Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

**Ocean1** · 12th February 2016, 16:33

Originally Posted by mashman

No, I gave you a valid argument to your question and you pussied out as usual

I can't wait to see what you do when Resource Based Economy is firmly in place. I half expect you to become the new blanket man, however I figure that your lack of conviction and hypocrisy would keep you from making any such statement... you'd simply capitulate.

You wouldn't know a valid argument if it bit you on the arse.

Resource based economies are all we've ever had. And the resources are quantified in terms of money. Again, the only people upset about that are those that want more resources than they earn.

Communists. Fuck 'em.

**Ocean1** · 12th February 2016, 16:35

Originally Posted by mashman

money is just a measure of human activity.

Make up your fucking mind, money is earned by individuals or it's pulled out of a fairy banker's arse, which is it?

**Scuba_Steve** · 12th February 2016, 17:14

Originally Posted by Ocean1

You wouldn't know a valid argument if it bit you on the arse.

Resource based economies are all we've ever had. And the resources are quantified in terms of money. Again, the only people upset about that are those that want more resources than they earn.

Communists. Fuck 'em.

You sure you're using Googley right? It seems to be in contradiction to your stance

Originally Posted by Googley Search

A brief explanation of RBE: "A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few.

**Brian d marge** · 12th February 2016, 18:06

Originally Posted by bogan

You had 7 hours to come up with an improved counterpoint, and you got to 'no'.

Fucks sake, that's even more embarassing than the standard 'I made a point but you don't understand it' claim followed by ignoring all counterpoints and requests for clarification.

Ummm yup .

I value my time.....

Sent from my SC-01G using Tapatalk

**bogan** · 12th February 2016, 18:11

Originally Posted by Scuba_Steve

You sure you're using Googley right? It seems to be in contradiction to your stance

To use it properly requires posting the source...

In any case, the RBE term is one that can be bastardised to mean whatever its proponent wants it to be; which in many cases is just a nicer word for communism, or capitalism.

**Scuba_Steve** · 12th February 2016, 19:30

Originally Posted by bogan

To use it properly requires posting the source...

Really? Do I really need to spell it properly for you to recognize it??? my source was posted, Google! Googley = Google
Here I'll even supply a link to my source - https://www.google.co.nz/
Please don't tell me you need help using it too...

**mashman** · 12th February 2016, 19:32

Originally Posted by Ocean1

You wouldn't know a valid argument if it bit you on the arse.

Resource based economies are all we've ever had. And the resources are quantified in terms of money. Again, the only people upset about that are those that want more resources than they earn.

Communists. Fuck 'em.

I would. You have yet to provide one.

I think you mean financial based economies. Hardly surprising they're upset.

Such a shame.

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Make up your fucking mind, money is earned by individuals or it's pulled out of a fairy banker's arse, which is it?

In its cycle, both.

**mashman** · 12th February 2016, 19:34

Originally Posted by Scuba_Steve

Really? Do I really need to spell it properly for you to recognize it??? my source was posted, Google! Googley = Google
Here I'll even supply a link to my source - https://www.google.co.nz/
Please don't tell me you need help using it too...

He'd have to understand it to recognise it. I have relatively strong evidence that he doesn't though.

**Ocean1** · 12th February 2016, 19:55

Originally Posted by Scuba_Steve

You sure you're using Googley right? It seems to be in contradiction to your stance

Saying resource based economy is like saying liquid based drink. Resources are what we use to sustain our lifestyle, and an economy is the activity of collecting and using those resources in constructing that lifestyle.

The words themselves are unambiguous enough. And if someone decides to string them together that's fine, but it doesn't meant they all of a sudden mean something different.

Trying to redefine the words to mean "money is the root of all evel" is just an attempt to remove control of who gets what resources from those that earn them and give control to someone else. Usually by those who don't like having to work too hard in order to get what they think they deserve.

Fuck 'em.

Money is just the tool we use to describe the quality and value of resources, so we can trade and store them. You can do both without money, but not very well, and every civilisation in recorded history has used some form of money to do the job.

**Ocean1** · 12th February 2016, 19:59

Originally Posted by mashman

I would. You have yet to provide one.

Originally Posted by Ocean1

You wouldn't know a valid argument if it bit you on the arse.

Originally Posted by mashman

In its cycle, both.

Pathetic. Just fucking pathetic.

**mashman** · 12th February 2016, 21:02

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Saying resource based economy is like saying liquid based drink. Resources are what we use to sustain our lifestyle, and an economy is the activity of collecting and using those resources in constructing that lifestyle.

The words themselves are unambiguous enough. And if someone decides to string them together that's fine, but it doesn't meant they all of a sudden mean something different.

Trying to redefine the words to mean "money is the root of all evel" is just an attempt to remove control of who gets what resources from those that earn them and give control to someone else. Usually by those who don't like having to work too hard in order to get what they think they deserve.

Fuck 'em.

Money is just the tool we use to describe the quality and value of resources, so we can trade and store them. You can do both without money, but not very well, and every civilisation in recorded history has used some form of money to do the job.

How beautifully quaint.

No, it's the tool you use to describe what money used to be. I see your definition of civilised is equally as antiquated.

**mashman** · 12th February 2016, 21:04

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Pathetic. Just fucking pathetic.

You're the one who can't dig himself out of the 1880's.

**bogan** · 12th February 2016, 21:18

Originally Posted by Scuba_Steve

Really? Do I really need to spell it properly for you to recognize it??? my source was posted, Google! Googley = Google
Here I'll even supply a link to my source - https://www.google.co.nz/
Please don't tell me you need help using it too...

Google isn't a source any more than a library can be given as a reference. First page gives approximately 8 different viewpoints on what that term means. Hence the suggestion you narrow it down, followed by the explanation of how unfeasible that is for such an ambiguous term.

**Scuba_Steve** · 12th February 2016, 22:10

Originally Posted by bogan

Google isn't a source any more than a library can be given as a reference. First page gives approximately 8 different viewpoints on what that term means. Hence the suggestion you narrow it down, followed by the explanation of how unfeasible that is for such an ambiguous term.

The source was Google you'll have to accept that. Where Google sourced that info from I didn't care to look but my source was Google!