Are you suggesting that is all the population needs/wants?Originally Posted by Banditbandit
111000101000100010011110
Are you suggesting that is all the population needs/wants?
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
Anarchic Wild Child
I'm certainly suggesting that is all the population needs in terms of producing resources ...
I would not be saying that is all the population wants ... but, in the words of the great Glimmer Twins, "You can't always get what you want ... "
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
111000101000100010011110
Healthcare, transportation infrastructure for said resources, if the price of NOW is going back to the stoneage, I think I'll stay with what we've got thanks.
Mashy is saying the population's wants will be better met under NOW. You seem to think they won't and I agree, that's why I'd prefer to stay with what we've got, wouldn't you?
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
Just faidin away!
Despite mankind's best efforts to balance our political needs and will, we never succeed, yet we can explore space and send ourselves to distant planets!
There is always a negative force which stands in the way of political/financial harmony and balance!
There is a clue in this quote if you think about the inference and subsequent evidence since the quote was made:
I.E. "Give me control of the finances of the world I care not who makes the laws"! ... The same people are still in control of the finances of the world today!
Their will is our will, that is the problem.
One of many many links on the subject:http://financearmageddon.blogspot.co...ontrol-of.html look around for yourself!
Like here for instance: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4311
The Majestic Metal Wizard
1: I would argue that Darwinian Evolution was the governing body of Nature - via Natural Selection.1. Nature, without the interference of man.
2. True, it's not reality because there are no real mechanisms that are incorruptible when it comes to overseeing our decision makers given that we're all too busy doing other things. Does that mean we should just settle and accept that?
3. You're right on there being many factors to consider, heh...
In my ideal system, not everyone has to work and not everyone has to contribute. If everyone does work, they will work less hours in (many) jobs that require doing. By way of an example, me. I'm a programmer. I have written the same software using different languages/platforms for different company's servicing different clients. This would be standardised to yield better results i.e. 1 piece of software for all. This would remove the need for, let's say 50% of the programmers in the country. I could retrain to become anything else... preferably something that society requires. I could go fishing 24/7. That will be my choice and I will exercise my personal responsibility as I see fit. Because I'm a sweety, I WILL do something for society. It likely failed in Russia because of the financial system and its behaviour changing ability. Again, apples and oranges.
Person A v's Person B
Brief, required imho, comparison of the financial system v's NOW in regards to Corporations, I mean, Persons A & B.
Things that'll stop people from wanting to become Doctors. The fear of being laden with huge amounts of debt if they fail (fiscal prudence) or decide that being a Doctor isn't for them. Poor grades at a time when they didn't know they wanted to be Doctors. Number of Uni places available. There are more, but they'll do.
v's
Things that'll stop people from becoming Doctors. They fail or decide that being a Doctor isn't for them. No worries, go do something else. They will have no debt. They will have not taken up a Uni place as there will be no limit to the number of people who want to study to be Doctors. Grades will be irrelevant so long as they can pass the first year. After all, if they want to be a Doctor, they'll be willing to put in the hard yards. Furthermore, to relieve the pressure on Doctors, people will submit blood every 3 months to a central database. This will allow computers (quantum maybe) to alert Doctors that something has entered that person's system that will cause an issue if not caught soon. That will never happen within a financial system, because it costs too much.
Win - NOW. You may disagree.
Your questions:
Who contributes more: Long grass will cause more crashes as it grows onto the highway keeping the Doctors at the hospitals for longer, which in turn will make them over tired and possibly prone to more mistakes. That's if the Doctor can get to work, that's if the ambulances can navigate the roads to get to people in need etc... The grass dude, if he chops his hand off, will need a Doctor. So who has contributed more, both. Profession does not dictate contribution outwith perceived effort. Which will be, and is, a personal choice. Yes a Doctor not being at work can mean the death of someone. I hope they never call in sick.
Yes, the consequences are different, but try living without either and you end up in a worse position. Both contributions are required. In fact what about a Binman. He only lifts bins right? Well what happens to the Doctors workload if the rubbish isn't collected? Similarly with the Sewerage Worker, or the food producer, or the oil worker, or the nurse, or the teacher etc... the Doctor has relied on all of those people throuought his life and could not have become a Doctor without them. Measuring who is more important is futile given the chain of people that we ALL rely on.
Person A wants to be a grass cutter: He will not be as stressed under NOW and will have access to absolutely everything that he currently does, but so does the grass cutter. So if he enjoys being a Doctor, why would he become a grass cutter? Surely nurses do more as much work as Doctors, but they get paid a fuckload less. Why do they persist in that job? The incentive is not financial, in fact the incentive is to do a good job. Working harder/smarter/longer/better is no guarantee of top remuneration... just as those who claim benefits from the govt whilst working 2 jobs in order to put food on the table (more stressful than being a Doctor I bet). That only happens because someone has deemed that their contribution is all but meaningless. So the guarantee isn't there.
Socialism requires money too. So it isn't Socialism either. The reason it hasn't been implemented, is because of the financial system and those who fight tooth and nail to protect their position. If "they" weren't scared of it, it would be on the ballot as an options.
A small percentage do it for the love of it? A small percentage? You're speaking for an awful lot of people and I think you're miles out in regards to percentages. Remove the financial system and they won't be paid... and I still think that the majority would stay as builders. The world is full of pau inequality, yet people still do their jobs. Why would that change under NOW given that they won't be losing anything?
The whole point is to avoid Resource Scarcity by putting something in place to manage the resources. Unfortunately trees are a bad example because you can grow them. Also under NOW, there would be no need for bus/train/cinema etc... tickets, no need for circulars, no need for bank statements, electricity bills etc... so you will have already put yourself in a better position in regards to using less resources. In regards to competing for resources, which project will be of more value to the people will be the benchmark. Money shouldn't come into it, but for arguments sake, if my project cost more than the other project, I would bring the costs of my project down in order to get the resources. In your book that competition is a win, in my book, I know that my project can't come in on that budget, so the job will either get half done or more resources will be required. In which case, neither project gets done.
Easiest? Why confuse a simple issue i.e. a project needs to be done, by throwing in a budget when the outcome will not be measured in financial terms, but in the usefulness of the "product"? It's a middle man that isn't required.
yeah, you're a selfish arse... again, you're speaking for a population that you know nothing about. You need to ask them first. You may not get an honest answer, but hey, when does a person when money is involved? What if that half of the population that is dying contained an individual that could create a pure power source? or a vaccine to replace all others? or design a teleportation system? Put it this way, a 16 year old german kid solved a problem set by Newton 300 years ago. It has eluded the greatest minds of our time, but this kid solved it. Yet you are prepared to kill that potential off?
I agree that people are imperfect and yes we will create things that are flawed... however we can mitigate those "mistakes" should we wish too. As you say NOW looks great in theory, so why would you not try it (given that is has never been tried before) when there are obvious benefits for everyone. After all, isn't that what the financial system claims to be attempting to do too? It has failed, what's the worst that can happen? We end up going back to a financial system. We will have learned plenty and will have lost nothing. NOW will work.
Many tribes in the jungles don't exhibit many of the negative traits that we do. Yes they are territorial if you come to take their land. If you come to share the land, they're more accomodating. Just ask the Maori. WE aren't acting like animal waging war across the globe, a tiny tiny percentage of people are. Individually we argue with those we come into contact with, but it's usually for a reason and seldom end in death. Why is there still war? To remove dictators? In which case, why is the longest serving "butcher" (Mugabe, kighted once upon a time) on the planet not dead? It's a fight for control of the resources, plain and simple. I have a feeling that should more reasonable "men" be in charge that these resources would freely be shared.
They do breed enough of them. But how do you fight a system that throws out propaganda such as the comment you made? The fight probably gets boring after several years, although some will fight to the bitter end. Oddly enough, they're doing it with your future and welfare in mind... as am I.
Type this search term "middle class shrinking" into the search engine of your choice... and if you want it the easy way, just view the images.
I'm sure they sit IQ tests that are designed for 5 year olds... but if a kid does not know what a number is, they cannot work out that 21 comes next. If you understand how to work the answer out, then you have knowledge in regards to how to work it out. Otherwise they're just meaningless numbers. Someone always has to go first i.e. Fibernacci, after that, everyone learns how to work it out.
And besides - there are plenty of incompatabilities found in Nature....
2: Acknowledging the current short comings whilst working for a better solution - knowing why things are the way they are is the first step in figuring out a better way.
3: I do disagree that NOW will work - but again, it is a nice theory
I acknowledge that all jobs are necessary - but to paraphrase Animal Farm - Some are more necessary than others. you may say it is futile given that eventually all jobs become important, but some can be left longer than others.
you will note I said socialism 2.0 - its like the love child between Gene Roddenberry's Federation and Socialism - both ideals that IMO are incompatible with Human nature.
okay suppose I am out on my percentage - say that only 10% or 15% leave their profession in order to do easier work with the same benefits that would result in a Massive change in the work force dynamic. I agree there is Pay inequality - some people just simply can't do the high paying jobs - yes that sucks, but when has life/nature been equal?
you say that if we changed financial systems (to try) and then abandoned it, we wouldn't be in a worse position - History has shown that major changes in a financial system have usually ended in Disaster for said country. Sure, NOW could be the exception - but I doubt it - History has shown us otherwise.
when I say easiest - although the outcome of a project can vary greatly (in all metrics) comparing a $1,000 project to a $10,000 project is an easy comparison (especially when you don't have $10,000)
Meh - I acknowledge my own shortcomings and am honest about them and try and actively keep them in check as opposed to attempting to fool myself and others into thinking I am some form of Saint - as for my Skepticism regarding the rest of the Human population if the Roles were reversed - History has shown us otherwise.
as to your point about the 300 year old problem - but it was solved was it not? thus it is only a matter of time till the wheels of Chance place the right person, at the right time, in the Right place.
I don't know what Tribes you are referring to, but I cannot think of a Single indeginous people that have not taken part in raiding neighbouring villages for the reason de jour.
paterns, shapes, spacial changes there are plenty of things that don't require prior knowledge which is what IQ is designed to test
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Anarchic Wild Child
Those are part of that sector .. I would not make that differentiation ...
That's reasonable ...if the price of NOW is going back to the stoneage, I think I'll stay with what we've got thanks.
I don't see him saying that ...Mashy is saying the population's wants will be better met under NOW.
Maybe .. I'm closer to Mashy's way than yours ... I think you are misinterpreting him ..but yes, such a system would be a small technological step backwards .. I am not sure it would be as bad as you think ... and I am not at al convinced hat would be a bad thing .. I certainly have a strong Luddite streak ...You seem to think they won't and I agree, that's why I'd prefer to stay with what we've got, wouldn't you?
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
111000101000100010011110
So what isn't part of that sector then? Just entertainment right?
Its one of the core reasons why he promotes NOW isn't it?
I think I'm interpreting him more accurately than either of you would like. That shit just won't work; sorry, but the financial system is the best option for resource allocation we've got.
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
Anarchic Wild Child
Bwhahahahahaha .. Oh .. so how did evolution come up with this ???
Or this ??? What the fuck is the evolutionary point of this???
This one's counter-survival and therefore counter-evolutionary ... it's definitely a WTF?? moment for evolution ..
"The penis of a Callosobruchus analis bean weevil. Some species of insect have evolved spiny penises, which damage the female reproductive tract. This has led to females using various techniques to resist being bred."
The only explanation is that evolution has a sense of humour ...
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
The Majestic Metal Wizard
Hairy Muff
Sure, NOW might take care of our Base needs - but I rather like to keep my creature comforts. and your 2nd to last line really sums it up:
"Half of the population could be unemployed and the country would still provide that which the people need,"
Why the hell should I work so that half of the country can sit around and do nothing? or Why should I get to sit around and have half the country working to support my Fat Lazy Ass? (I hold myself accountable to the same standard I hold others)
BanditBandit:
It is Both - There is a Hereditary component - I like to refer to it as Evolutionary Hard Programming - there are evolutionary advantages which over thousands of generations has become part of us - like in the same way a Pointer Dog has been bred to point to game instinctively."So tell me - this Human Nature you speak of ... is it hereditary or is it environmental ??? i.e. do we carry a basic nature in our "genes" or do we learn it as we grow up ??? "
Now There is the environmental factor to consider - we can either repress this (as we like to try in the Civilised) or we can embrace it (true Sociopath) or we can go down any number of infinite paths in between. I am not saying that if over thousands of generations we might be able to breed out this characteristic. but I doubt it.
To your other post - Yes Capitalism is bad, but unlike other systems that have been tried and failed - it still works (in a loose sense of the word).
Yes people profit off the labour of others - but those people took the Risk in the first place - is it fair that those who took the risk don't reap the rewards? if they don't why take the risk in the first place?
there are other points - but I believe we have already covered them off.
OldRider
If the problem is people controlling the Financial system - what happens to those that control the NOW system? All power Corrupts....
Last edited by TheDemonLord; 23rd January 2014 at 13:19. Reason: U Cin't ufcking sellp
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
The Majestic Metal Wizard
Just because we don't understand the point, does not mean there isn't one.
I remember that Male lions have a Barbed Penis - the theory being that the scratches on the vaginal wall cause violent contractions - helping the Semen hit its mark.
But yes - Evolution it would seem has a sense of Humour - Platypus....
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Just faidin away!
Exactly!
Complacency is the creator of opportunity for otherwise honest men!
Victims of complacency should look in the mirror to bare witness of the perpetrator!
Aio ki te Aorangi
Your assumption, yes I realise I'm making assumptions here too, is that people won't work. You do realise that you're speaking for every person in the country without asking them? And that the great KB poll of yonder year was running at 50-50? Half of the jobs in the country probably aren't required or won't be required as the removal of the finance system (bankers, accountants, tellers etc...) will make more people available for to workforce.
Fantasy? It may be a logistical squeeze, but I wouldn't call it fantasy. And as you can't speak for everyone else, coz you're not KDC, fantasy as a diagnosis is nothing more than a negative assumption. We'll never know until it's on the ballot and the idea has been thrashed out for a year. Everything that can be achieved with money can be achieved without money. Some things that can't be achieved with money can be achieved without money. Doesn't sound like a reason not to have a go does it?
Anarchic Wild Child
Any second now ...
So this time, I'm out .. with a passing nod to the biter ... go on - laugh ..
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
111000101000100010011110
Actually you said half the people could be unemployed. Simple question, with half the people unemployed, do you think the whole population will be able to enjoy a better standard of living than currently?
Also, the great poll of KB was not asking if NOW was the solution.
It is fantasy because the gaps in your logic are massive.
"A shark on whiskey is mighty risky, but a shark on beer is a beer engineer" - Tad Ghostal
KB's Chief Cats
fuck catching up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks