Prime Minister Dotcom?

[mashman]

Mashman,

I haven't quoted your last post as there is nothing I feel I need to rebut directly, but it seems we have reached some conclusion

There are points we have agreed on that the NOW theory is not yet complete and that additional work is needed.

There is a possibility that once these points are addressed it may be a viable alternative - I myself still doubt this, but I would have to look at the system with the modifications before reaching a final judgement.

Fair enough. I don't disagree with any points you've raised there... i's do need to be dotted and t's do need to be crossed. Yes that's right, I have doubts myself and as said earlier, it's the people I run the idea past that keep more on the positive side of things.

Perhaps you could offer some modifications that are acceptable to you? I can't think of everything and a fresh perspective is always welcome whether it seems that way or not.

Cheers

Gordon

[Akzle]

you motherfucker.
I guess repetition does work on some people.

[mashman]

you motherfucker.
I guess repetition does work on some people.

... I wish that was what happened coz it'd fuckin easy then.

[Ocean1]

People.

People do drive the economy. Which is why it's important to encourage them to produce shit others consider valuable. That's what the economy is, after all, the value of the collective goods and services available.

Money is just a token to facilitate exchange.

It is. But that very function means it's also an accounting unit, (the measure of an asset's value) and a potential store of value.

So without it you can't accurately value shit, and you can't reliably save anything.

Go on then Prof, unleash thy wisdom and condense it for us thicko's.

Remember your mum telling you to do your homework, 'cause it might be the only chance you have to learn something?

She was right.

Gwarne, you can cut/paste it into google can't ya?

I don't care if business earns money or not, I care that they waste resources and don;t do things for the benefit of the people.

Businesses ARE the people. What's more almost all of the money they earn is paid directly to their employees. How is that wasting anything? how does that not benefit people?

Or are you solely focussed on the populist, socialist view of business being some of the more unsavoury International corporations? In which case possibly your idea of what a company is needs recalibrating.

Maslow's wrong way up bullshit?

Exactly. And it is indeed perfectly clear that you consider social niceties to be more important than food and shelter, which you routinely claim is everyone's absolute god given right.

Whereas most would consider breathing, sleep, water etc to be a precondition of self actualisation.

Which means that the economy is indeed more important than any charity you might feel due your fellow man, because unless you produce more than you need you've got nothing to give.

You're right, WTF was I thinking.

I couldn't possibly comment.

With a straight face.

Not everyone.

Of course not everyone, if you gave everyone what they earned you wouldn't be able to give those that didn't earn as much what they wanted, would you?

You don't have to believe it. It isn't solely down to you. I'm alright with "dude, I'll do my job if you do yours and I'll see you at fishin next week", before grabbing the next bin as my mate heads off to his job.

The trouble is anyone who does have an honest appreciation of similar philosophies throughout history also won't believe you. Which doesn't leave you with a very educated or substantial following, does it?

Especially if you let on that the first order of business is to take every other week off to go fishing instead of contributing to the cause.

For you it doesn't, man. We live in a different age, things have changed. Time to change with them or forever suffer budget constrained advances.

Aye. The current age is populated by those who have never been more insulated from the consequences of any lack of productivity. I'll retain the values that got me where I am, they've proven effective so far and nobody, least of all you has so far demonstrated to me that there was an effective alternative to hard work in achieving anything at all.

And time will indeed tell whether I'm correct or not.

[mashman]

People do drive the economy. Which is why it's important to encourage them to produce shit others consider valuable. That's what the economy is, after all, the value of the collective goods and services available.

But they only do it for money?

It is. But that very function means it's also an accounting unit, (the measure of an asset's value) and a potential store of value.

So without it you can't accurately value shit, and you can't reliably save anything.

No fuckin way. How do you assign a value to something that doesn't exist?

You can value something as important by how scare it is i.e. only 12 million trees left, trees required for the next 10 years, 12 million and 1. No money, but the trees will most definitely be valued and with any luck, saved. Something your precious money grabbing economy doesn't give a shit about.

Remember your mum telling you to do your homework, 'cause it might be the only chance you have to learn something?

She was right.

Gwarne, you can cut/paste it into google can't ya?

I know she was. Didn't stop me from not doing my homework.

Tell me.

Businesses ARE the people. What's more almost all of the money they earn is paid directly to their employees. How is that wasting anything? how does that not benefit people?

Or are you solely focussed on the populist, socialist view of business being some of the more unsavoury International corporations? In which case possibly your idea of what a company is needs recalibrating.

I wish they were. Having a degree qualified anything that works at Macca's because the positions have been filled is a waste.

I want businesses to thrive... but not with a financial focus. In fact I reckon they'd be better without money as they could have as many staff as they like to produce the best product they can. My recalibration isn't complete yet, but it's going in the opposite direction that you believe it should

Exactly. And it is indeed perfectly clear that you consider social niceties to be more important than food and shelter, which you routinely claim is everyone's absolute god given right.

Whereas most would consider breathing, sleep, water etc to be a precondition of self actualisation.

Which means that the economy is indeed more important than any charity you might feel due your fellow man, because unless you produce more than you need you've got nothing to give.

It should be entirely flat.

...

They are as important as each other. As you say, the People are the economy and vice versa.

I couldn't possibly comment.

With a straight face.

Restraint? That's twice in 1 day that I've nearly fallen off my chair.

Of course not everyone, if you gave everyone what they earned you wouldn't be able to give those that didn't earn as much what they wanted, would you?

You said everyone.

The trouble is anyone who does have an honest appreciation of similar philosophies throughout history also won't believe you. Which doesn't leave you with a very educated or substantial following, does it?

Especially if you let on that the first order of business is to take every other week off to go fishing instead of contributing to the cause.

Some people prefer to be lied to... given that the victor writes history n all. They don't have to be very educated.

Didn't say I was gonna take every other week off... however if things work as I expect, that may well be a possibility.

Aye. The current age is populated by those who have never been more insulated from the consequences of any lack of productivity. I'll retain the values that got me where I am, they've proven effective so far and nobody, least of all you has so far demonstrated to me that there was an effective alternative to hard work in achieving anything at all.

And time will indeed tell whether I'm correct or not.

Did I say that hard work wasn't required?

Here's hopin you're not entirely correct.

[mashman]

It's not. It's a simple function of the gap between expectations and reality.

And I didn't pick 55%, you did, I quoted you. In fact you originally got it from me.

At the time I was interested to see if you saw the sublime irony of a socialist policy that took so much tax from someone who earned more than average that they had to subsidise him.

I see the penny still hasn't dropped.

One man's ice cream is another man's nipple raising cream.

You did, but I never said that that 55% were under financial stress, I said they were struggling to the point where the govt has to subsidise them.

I don't care. At best it's just another financial policy that's failed to work.

Some things you just need to spell out.

[Ocean1]

But they only do it for money?

Nope, but money is how others value their efforts. Which is entirely appropriate because that money represents their own efforts.

And that'll deal with the rest of your answers too.



Except this:

Here's hopin you're not entirely correct.

You can take my word for it, hard work is always necessary to meet the expectations of anyone with any aspirations worthy of human endeavour.

Which is why I tend to have little respect for anyone who wants anything whatsoever without going to the trouble of earning it.

[Ocean1]

One man's ice cream is another man's nipple raising cream.

Gibberish isn't an acceptable form of debate, dude.

You did, but I never said that that 55% were under financial stress, I said they were struggling to the point where the govt has to subsidise them.

Yes you did:

What are the reasons for non-financial crime? There are many. One of them will be financial stress (payiong for Doctors, ever increasing bills, 55% of the population struggling to the point where they need to be subsidised etc...)

I don't care. At best it's just another financial policy that's failed to work.

Some things you just need to spell out.

I know. It doesn't fit your world view, so it's ignored or denied.

Here's the spelling: Instead of taxing most people so much that you have to give some of it back so they can afford the basics why don't you simply take less off them in the first place?

A question, I see that's on the minds of an unprecedented majority of readers here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...for-new-babies

[Banditbandit]

Gibberish isn't an acceptable form of debate, dude.

But at least it was amusing ...

[Banditbandit]

Here's the spelling: Instead of taxing most people so much that you have to give some of it back so they can afford the basics why don't you simply take less off them in the first place?

A question, I see that's on the minds of an unprecedented majority of readers here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...for-new-babies

Yeah .. I could not get my head around Labour raising taxes so they can pay people with babies $60 a week - why the hell not just reduce taxes??? Or make children tax deductible for the first year ..

[Ocean1]

Yeah .. I could not get my head around Labour raising taxes so they can pay people with babies $60 a week - why the hell not just reduce taxes??? Or make children tax deductible for the first year ..

... Or charge them $60 a week for imposing the wee bastards on the rest of us in the first place.

[TheDemonLord]

you motherfucker.
I guess repetition does work on some people.

Well, my objections were based on points where I believe the system will fail in its current state, if those points are addressed then it could be a viable alternative..

So then, to address those points (as I was challenged) although I must stress that I still think the overall concept of NOW and the ability to provide incentives to keep people in higher work are mutually exclusive, I am not one to shy away from a challenge.

First off the real question is how do you Incentivize people without money?

People have to feel adequately rewarded for the job they do in order to keep them doing it. Whether that Reward is Money or other, people have to feel rewarded.

So I had some thoughts on this - first thought was to have some form of Tiered system, but then that is really just importing one of the key problems from the current financial system and will create Financial-style NOW crimes

Since there isn't Money things like Perks (yah know, company car, company lappie etc.) won't work either

Possibly more Holiday time, but seeing as there won't be the financial pressure to not come to work, Holiday won't be as important - people will just go AWOL.

So the best idea I could come up with was some form of gay-ass appreciation day.

But then the problem is for each of the career paths that require significant higher education, they would all need their own appreciation day, thus not making it special.

Maybe someone could come up with better ideas, but yeah, without some form or monetary or item based rewards, I can't think how to give people an incentive to put in the hard yards for the higher jobs and stay in them.

as for sticks to keep people in work - the only ideas I had was either forcing people to work (which isn't a society I want to live in) or being unemployed means you are able to be requsitioned by the State to do any number of Menial tasks (like picking up litter in the Park etc.)

[mashman]

Nope, but money is how others value their efforts. Which is entirely appropriate because that money represents their own efforts.

And that'll deal with the rest of your answers too.

I thought the result was how their effort was valued. Meh.

You can take my word for it, hard work is always necessary to meet the expectations of anyone with any aspirations worthy of human endeavour.

Which is why I tend to have little respect for anyone who wants anything whatsoever without going to the trouble of earning it.

I'll say it again: Did I say that hard work wasn't required?

You have made that clear. Your choice.

[mashman]

Gibberish isn't an acceptable form of debate, dude.

Doesn't stop you.

Yes you did:

Check the context and try again... if you choose.

I know. It doesn't fit your world view, so it's ignored or denied.

Here's the spelling: Instead of taxing most people so much that you have to give some of it back so they can afford the basics why don't you simply take less off them in the first place?

A question, I see that's on the minds of an unprecedented majority of readers here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...for-new-babies

I gave you a reason for it being ignored.

... gold

There have always been mainstream popularist pitch fork wielding people... likely always will be.

[GCSB Thought Police]

Yeah .. I could not get my head around Labour raising taxes so they can pay people with babies $60 a week - why the hell not just reduce taxes??? Or make children tax deductible for the first year ..

So, the chance of you voting for them has just dropped a notch ?