Occupy Kiwi Biker Movement

[Edbear]

That ad on TV? Money is neither good or bad, it's what you do with it that counts.

[bogan]

The only way to truly do that is to remove the financial system and see. What product/good/service is free of financial constraint?

I'm not denying what the financial system has achieved, what I am saying is that without the financial system we would have achieved more as we would not have had financial constraints to limit research or hold back technology. The reason that we have smart bombs is because someone wanted to make a smart bomb. The only reason a smart bomb came in to being was because finance was used to turn that idea into a reality. If a lack of "investment" is held up as the reason for not doing anything, which it usually is, then money/the financial system has stopped that anything from being achieved irrespective of the benefits it will yield. It impedes true progress and to a large extent limits cooperation. Yes money has taken us a long way, but there has been a very real human cost too, and that cost needn't have been paid had we have put in place that which is consistently reported that we cannot afford.

Exactly, that's why calling it a cold hard fact makes you look uninformed or deliberately misleading...

You perhaps need to look at it with a little less bias, the financial system is in its simplest form a resource allocation system. Yes projects get held up or green lit by financial investment, but there just isn't enough resources around to green light every project. So the financial system is a valuable tool for maxising advancement by ensuring the right projects get the resources.

[puddytat]

"Moms going to fix it all soon, Moms going to put it all back the way outta be....."


The future is a Socialist state period. Wether its a Fascist one is still on the cards.....


We only need a biggy on the Alpine Fault & our countries societal splits will dissapear....my left nut said to me this morning (over the protestations of my Knob) that it is going to happen sooner than we'd like.
By the way,its just over the hill from me

[mashman]

That ad on TV? Money is neither good or bad, it's what you do with it that counts.

And when there isn't enough to do that which is necessary? Take for instance an oil spill. Would you rather argue over how much it costs to fly every boom in the world to that location to mop it up and end up only sending 1/4 of the booms, or would you rather just fly everything there because it is needed at that place at that time (no cost makes that a possibility)?

Exactly, that's why calling it a cold hard fact makes you look uninformed or deliberately misleading...

You perhaps need to look at it with a little less bias, the financial system is in its simplest form a resource allocation system. Yes projects get held up or green lit by financial investment, but there just isn't enough resources around to green light every project. So the financial system is a valuable tool for maxising advancement by ensuring the right projects get the resources.

But it still is a cold hard fact. We have poverty because there isn't enough money. Poverty is measured in financial terms. If you don;t have the money, you can't buy the stuff... however as witnessed by several documentary's, you can always dumpster dive for food.

Mate, I haven't always felt this way about the financial system. This only started about 5 or 6 years ago. I'm 42 man. The bias has flown and I'm looking at this holistically and logically. I know what the financial system is in its simplest form, but it isn't used in just its simplest form is it? When weighing up the pros and cons of a thing, do you just approach it with the pros in mind or do you evaluate the cons? I've evaluated an awful lot of the pros and cons in the last 5 years, so my bias is underpinned by the fact that for every issue/road block the financial system hits/throws up, that very same issue could have been avoided if the financial system hadn't have been in place to begin with. All done using logic and all driving me to the same conclusion.

Of course there are enough resources, just ask any neo-classical economist ... you're right though, there may well not be enough resources, which is all the more reason to make the ones we currently have count, no?

Who decides what the right projects are? Is a spy satellite at the cost of billions of dollars a good use of resources? Is a stock pile of human ending weapons a good use of resources (or money for that matter)?

[mashman]

"Moms going to fix it all soon, Moms going to put it all back the way outta be....."

The future is a Socialist state period. Wether its a Fascist one is still on the cards.....

We only need a biggy on the Alpine Fault & our countries societal splits will dissapear....my left nut said to me this morning (over the protestations of my Knob) that it is going to happen sooner than we'd like.
By the way,its just over the hill from me

Plenty of room at our place .

Can you go hurry the fault up a bit please, I'm heavily outnumbered by women at our place.

[MisterD]

I'm saying that we shouldn't have to pay at all, as all of those jobs are requirements for society to tick. Start removing those jobs and see how far ya get. My face example being binmen. Remove the binmen, watch disease rise, see waiting lists extend, watch more people die, see more docrots and nurses become disease ridden etc... It's all required, so why put a price on which is more important. Similarly with clean air, clean water and clean land. Start fucking with those and nobody lives.

He goes to the shop and picks up a loaf of bread. A dead mechanic is of no use (Soylent Green), neither is a stockpile of stale bread.

Riiight. So the incentive for someone to spend years training to be a doctor is what, when they can just stroll down to the bakers for their bread, or get the mechanic to fix their car? Why not just spend a couple of hours emptying rubbish bins?

Like it or not, everything has it's own value at any point in time and a free market is the only fair and efficient way to let those values find their level. The problem we have is that we don't have a free market, we have a politically distorted and skewed market. Bankers making $millon bonuses is not a problem, bankers who make shit decisions getting bailed out and not losing their shirts is.

[Scuba_Steve]

So the financial system is a valuable tool for maxising advancement by ensuring the right projects get the resources.

Most of the biggest advancements were made without big moneys, but hey maybee spending millions on finding the "perfect cup of tea" was good use of money for maximum advancement?

[bogan]

But it still is a cold hard fact. We have poverty because there isn't enough money. Poverty is measured in financial terms. If you don;t have the money, you can't buy the stuff... however as witnessed by several documentary's, you can always dumpster dive for food.

Mate, I haven't always felt this way about the financial system. This only started about 5 or 6 years ago. I'm 42 man. The bias has flown and I'm looking at this holistically and logically. I know what the financial system is in its simplest form, but it isn't used in just its simplest form is it? When weighing up the pros and cons of a thing, do you just approach it with the pros in mind or do you evaluate the cons? I've evaluated an awful lot of the pros and cons in the last 5 years, so my bias is underpinned by the fact that for every issue/road block the financial system hits/throws up, that very same issue could have been avoided if the financial system hadn't have been in place to begin with. All done using logic and all driving me to the same conclusion.

Of course there are enough resources, just ask any neo-classical economist ... you're right though, there may well not be enough resources, which is all the more reason to make the ones we currently have count, no?

Who decides what the right projects are? Is a spy satellite at the cost of billions of dollars a good use of resources? Is a stock pile of human ending weapons a good use of resources (or money for that matter)?

Actually the definition of poverty is not tied to the financial system at all "The quality or state of being poor or indigent; want or scarcity of means of subsistence; indigence; need." so no, it is not a cold hard fact.

Still comes off as obviously biased with a dash of naivety.


Mostly it is the market, the consumers, the people! sure you can point to some wasteful ones if that is what you want to see, but who else should decide if not the people?

[mashman]

Riiight. So the incentive for someone to spend years training to be a doctor is what, when they can just stroll down to the bakers for their bread, or get the mechanic to fix their car? Why not just spend a couple of hours emptying rubbish bins?

Like it or not, everything has it's own value at any point in time and a free market is the only fair and efficient way to let those values find their level. The problem we have is that we don't have a free market, we have a politically distorted and skewed market. Bankers making $millon bonuses is not a problem, bankers who make shit decisions getting bailed out and not losing their shirts is.

Why did they decide to become a doctor in the first place? And who has "carried" them all through their years of training from baby to man, or woman?

Riiiiiiiight, so if you had a free market nothing would be politically distorted or skewed? You think the market would be self regulating and outwith the manipulation of those chasing the $? My primary objections to the free market are that unnecessary shit will be made, resources will be wasted, competition will skew the market etc... Even if you paid every single person the same amount of money, those who sell for a higher value will skew that market eventually. Markets just don't work the way you expect them to, so why bother wasting any more time, I think 2000+ years is enough, proving that? Time for something new and improved.

[bogan]

Most of the biggest advancements were made without big moneys, but hey maybee spending millions on finding the "perfect cup of tea" was good use of money for maximum advancement?

Really, which ones? Seem to me that arguably the biggest one (computers) now has a massive industry and accompanying massive r&d budget...

[mashman]

Actually the definition of poverty is not tied to the financial system at all "The quality or state of being poor or indigent; want or scarcity of means of subsistence; indigence; need." so no, it is not a cold hard fact.

Still comes off as obviously biased with a dash of naivety.

Mostly it is the market, the consumers, the people! sure you can point to some wasteful ones if that is what you want to see, but who else should decide if not the people?

Poverty is said measured, not defined.

You don't like your system (and associated beliefs) being challenged, so how could you see my attempt at offering an alternative as anything other than biased or naive... irrespective of the fact that I used to think similarly to yourself, yet took the extraordinary step of paying attention, questioning my own thinking and then changing my mind. Which bias should I choose......... I know, the one that actually makes sense.

A resource committee for starters. We should be deciding what is made to fulfil everyone's needs first and foremost. Food, water, power supply, housing and all to a high standard, not something with a 50 or 100 years life expectancy, but for thousands of years. We should be deciding how to build things before they are produced for maximum re-usage and on and on and on and on... all of those best practices that we would love to use, but can't afford the drop in customer base to produce blah blah blah.

[MisterD]

Why did they decide to become a doctor in the first place? And who has "carried" them all through their years of training from baby to man, or woman?

Generally because of a combination of three things (in no particular order) it's very well paid, the role carries a lot of mana in society and they enjoy helping people.

Riiiiiiiight, so if you had a free market nothing would be politically distorted or skewed? You think the market would be self regulating and outwith the manipulation of those chasing the $? My primary objections to the free market are that unnecessary shit will be made, resources will be wasted, competition will skew the market etc... Even if you paid every single person the same amount of money, those who sell for a higher value will skew that market eventually. Markets just don't work the way you expect them to, so why bother wasting any more time, I think 2000+ years is enough, proving that? Time for something new and improved.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the "free" bit of "free market". It's political skewing that causes unnecessary shit to be made and resources to be wasted. In a free market, as resources diminish their value rises and the cost of using them increase making alternatives more attractive.

There is no deliberate human-intervention system that will respond as quickly and accurately as a truly free market. Capitalism has lifted more people out of real poverty than anything else ever invented by man.

[puddytat]

Capitalism has lifted more people out of real poverty than anything else ever invented by man.

And the climate chaos its causing will drop him back into even deeper shit than before.

[bogan]

Poverty is said measured, not defined.

You don't like your system (and associated beliefs) being challenged, so how could you see my attempt at offering an alternative as anything other than biased or naive... irrespective of the fact that I used to think similarly to yourself, yet took the extraordinary step of paying attention, questioning my own thinking and then changing my mind. Which bias should I choose......... I know, the one that actually makes sense.

A resource committee for starters. We should be deciding what is made to fulfil everyone's needs first and foremost. Food, water, power supply, housing and all to a high standard, not something with a 50 or 100 years life expectancy, but for thousands of years. We should be deciding how to build things before they are produced for maximum re-usage and on and on and on and on... all of those best practices that we would love to use, but can't afford the drop in customer base to produce blah blah blah.

In a financial context it is measured, as a concept it is defined, when you say the financial system causes poverty I assume you mean as the concept is defined. I mean it's blatantly obvious you can no longer measure it financially without a financial system and of absolutely no relevance to your argument unless you want to use it to mislead...

It's biased an naive because you have nothing better to offer.

A resource committee? so you want the average joes to have even less say than we do now? Isn't that just giving the 1% (albeit a different 1%) more power than what they have now?

[Ocean1]

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the "free" bit of "free market". It's political skewing that causes unnecessary shit to be made and resources to be wasted. In a free market, as resources diminish their value rises and the cost of using them increase making alternatives more attractive.

There is no deliberate human-intervention system that will respond as quickly and accurately as a truly free market. Capitalism has lifted more people out of real poverty than anything else ever invented by man.

Carefull there, dude, you'll end up having to sit in the corner here with Oscar an' me.







Where the real freedom is.