Stupid World

[bogan]

How do you define upper class in this particular case?

Those doing the exploiting?

[scumdog]

O


So buying people off with money to do something that they know is "wrong"? Hmmmmm, and let me guess, you're going to say that that is a human problem? Because that would be a quaint and novel reason for explaining why yet another person has fucked someone over where they usually wouldn't... and the only reason that they have is because they've been given money OR power or items or land

Fixed your sentence Mashy!

[Ocean1]

Ok.

You blame society, where even Ocean called it before i.e. 1 in 300 million are "bad", so I don't blame society, I blame the mechanism i.e. financial system, for allowing these people to be "bad". After all, if the money wasn't there and we lived in "my" world, ye olde rich cunt doesn't exist and has zero power over people. That is a fact.

It's bollox. China does use currency, but at the level you see in that factory money is not the driving force. The black hats in sweatshops like that are what you'd call local govt, a mix of local officials with the power to assign jobs, land etc. Money's not relevant, the peasants don't have any.

You've got this evel = rich prick picture in your head. It distorts your perceptions of the world to the point that you're no longer seeing the real world. So your "facts"... aren't.

[mashman]

It the 'allow' part that is the keyword. Were it the fault of money it would not just allow but encourage it, which it does not. Maybe there is a better system to discourage that sort of behaviour, but I've yet to see one that could work on a large scale. Was money around when the slaves built the pyramids?

As discussed in the other thread, 'your' world is very poorly thought out.

"allow" is circumstantial. If something is there to be legally taken, then it is allowed. Money is there to be legally taken and the pursuit of that money has bad people doing bad things because they make huge profits and could never get away with it in their own country. The Egyptians used bags of grain, copper and silver. As I've said, barter can put people in a position of power, which is one of the reasons I wouldn't use it. The only value there should be on any resource is how useful is it to human beings in regards to necessity. Anything renewable or at least made to be able to be recycled easily can be made into anything we like for toys. The key is to make it recyclable and minimise the $2 (or $2 million) waste.

It may well be poorly thought out, but it still kicks the arse off of the current world we live in and there is no question about that. The positives outweigh the negatives by a considerable distance and things that can't be achieved in a financial system are easily achievable in "my" world". So even in it's ill thought out state, "my" world can still beat your world up.

Given that "my" world has come from my mind (primarily), what could you do given your experiences and thought processes to augment/improve "my" world? Essentially that is what needs to happen. It needs a group of interested people to dot the i's and cross the t's before the questions of "but what do I get out of it? why should he get more than me because I earn more than him? I am a vastly more intelligent being, I should be favoured?" and all of those, I am entitled to the world owing me a better living than someone else because of X questions, can be answered with any great degree of purpose. That will take time, but it needs to be done. Notice that there is no mention of me shaping "my" world.

[mashman]

Probably right actually. Is simply a poor system, no real feedback control mechanisms where it counts: Who decides who gets what, and at what cost.

Poor logistics'll do that though eh.

Fixed your sentence Mashy!

heh... fair enough, but where's the point in being appeased by power or land if it isn't worth anything?

It's bollox. China does use currency, but at the level you see in that factory money is not the driving force. The black hats in sweatshops like that are what you'd call local govt, a mix of local officials with the power to assign jobs, land etc. Money's not relevant, the peasants don't have any.

You've got this evel = rich prick picture in your head. It distorts your perceptions of the world to the point that you're no longer seeing the real world. So your "facts"... aren't.

I was with you right up your "etc.". Do the peasants not buy food? Do the peasants not buy clothing? Do the peasants not buy tools?

No I don't. I will ever hold out hope that you'll stop telling me what my perception of others is when you have absolutely no clue what the my image of "bad" people is. So no, it doesn't distort my perception at all. The logic that without money/barter/trade etc... and with the only reliance being on cooperation that the world would not only still function, but would accelerate in just about every avenue of human endeavor is undeniable. Just because you refuse to understand that logic doesn't make it flawed or achievable.

[scumdog]

heh... fair enough, but where's the point in being appeased by power or land if it isn't worth anything?

Yes it is - power to get stuff for nothing/get stuff done for nothing.

Land to raise crops on/charge rent for etc

Sheesh, do I HAVE to spell it out for you?l

[Ocean1]

Those doing the exploiting?

OK. But it's not clear who you think that is.

Is it always the upper class that does the exploiting?

[mashman]

Yes it is - power to get stuff for nothing/get stuff done for nothing.

Land to raise crops on/charge rent for etc

Sheesh, do I HAVE to spell it out for you?l

How do you hold that power over people?

So, get money then.

... nope, just clarifying to see if you can explain it in any other way than in financial terms.

[bogan]

"allow" is circumstantial. If something is there to be legally taken, then it is allowed. Money is there to be legally taken and the pursuit of that money has bad people doing bad things because they make huge profits and could never get away with it in their own country. The Egyptians used bags of grain, copper and silver. As I've said, barter can put people in a position of power, which is one of the reasons I wouldn't use it. The only value there should be on any resource is how useful is it to human beings in regards to necessity. Anything renewable or at least made to be able to be recycled easily can be made into anything we like for toys. The key is to make it recyclable and minimise the $2 (or $2 million) waste.

It may well be poorly thought out, but it still kicks the arse off of the current world we live in and there is no question about that. The positives outweigh the negatives by a considerable distance and things that can't be achieved in a financial system are easily achievable in "my" world". So even in it's ill thought out state, "my" world can still beat your world up.

Given that "my" world has come from my mind (primarily), what could you do given your experiences and thought processes to augment/improve "my" world? Essentially that is what needs to happen. It needs a group of interested people to dot the i's and cross the t's before the questions of "but what do I get out of it? why should he get more than me because I earn more than him? I am a vastly more intelligent being, I should be favoured?" and all of those, I am entitled to the world owing me a better living than someone else because of X questions, can be answered with any great degree of purpose. That will take time, but it needs to be done. Notice that there is no mention of me shaping "my" world.

I don't mean legally allowing it, but how the system allows such types of behaviour. 'your' system does little to stop it either.

lol, if the other thread is anything to go by, there are many many questions are had about that

[bogan]

OK. But it's not clear who you think that is.

Is it always the upper class that does the exploiting?

I wouldn't read into it too much, I didn't before posting it. Governement and managerial people etc.

Depends on the system, mashy would have us move to one wide open to exploitation from the 'lower' class, so no, definitely not always. And our current one is open to exploitation from the lower classes too.

[Ocean1]

I was with you right up your "etc.". Do the peasants not buy food? Do the peasants not buy clothing? Do the peasants not buy tools?

It's complicated. Yes the peasants have money. Their economy is described in a couple of dollars per day, of use only amongst peasants. Even that's restricted by what goods are available from outside the village. Only good citizens get to buy luxury goods like a walking tractor or an irrigation pump.

No I don't. I will ever hold out hope that you'll stop telling me what my perception of others is when you have absolutely no clue what the my image of "bad" people is. So no, it doesn't distort my perception at all. The logic that without money/barter/trade etc... and with the only reliance being on cooperation that the world would not only still function, but would accelerate in just about every avenue of human endeavor is undeniable. Just because you refuse to understand that logic doesn't make it flawed or achievable.

The target of your bile is exclusively "the rich cunts". So much so in fact that it's pretty obvious that you cherry pick world news for rich pricks behaving badly and then posting a wee rant about them. It's the function of this thread. Isn't it?

And what passes for you as "undeniable logic is simply wishful thinking. Sloppy wishful thinking at that, I could make a better case for banning water because of the hardship and unfairness it promulgates.

[mashman]

I don't mean legally allowing it, but how the system allows such types of behaviour. 'your' system does little to stop it either.

lol, if the other thread is anything to go by, there are many many questions are had about that

The system allows it because it's legal. If it's illegal then the system doesn't allow it. It doesn't stop it, but it doesn't allow it. But it's all down to the legality in regards to what is allowed.

funny that. It's amusing that no one would accept that you can have what you have today as an answer. Which leaves only one question, the one that no one really likes: Why do you believe they you are worth more than someone else? Some will hide behind the market valuation (Ocean), some will hide behind not answering the question (Oscar) and some will avoid answering it entirely and will either run away, change the subject, start with personal attacks or will resort to human nature as an excuse despite, ironically, the fact that the poll was about 50/50. But if all people are going to care about is what they get instead of what our (every man woman and child irrespective of colour, race, nationality, gender, age, weight, looks, "intelligence", laziness etc...) future could be, then those answers will need to be prepared in such a way that they appease those me me me characters. Granted that's almost impossible, but that's where numbers come into it. If people love to run with the herd so much, which they do oh yes how they love their majority, then those questions can be alleviated somewhat by the weight of numbers that accept what is obviously the better way of doing things

[Ocean1]

Yes it is - power to get stuff for nothing/get stuff done for nothing.

Land to raise crops on/charge rent for etc.l

Land isn't rented in China. At least land for raising crops isn't.

Two thirds of Chinese are officially designated farmers. They're great ones for compartmentalising everyone, every man a place and every man in his place. Or else. Any land not steeper than 15 degrees is deemed arable, and in theory every farmer is assigned his share of that land. How much land? 1000 square metres. From a lump of dirt the size of an old school kiwi section that farmer feeds himself and half of another countryman.

And here's the crunch: those lumps of dirt aren't automatically assigned to every new adult farmer. Most, probably. But the local party faithful are apt to find all sorts of reasons some of the less desirable might not get one. And that's just the tip of the corruption iceberg. And all without the hint of a yen.

[bogan]

The system allows it because it's legal. If it's illegal then the system doesn't allow it. It doesn't stop it, but it doesn't allow it. But it's all down to the legality in regards to what is allowed.

funny that. It's amusing that no one would accept that you can have what you have today as an answer. Which leaves only one question, the one that no one really likes: Why do you believe they you are worth more than someone else? Some will hide behind the market valuation (Ocean), some will hide behind not answering the question (Oscar) and some will avoid answering it entirely and will either run away, change the subject, start with personal attacks or will resort to human nature as an excuse despite, ironically, the fact that the poll was about 50/50. But if all people are going to care about is what they get instead of what our (every man woman and child irrespective of colour, race, nationality, gender, age, weight, looks, "intelligence", laziness etc...) future could be, then those answers will need to be prepared in such a way that they appease those me me me characters. Granted that's almost impossible, but that's where numbers come into it. If people love to run with the herd so much, which they do oh yes how they love their majority, then those questions can be alleviated somewhat by the weight of numbers that accept what is obviously the better way of doing things

Again, I'm not talking about the manifestation of the behavior's legality or otherwise, but how the system deals with an individual's greed and laziness.

Ah, showing you selectivity again I see. Like I (and others time and time again) have said in the other thread, its not the individual that is worth more, but the work that the individual does; it's a system to balance out the need/benefit/enjoyment (or lack thereof) of different jobs. Trying to bullshit your way past without addressing that point is what makes 'your' system such a shit idea. Claiming the poll is 50/50 also shows your selectivity and bias.
We went over this in the other thread, I see no reason to try again when you don't even attempt to enter into an unbiased discussion.

[Ocean1]

I wouldn't read into it too much, I didn't before posting it. Governement and managerial people etc.

Depends on the system, mashy would have us move to one wide open to exploitation from the 'lower' class, so no, definitely not always. And our current one is open to exploitation from the lower classes too.

One of the few things that rarks me up is the occasional immigrant's reference to class systems in NZ. I don't think they exist. At least not in the sense that they do in the UK, for example. I think NZ do better than almost everywhere else on the planet at allowing everyone a reasonable chance at a good life based on their own effort. It ain't perfect, it's just better than most. I don't think a lot of Kiwis really understand what it is to be born predisposed to certain limits on your expectations of life. And I'm certain many immigrants see those limits here to the same degree they were in the old country. And they're wrong, they're so used to a society that blames the other "class" that they can't see that the limits are inside their heads.

Again, it's not perfect, but I really do think that here you can make a life that matches your effort and skill, at least more so than anywhere else. So I get tetchy at the rans about the proletariat this and the bourgeoisie that. It doesn't belong here. Never did, it's a toxic import, and we can do without it's petty bullshit.