Prime Minister Dotcom?

[bogan]

Fair point... however without access to every single person for a day or so of Q & A, I can only assume. Pretending otherwise, I leave that to our current crop of politicians. It's entirely up to you what you decide to believe that people are capable of. I've built in a margin of error of 50%. Is that not good enough?

I'm sure the world's innovators would disagree about how synonymous those terms are... but hey. In which case, given your worst case scenario, either NOW wouldn't have been voted in or if it was, we'd immediately have to go back to the financial system as people only voted to quit work. I give people more credit which is why I went for 50%. I assume that the majority of people will take personal responsibility for their actions?

But you still have to accept that argument. I can't spoon feed you and without lots of resources, I can't give you many facts. Something the current group of politicians can't do either. I wonder if that has anything to do with not being able to know for a certainty what the future is. The benefits are factual though.

Provide them all with well paying jobs then. If you can't, then how can you blame those who have decided not to work because the rewards that hard work is supposed to promise have not materialised? Essentially that's what you're assuming will happen in reverse with NOW. Irony much?

There's no margin of error in the shit you've done cos you just pulled numbers out of your arse. Tbh, the whole scheme sounds too much like that to get my support, and if the country looked like adopting it, I'd skip out asap.

[mashman]

There's no margin of error in the shit you've done cos you just pulled numbers out of your arse. Tbh, the whole scheme sounds too much like that to get my support, and if the country looked like adopting it, I'd skip out asap.

So you're not actually in society for anyone other than yourself? Hardly surprising that you're a detractor instead of a skeptical contributor. Fair enough though, it's your life.

[Ocean1]

So you're not actually in society for anyone other than yourself? Hardly surprising that you're a detractor instead of a skeptical contributor. Fair enough though, it's your life.

Actually, you're the one criticising the current economic model. He's simply asking you how your idea is better. Which does indeed make him the skeptic, and you the detractor.

The fact that you can't answer him also makes you a fucking idiot.

[mashman]

Actually, you're the one criticising the current economic model. He's simply asking you how your idea is better. Which does indeed make him the skeptic, and you the detractor.

The fact that you can't answer him also makes you a fucking idiot.

I am. No he's not, he's telling me it won't work because people won't accept it... moderately amusing as I thought only the PM could do that. Two way street... but only 1 of us knows that.

I did answer him, he doesn't like the answers, not my problem. Going by the number of questions that have been ignored in this thread that have been asked and ignored, and given that your criteria for being a fuckin idiot is not answering questions, you're shooting fish in a barrel. Meh.

[bogan]

So you're not actually in society for anyone other than yourself? Hardly surprising that you're a detractor instead of a skeptical contributor. Fair enough though, it's your life.

I never said that, its just that if this one is going down, I'll find another!

Depends how you want to see it I guess, I've pointed out big gaps with your idea, the choice to put me in the detractor basket so you can gloss over the gaps says a lot more about your mindset than it does mine.

[mashman]

I never said that, its just that if this one is going down, I'll find another!

Depends how you want to see it I guess, I've pointed out big gaps with your idea, the choice to put me in the detractor basket so you can gloss over the gaps says a lot more about your mindset than it does mine.

I'm surprised you'd think that no further thought/discussion etc... would go into it should the funding become available to promote it and that what you see is what you will get. But why think about how it could work when it's easier to ignore it.

Did I gloss over the gaps, of which you only really showed one i.e. asshat figures... which is funny when you consider that the question hasn't been asked of the population, yet you demand numbers and claim failure on that basis... but I certainly don't remember dismissing any concerns willy nilly and I would appreciate it if you could point me to a post where that happened.

[bogan]

I'm surprised you'd think that no further thought/discussion etc... would go into it should the funding become available to promote it and that what you see is what you will get. But why think about how it could work when it's easier to ignore it.

Did I gloss over the gaps, of which you only really showed one i.e. asshat figures... which is funny when you consider that the question hasn't been asked of the population, yet you demand numbers and claim failure on that basis... but I certainly don't remember dismissing any concerns willy nilly and I would appreciate it if you could point me to a post where that happened.

I'm surprised you think such a half assed idea could be taken that seriously.

So ask a subset, simple question like how many hours a week would you work if you didn't have to work at all, see what employment you get out of that.

This is the thing you completely fail to understand, if you guys can't put together a decent case for it, which at least tries to address the gaps, then no, we won't take you seriously. That's my skeptical contribution. I mean FFS mashy, you say things can get done without money, and that people will be self motivated to do things, yet you can't be bothered to research the idea you propose It's not a good look really boils the whole thing down to a simple "can't someone else do it"

[mashman]

I'm surprised you think such a half assed idea could be taken that seriously.

So ask a subset, simple question like how many hours a week would you work if you didn't have to work at all, see what employment you get out of that.

This is the thing you completely fail to understand, if you guys can't put together a decent case for it, which at least tries to address the gaps, then no, we won't take you seriously. That's my skeptical contribution. I mean FFS mashy, you say things can get done without money, and that people will be self motivated to do things, yet you can't be bothered to research the idea you propose It's not a good look really boils the whole thing down to a simple "can't someone else do it"

You haven't given me a reason to think that it's half assed. You will call that denial, I will call it how I see it.

I would if I could get the funds together to do that kind of research. Is that sinking in yet? Even at that, you may be happy with a statistically relevant (who chooses that relevance?) subset of people to give an idea of how many hours people would work... I won't, because that's not going to be the answer, it has the potential to not be even be close, people lie.

I'm not asking you to take me seriously. I'm asking you to take you seriously. So far, of the people I have spoken to about this (verbally), let's say that's about 30... about 20 of them (I don;t keep notes, I'm not interviewing them) have said they would happily do what it took to have such a society after having some basics explained to them. These people generally expand upon what's being discussed by taking what's important to them and incorporating into the NOW system i.e. that would mean that I can retrain to be something else without having my family suffer any financial consequences, or, that means there would be no poverty (not strictly true, but certainly financial), and many other reasons. Essentially they don't care about your perceived gaps because their needs will have been met and they see the other benefits too. The only real difference between them and yourself, that I can see, is that they have faith (yes faith, get the fuck over it as the entire financial system is built on exactly the same principle) in the people of the country to do the right thing. If I had more money, oh irony, I would conduct and document the research i.e. talk to people and find out what they think to get a "feel" for the numbers you crave so dearly. I don't have that money.

It is entirely your choice how you decide to react to NOW in whatever form you receive it, it's on you, not me, YOU.

[TheDemonLord]

1. But not every animal society works the same. So there is no governing body.

Correct - and as I said, you could argue that there are massive incomptabilities - lets start with 99.9% of all living species are Extinct - doesn't sound like a very compatable system to me...

2. Done. NOW is a better way. NOW isn't the only Resource Based Economy "idea" out there, but it seems to be the only one that offers a solution for getting from here to there.

In your opinion it is a better way, I point to similar systems and their spectacular failure and say that based on this, it won't work.

3. I'd like to see the theory tested with a willing population. I know it will work.

it *might* work with a willing population - but how do you make the entire population willing? That would require either a group of like minded individual to form a new independant colony somewhere OR it would require North Korea style Propanganda - so what is worse? Capitalism and all its flaws or a North Korean style Utopia? I don't know about you - but I would rather hump a pineapple than Grovel to Our Glorious Leader.

True. Food, water management, waste management, "building", cleaning should be top of the tree. They give us the environment to do all of the other stuff. The rest could easily be lived without. However NOW will not directly change a single thing in regards to wants or needs... it doesn't have to, because the country will still be importing and exporting using money (because the rest of the world will be, for the time being).

Sweet - so under NOW, I can order 2 Ferraris and the Government will just supply it without me having to work for it? Awesome!

Of course this won't happen - but when happens when I do want a Car, even a reasonable car - What happened in Russia, was that you had a choice of government approved cars that you could own - all of them were shit. I cannot see how NOW will end up any different - either it is magic and will enable everyone in the country to have Ferraris, Private Jets etc. etc. OR the reality of what will happen is you will be able to choose from a list of NOW approved 'luxury' items - and if you want isn't on this list - Tough.

So yes, it WILL directly change EVERYTHING in regards for Wants - it will remove my ability to choose what I want or choose what I determine to best fit my needs.

I'm sure they are incompatible with human nature, especially as human nature doesn't exist

Now you are just denying something that is easily demonstratable because it puts a Titanic sized hole in your perfect system.

Here are a few bits of Human Nature that can be easily demonstratred and for it not to be Human Nature, it would have to have less than 50% ocurence or be no better than Chance:

Mothering Instinct
Fight or Flight
Greed


So either you must refute all of the above (to prove that Human Nature catagorically does not exist) or you must conceede that there are shared facets of human nature which are the result of Evolutionary Advantageous traits which are common across all societies and cultures - if you Conceede that, then I can prove that your system wont' work, if you refuse to conceede that, then you are simply denying the overwhelming scientific, historic, anecdotal and observable evidence in order to try and fit the square peg into the round hole of NOW.

And frankly I don't know what is more dangerous - a Purely capitalist system or a system designed by people who close their eyes to what can be proved to exist

Given the number of people that will become unemployed by the removal of the financial system, perhaps those 10 or 15% will be replaced by those eager to build? Plenty of people can do the high paying jobs, but there are only so many high paying jobs. For the rest of the degree qualified, there's always a job at macca's. I care not about equality, as you say, we're not equal, but equity is another matter entirely as it brings an equality to proceedings tat money doesn't (because there are only so many high paid jobs available for instance).

Plenty of people can do High paying jobs - again you clutch at straws to bolster your arguement.

Can anyone be an Engineer? No, some people lack the Logical, Mathematical and Problem Solving skills to be an Engineer.
Can anyone be a Lawyer? No, Some people have Ethical Integrity
Can anyone be a succesful Entrepaneur? No, Some people don't have the necessary creative edge or the require drive or percerverance required.
Can anyone be an All Black? No, some people are 6 foot Islanders who can run 100 Meters in 10 seconds.

You think that there is a Scarcity in high paying jobs - actually there isn't - have you ever heard of a Lawyer struggling to find work? the reality is, that those jobs require Time, Effort, Extensive training/education and most importantly - they require certain pre-requisites, and the right combination of those pre-requisites is rare, thus the high paying jobs pay highly - to keep a hold of those with that rare combination.

The financial system is only going to be removed from the local economy. It will become entirely virtual, which is useful for if NOW fails, because you can use those records as failover. There is no major change. It far more simple than people want to accept. The financial system will still exists for the purposes of producing GDP. That has not been tried.

See above for how this will not work.

Irrespective of whether it's a $1000 or a $10000 project, a resources list would give away the extent of the project. Why use money as a measure as to whether the resources are available or not? T'would seem like yet another case of money stopping play.

No - again money is the most (currently) convieniant metric to measure a project.

What has being a saint got to do with anything? How has history shown you that. When was the last time someone fucked you over? and how many people have you dealt with? There's a huge possibility that that will continue under NOW, but one things for certain, it won't be because of the existence of money.

So what you have conceeded here (by extension and possibly without realising) is that NOW is pointless and I am right. People will still fuck each other over - this has been my point all along, that people are greedy, lazy and power hungry - and it is not the fault of Money for this - but the Fault of People. If you remove money, the problems will simply continue and probably get worse. What you are doing is blaming money for the fault of People who abuse it. If you were to Implement NOW, in time someone like you will be Blaming NOW for the same reason you blame money - because some people are Cunts.

My point was, if you keep half of the population away from the tools to learn about these things, the you limit your chances of solving the problems.

I didn't realise that the Current Financial system had abolished Schools and Learning?

There are some in the Amazon that cooperate and don't butcher each other. That and when people have a shared cause, they generally pull together and generally don't shaft each other for their own gain. However there is always that small element that will. Something NOW may not solve, but certainly it'll certainly limit the options for doing so.

Source please - Most tribes in the Amazon until recent western contact happily engaged in HeadHunting/Head Shrinking. Not to mention other forms of Human Sacrifice.

You can still learn pattern recognition, shapes, spacial awareness etc... which would lead me to believe that there are many who have learned it. As I said earlier, once the first person has that knowledge, it is passed on. I'm not saying that there aren't those who get it with minimal knowledge, but I wouldn't call it the norm.

I will not argue further on this point - you have been presented with clear and concise evidence that IQ and Knowledge are seperate entities yet you refuse to acknowledge this.

[bogan]

I'm not asking you to take me seriously. I'm asking you to take you seriously.

I do, and I take my choices seriously too. Which is why based on all I've heard about NOW, I think it is crap. You need to take that opinion on board, instead of just disregarding it.

[Bikemad]

LET GO DUDE.
i've done the research'

is that you Ed?

[oldrider]

Meanwhile ... Prime Minister Dotcom?

[Akzle]

is that you Ed?

of all the shit ive had slung at me on kb, ive never been so fucken insulted.

[mashman]

Correct - and as I said, you could argue that there are massive incomptabilities - lets start with 99.9% of all living species are Extinct - doesn't sound like a very compatable system to me...

Things die. Some things die out when their environment is "removed". C'est la vie.

In your opinion it is a better way, I point to similar systems and their spectacular failure and say that based on this, it won't work.

The simple mental process of removing a financial system puts up benefits that the financial system can't. Anything that can happen under a financial system can happen under NOW. It's more than an opinion. Sure they may be similar, but they're not the same as all of the systems you have put forwards have run using a financial system. Apples and Oranges.

it *might* work with a willing population - but how do you make the entire population willing? That would require either a group of like minded individual to form a new independant colony somewhere OR it would require North Korea style Propanganda - so what is worse? Capitalism and all its flaws or a North Korean style Utopia? I don't know about you - but I would rather hump a pineapple than Grovel to Our Glorious Leader.

It might. I believe, given what I know, that it will. You don't make the entire population willing, you ask them and you only need 51% of them to agree to implement it. There are plenty of "like minded" people/groups that I have seen, don't know them personally, who tout a Resource Based Economy... and there is absolutely no reason that they, exclusively, need to form society. The idea is that it can work anywhere, NZ would have a head start given the Pacific/Maori (whatever group) i.e. the land isn't ours. Ugh. North Korea still uses a financial system. If you vote, you already grovel to a leader. But it isn't Utopia either. It's just a better way, or if you would prefer, it looks like a better way.

Sweet - so under NOW, I can order 2 Ferraris and the Government will just supply it without me having to work for it? Awesome!

Of course this won't happen - but when happens when I do want a Car, even a reasonable car - What happened in Russia, was that you had a choice of government approved cars that you could own - all of them were shit. I cannot see how NOW will end up any different - either it is magic and will enable everyone in the country to have Ferraris, Private Jets etc. etc. OR the reality of what will happen is you will be able to choose from a list of NOW approved 'luxury' items - and if you want isn't on this list - Tough.

So yes, it WILL directly change EVERYTHING in regards for Wants - it will remove my ability to choose what I want or choose what I determine to best fit my needs.

What government? In theory yes, we could all drive Ferrari's.

If you want a car, cars sitting on the forecourt will be free. Kinda pointless having cars sitting there doing nothing if someone wants a car innit. NOW will be "different" from the perspective that the country can currently afford to buy the range of cars from overseas that it usually does i.e. the import money is there to buy different cars. Once upon a time, before I understood that we already have the services and import money in place, I did think that we'd need to select from such a list and import through a central agency. Given that the current system of getting cars will only change should the people decide that it should change, then all things should remain the same. Not everyone will want gas guzzling monsters for their travel purposes. Some may prefer a small car. I'll have a small car quite happily, but I have simple tastes and of few needs.

Your assumption isn't necessarily what the reality would be.

Now you are just denying something that is easily demonstratable because it puts a Titanic sized hole in your perfect system.

Here are a few bits of Human Nature that can be easily demonstratred and for it not to be Human Nature, it would have to have less than 50% ocurence or be no better than Chance:

Mothering Instinct
Fight or Flight
Greed

So either you must refute all of the above (to prove that Human Nature catagorically does not exist) or you must conceede that there are shared facets of human nature which are the result of Evolutionary Advantageous traits which are common across all societies and cultures - if you Conceede that, then I can prove that your system wont' work, if you refuse to conceede that, then you are simply denying the overwhelming scientific, historic, anecdotal and observable evidence in order to try and fit the square peg into the round hole of NOW.

And frankly I don't know what is more dangerous - a Purely capitalist system or a system designed by people who close their eyes to what can be proved to exist

Oxana Oleksandrivna Malaya. Raised by dogs, acts like a dog, but is a human being and her doctors said " that it is unlikely that she will ever be properly rehabilitated into "normal" society". Human nature is a myth.

Not all Mothers protect their young (Oxana Oleksandrivna Malaya for one).
Not everyone will fight or run given the same set of circumstances (another option is to take a beating, another is to try reason, another is to increase your numbers).
Not everyone is greedy (Ubuntu).

Consider them refuted. Yes we share traits, but they are not our nature because we react to the situation i.e. implement a behaviour that may not be consistent. NOW doesn't deal with human nature, what will be will be, people will do what they will etc... and neither of us knows for sure what will happen. If human nature was real, we could predict what was going to happen. As it isn't, because you can't say for sure, how do you know what will happen without a time machine? Kinda makes a mockery of the 2 choices you gave me.

The system hasn't been designed, yet because of the direction it will take you're already calling the architects blind? bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa.

Plenty of people can do High paying jobs - again you clutch at straws to bolster your arguement.

Can anyone be an Engineer? No, some people lack the Logical, Mathematical and Problem Solving skills to be an Engineer.
Can anyone be a Lawyer? No, Some people have Ethical Integrity
Can anyone be a succesful Entrepaneur? No, Some people don't have the necessary creative edge or the require drive or percerverance required.
Can anyone be an All Black? No, some people are 6 foot Islanders who can run 100 Meters in 10 seconds.

You think that there is a Scarcity in high paying jobs - actually there isn't - have you ever heard of a Lawyer struggling to find work? the reality is, that those jobs require Time, Effort, Extensive training/education and most importantly - they require certain pre-requisites, and the right combination of those pre-requisites is rare, thus the high paying jobs pay highly - to keep a hold of those with that rare combination.

Anyone who can learn the skills required can become anything they like. That's plenty of people. Kudos for the Lawyer jibe, made me chorttle... but serious minus points for assuming that plenty is an exaggeration.

So why aren't more people becoming lawyers or seeking out all of these vacant positions (of which there are 25 on trademe)? Perhaps they don't care about money and would rather try to do something that they enjoy? Similar for any high paid job. Perhaps the money doesn't mean anything and is just a way of getting by. Now you'll blame people for not trying eh... which begs the question: who will do the other jobs if 2 million law jobs became available and we all went and studied to be lawyers because we only gave a shit about the money? You're being silly.

See above for how this will not work.

See above for how it will.

No - again money is the most (currently) convieniant metric to measure a project.

Really. 10 logs = $20, how many logs do we need for the job, well, as I said 10. Fuck, I've only got $15 to build that bridge for joining us together so that we can make our economy more efficient... Simplified. Do 10 logs exist? Yes. Do the people exist for building the bridge? Yes. Is it a sensible thing to join those community's? Yes. Is there enough money? No. Money has only measured the financial value of the logs, nothing else.

So what you have conceeded here (by extension and possibly without realising) is that NOW is pointless and I am right. People will still fuck each other over - this has been my point all along, that people are greedy, lazy and power hungry - and it is not the fault of Money for this - but the Fault of People. If you remove money, the problems will simply continue and probably get worse. What you are doing is blaming money for the fault of People who abuse it. If you were to Implement NOW, in time someone like you will be Blaming NOW for the same reason you blame money - because some people are Cunts.

I fail to see how I said NOW was pointless, moreoover I said that there was still the possibility of bad people doing morally questionable things. The rest is all in your head. What NOW does do is stop virtually, pun intended for those who grasp the concept, all financial crime (ya know, muggings, theft for drugs/gain/tv's etc...). Hardly pointless and as people are after the money. This will not stop people being cunts, but it will remove a mechanism for triggering that behaviour. Money is the problem.

Source please - Most tribes in the Amazon until recent western contact happily engaged in HeadHunting/Head Shrinking. Not to mention other forms of Human Sacrifice.

Find your own source. I say some, you say most. Didn't say they were perfect, but by your own admission you have said that they are "evolving" given their contact with the west. Isn't head shrinking and human sacrifice human nature?

I will not argue further on this point - you have been presented with clear and concise evidence that IQ and Knowledge are seperate entities yet you refuse to acknowledge this.

@evidence.

[mashman]

I do, and I take my choices seriously too. Which is why based on all I've heard about NOW, I think it is crap. You need to take that opinion on board, instead of just disregarding it.

I'm not disregarding it. Fuck knows why you would come to that conclusion given that I've answered the questions you've asked etc... There's just no pleasing some people.