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.

[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.

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

[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

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.

... 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.

... 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 ".

[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 ".

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?