My first poll for the NZ public

[Ocean1]

Wot a lod o' codswallop.

What about items of property including fruit, veges etc

Peopl will 'take them from anyone else' ya know - they already do.

Wee fruit story.

Couple of years ago I put a sign up out on the road saying "FREE FRUIT, COME AND PICK IT".

Unknown to me up the road a bit the neighbour's kids have a stall selling cheap apples, fundraising for the local school, honesty box thing.

I never saw a single soul. But some desperado cleaned out the kids stall, apples AND cashbox.

[mashman]

I've sought information on this, I just didn't happen to find that info on the subject, nothing like what I accuse Ed of.

The one where I keep asking why people would do jobs they don't enjoy, its either dodging or flawed logic as nobody else here can see how that would work. All you've said is that people would do them because otherwise the system would fail, I suspect those doing shit jobs who look to their neighbors doing good jobs for exactly the same reward would be more likely to want to see it fail than succeed. Those are the same people that currently demand to be paid more than others for the inconvenience, why does your system suddenly grant them with altruism?

See now it makes more sense when you provide the logic behind the claim. But I suspect it would be replaced by overwhelming numbers of people deciding they need more than they would currently be able to afford.

Fair enough. I should have posted a link or at least explained.

I did answer that question, but I guess not in the right language. Nobody else? Essentially that is the answer. We would have to do jobs we may well hate because the alternative is going back to a system that we voted out for a very good reason. Envy is a bastard and all I can say is get over it. Success is what? Having more than someone else? The altruism will be there if the system is voted for. This has never been done before so there is one hell of a lot riding on us seeing the benefits in the new system v's the old system. Yup that's asking a lot of the current beings wandering the planet, but I'd love to know where we stood in regards to how many would give it a go (that includes showing that restraint for stuff through personal responsibility and responsibility towards others). It is a HUGE matter of trust. The solutions are there to the economic issues, I offer a version of them, but without a doubt those who understand the intricate details could dot the i's and cross the t's in a more succinct manner.

That's quite possible. Which is why I keep coming back to the fundamental, well we voted for it to get away from the financial system, why would we put ourselves into a position where we end up going back to it.

[mashman]

They can't. Ever.

What they can do is work towards a better job.

Or not.

Either way they'll only ever get whatever they can sell their services for.

I understand that... a handful may make it. Helps to be a man too eh . As gwigs said earlier, do we have any idea of the potential that we're losing because these guys are, to all intents and purposes, stuck without the potential to push themselves in other arenas.

Wot a lod o' codswallop.

What about items of property including fruit, veges etc

Peopl will 'take them from anyone else' ya know - they already do.

Eh? What do you mean what about fruit and veges? Wouldn't they just go to the market and pick their own up?

[Ocean1]

I understand that... a handful may make it. Helps to be a man too eh . As gwigs said earlier, do we have any idea of the potential that we're losing because these guys are, to all intents and purposes, stuck without the potential to push themselves in other arenas.

It takes effort to realise potential.

Every one of us is stuck at the level our effort got us to, potential ain't worth shit without you work for what you want.

[scumdog]

Eh? What do you mean what about fruit and veges? Wouldn't they just go to the market and pick their own up?

Hell no, why put yourself out going all the way to market when you can just jump the neighbours fence to get what you want...I mean to get to market ya might have to somehow get a car and petrol too...

[bogan]

That's quite possible. Which is why I keep coming back to the fundamental, well we voted for it to get away from the financial system, why would we put ourselves into a position where we end up going back to it.

This is where you lose me, because that hasn't happened, and unless such issues as I keep raising are addressed, I don't think it will ever happen. That is what makes it circular logic.

[mashman]

It takes effort to realise potential.

Every one of us is stuck at the level our effort got us to, potential ain't worth shit without you work for what you want.

It does, I agree. But that potential isn't necessarily realised or realisable at school and if these people leave with few qualifications and end up in scramble to survive jobs, your society isn't exactly setup to cater for their needs without them putting themselves heavily into debt in the hope that they can find a job on the other side.

I agree with that to an extent, but sometimes you do have to give something to people on a plate for that potential to be realised. If it's of benefit, then why wouldn't you? Your society says do the hard yards as there are no shortcuts irrespective of what your potential is.

Hell no, why put yourself out going all the way to market when you can just jump the neighbours fence to get what you want...I mean to get to market ya might have to somehow get a car and petrol too...

So the choice is knickin your neighbours fruit and veg and risking a stint in jail or going to the market to pick up your own veg even though a car will be available and it will be fueled. I'd lend my car to the worst neighbour in the world to do that. After all, they can't sell it.

This is where you lose me, because that hasn't happened, and unless such issues as I keep raising are addressed, I don't think it will ever happen. That is what makes it circular logic.

You are putting up those hurdles though. I'm not. There are always solutions to the problems you highlight. I've attempted to offer some form of solution. At the end of the day it will all come down to trust. Living without money is a given in regards to less crime, free education, lots of people doing different things etc... and the economic hurdles are probably the least of our worries... but it's up to the individual to exercise personal responsibility and restraint and to, ommmmmmmmm, embrace the change for what it is and for what it offers for society. So yeah, the logic will always be circular until certain things are accepted (irrespective of the level of detail) and then we can leap forwards to go through another set of logic loops.

[scumdog]

So the choice is knickin your neighbours fruit and veg and risking a stint in jail or going to the market to pick up your own veg even though a car will be available and it will be fueled. I'd lend my car to the worst neighbour in the world to do that. After all, they can't sell it.

Jail??

For knickin a few fruit and veges?

"I don't thinks so Tim"

Sheesh!

[mashman]

Jail??

For knickin a few fruit and veges?

"I don't thinks so Tim"

Sheesh!

She be the case though. It's the act remember, not what was taken... apparently. T'would seem as though the "law" is a hypocritical ass.

[blue rider]

How about living in a world where ones ability to obtain a credit is based on a 'social profile'......might also be used to determine ones employability


http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/26/wh...-credit-score/

interesting read

[Ocean1]

It does, I agree. But that potential isn't necessarily realised or realisable at school and if these people leave with few qualifications and end up in scramble to survive jobs, your society isn't exactly setup to cater for their needs without them putting themselves heavily into debt in the hope that they can find a job on the other side.

I don't agree. Look around, society is set up to cater for the needs of those who consume more than they earn. So there's not only second chances after failure at school there's on-going support for further failure. And, as a rule, when you encourage a certain behaviour it rapidly becomes "normal". Which is why we currently have a society being rapidly populated by failures: there's not enough of a link between productive effort and it's natural reward.

No doubt the potential's there. No doubt at all. It's the effort that's missing.

I agree with that to an extent, but sometimes you do have to give something to people on a plate for that potential to be realised. If it's of benefit, then why wouldn't you? Your society says do the hard yards as there are no shortcuts irrespective of what your potential is.

But it's very rarely of any benefit, so why would you bother. Sure, there's a few that put in a better effort given a second chance, and I have no problem with policy making such chances easier to manage. But the real problem is the general expectation that someone can continually live high and earn low. It's simply not sustainable.

You bleat on about how the GFC was the fault of the big corporations and banking sector's manipulation of the financial system, but that's simply not so. The root cause was a whole generation of western consumers spending way more than they earned. The GFC is simply the latest in a long series of natural corrections to that excess, it wasn't the worst and it won't be the last. So the contention that there's no reason anyone can't enjoy the fruits of modern manufacturing efficiencies and technological improvements no matter what they do for a crust is exposed as patent drivel. They need to earn it.

And the expertise required to earn the standard of living available now is far more sophisticated and extensive than that which was required to keep up with the 1960s Jones'. If you want to live ploughing fields behind the arse of a horse then be prepared to live like a 17th century peasant. if you expect to live well in this century you had better come armed with qualifications and skills valuable to this century's inhabitants. That, and a viable work ethic.

[bogan]

You are putting up those hurdles though. I'm not. There are always solutions to the problems you highlight. I've attempted to offer some form of solution. At the end of the day it will all come down to trust. Living without money is a given in regards to less crime, free education, lots of people doing different things etc... and the economic hurdles are probably the least of our worries... but it's up to the individual to exercise personal responsibility and restraint and to, ommmmmmmmm, embrace the change for what it is and for what it offers for society. So yeah, the logic will always be circular until certain things are accepted (irrespective of the level of detail) and then we can leap forwards to go through another set of logic loops.

Pointing out problems is a lot different to putting them up. At the end of the day such a system must be logical enough for people to trust in it; which is different from people having to trust each other to become altruistic in order to make it work. If the logic is always circular, I doubt it will ever be accepted, certainly not starting out on a country scale.

[SMOKEU]

Which is why I asked if it was just the exchange rate you were talking about, is it not just the exchange rate now?

Jesus H Christ, is nobody in this thread I try and have a discussion with capable of a coherent and on-track conversation.

Fair enough, I was meaning that the exchange rate vs difficulty rate is similar to that of 2 years ago. You mine a lot fewer BTC, but those BTC are worth a lot more, so you end up with a similar amount of money 2 years ago compared to today if you were to sell your BTC on a weekly basis.

My advice - buy a cheap ASIC if you can get your hands on one (I'm not sure if BFL have sorted out their supply issues yet).

[bogan]

Fair enough, I was meaning that the exchange rate vs difficulty rate is similar to that of 2 years ago. You mine a lot fewer BTC, but those BTC are worth a lot more, so you end up with a similar amount of money 2 years ago compared to today if you were to sell your BTC on a weekly basis.

My advice - buy a cheap ASIC if you can get your hands on one (I'm not sure if BFL have sorted out their supply issues yet).

And you think that rate will stay the same? As mining difficulty skyrockets will the exchange rate skyrocket too? I just can't see why the driving force for the currency would be based on some arbitrary encryption system...

[mashman]

Pointing out problems is a lot different to putting them up. At the end of the day such a system must be logical enough for people to trust in it; which is different from people having to trust each other to become altruistic in order to make it work. If the logic is always circular, I doubt it will ever be accepted, certainly not starting out on a country scale.

Fair point... and noted. Perhaps phrasing it as, if you are morally irresponsible you will be thrown in jail, with a judge deciding what is moral or not. That's what happens at the moment (accept with "laws"), so there shouldn't be any trust issues, tight? People already trust each other. Granted there's a huge amount of skepticism in that trust, but that's primarily because they don't want to be ripped off. Removing money should remove a vast chunk of that mistrust, after all confidence crime requires trust to exist in the first place. I think that will turn around, foolishly perhaps, dunno, but removing money should remove many of the reasons for confidence crimes (SCF/Hanover/JP Morgan et al). True. The scarey thing is though, that circular logic already exists, boom and bust for example. How do we fix that, oh we throw in a different economic model. Nope, still boom and bust... best change the economic model then... nope still boom and bust... let's change the economic model then... ad infinitum. No money can break that boom and bust cycle and given that the experts and professionals are the real smart people of the world (debatable ), wonder how well they;d be able to define NOW (or similar) in reference to your questions?