Prime Minister Dotcom?

[TheDemonLord]

You're speaking for everyone without asking them and drawing a conslusion based on the behaviour of people under the system that currently exists. The outcome is unknown. You say it will fail. I disagree.

I am speaking for people based on their actions, and as we know, Actions speak louder than words

I've stated that NOW isn't a perfect solution, but you seem to be under the illusion that human beings are suddenly going to change. I'm not. They can, but I doubt it's going to matter too much unless a critical mass of people decide to do fuck all and we have to go back to a financial system. That critical mass will likely be calculated by some smart fulla when the time comes.

So then, the people must change their attitudes first before a NOW type will work - but it cannot work before, which was my point.

Why will this happen under NOW? You're throwing financial terms around where NOW doesn't rely on a financial system. You have to realise that if the critical mass have voted for NOW that they'll understand that there will be no financial system i.e. no financial reward etc... If they have voted for it, then they have accepted that. At which point in time, NOW will work. There is no logic or reason you can throw into the mix that can deny that as a statement of fact. The ONLY thing will be if a critical mass of workers stop... and then you get your "Russian" example.

And what stops the critical mass of workers stopping if everything is provided for them?

Nearly fell off my chair when I saw the question mark. Only those who seek financial rewards will be affected. As we haven't asked everyone, we'll have to wait and see whether there are sufficient enough numbers i.e. when it's voted on. I saw a lead Doctor on TV the other day (was on Max Keiser) and they were discussing the privatisation of the NHS. Keiser mentioned that his salary would quadruple if he worked for a private contractor, to which he answered, it's not about the money, it's about helping people. Perhaps there are more people out there doing the really important jobs than you or I know... but this is why I would like to find out.

If you would like to know first, then by all means, but surely it would be prudent to find out first? - if the status quo is maintained and you are right - nothing bad happens, but if there is a change and I am right - it is a disaster.

How long did it take Linus to write his OS and how many people have since helped him "upgrade" it? My financial system is fully formed, however you don't like the answer. Quite simply put, all jobs currently being done, all imports currently being imported/exports, all behaviours that an individual exhibits stay the same and the financial system is virtualised. You have a functioning system, because it currently functions and NOW isn't changing that. It will respond to any changes that the smart people believe will make "efficiencies" (that involves the devolution of central governance into localised areas, councils if you will), but that's entirely secondary. As you say, nice idea, but what about the reaction of the people... Will they keep doing their jobs etc...? NOW can deal with a critical mass of people not doing their jobs. Here's where we get into reward, well, punishment for those "lazy bludgers". Local society MAY not "serve" those "bludgers" other than to "serve" them the bare essentials. The more devolved the governnance, the easier it will be to identify the "bludger". If there is a mechanism required for identifying "bludgers", then I'm sure some smarty pants will come up with one, but it won't be one that financially penalises them, as there will be no money.

I think the first few Linux Kernals were done between 92 and 94, since it was released - thousands of people have contributed to the Linux Kernal, but you dodged the challenged (again) - so you now claim the system is fully formed, so lets go with this:

there is now no incentive other than the love of the job to go through higher education - I grant you that some people will still go through higher education as that is the career choice they want but a significant percentage won't as there is no additional tangible value, there is also no tangible value in enduring the additional pressures and stresses of the more demanding jobs.

As for the Bludgers - what do you define as the bare essentials? Bread and Water? and without Financial pressure, what do you replace it with as an incentive to these people to not be Bludge?

The virtualisation of money is nothing more than not haveing currency floating around in the local economy. People will still need to invoice where they invoice, beep a checkout point where they beep it, scan a card etc... if for no other purpose than we're still going to need a stocktake. The money will go into NZ Inc bank (individual accounts for failover) and life will go on.

So without Currency, why would you need Credit? and therefore a Credit Card?

you still haven't answered my challenge for what safeguards are there on NZ Inc Bank to not turn corrupt - if one organization controls the finances for an Entire country then that one organisation by your owne assertion - controls the country.

[Akzle]

I hear bullshit is high in fiber.

its normally coming out of my mouth than vicey versey...

Also, i have no idea what the fuck that has to do with snacks or carbohydrates...

[Akzle]

Fuck...no weetbix?
I just had a dot.com size bowlfull...now for a wafer

fuck. Did i completely miss the python.
Have i mentioned the drugs?

[mashman]

I am speaking for people based on their actions, and as we know, Actions speak louder than words

Yes actions do speak louder than words... but as yet, some (the majority most likely) of the people don't know about the alternatives that are available. If you knew how they'd react, then those with whom I've spoken would have said no instantly. Oddly enough most of them did... but after a few mins of discussion (sometimes longer) they're thinking for themselves, they understand the benefits and "change" their own mind. Which is the key point. I am not trying to change anyone's mind, I realise the futility in that, but people do change theirs based on what they perceive a particular system may offer. Some behaviours change too. Ask me to assassinate Mugabe and I'd tell you to go away, offer me $20 million and a safe haven and I may reconsider. Speaking for everyone based on their current actions within the current confines of the system is one thing, them making up their own minds with the alternatives explained is another thing entirely.

So then, the people must change their attitudes first before a NOW type will work - but it cannot work before, which was my point.

No. They only need to choose to carry on the way they currently are. Acceptance is all that is required... a personal choice.

And what stops the critical mass of workers stopping if everything is provided for them?

Nothing, only themselves. No man is an island. If you remove the bin men it could quite easily all go tits, as it could do through any industry downing tools for whatever reason. A critical mass of people are required to keep society functioning and vice versa.

If you would like to know first, then by all means, but surely it would be prudent to find out first? - if the status quo is maintained and you are right - nothing bad happens, but if there is a change and I am right - it is a disaster.

We'll find out when it's available to vote on. Of course there will ahve to be some form of citizens initiated binding referendum to get it on the table in the first place... unless an existing political party takes it on board that is... even then the govt of the day will want signatures. It doesn't matter who's right, only that we find out if we can make it work, surely? Given the direction we're headed (you may see no problem with our current direction, but there are those who do), is it not better to have tried and failed than to have not tried at all? For the record, I don't class changing financial policy as trying anything other than to fool the people. If it fails why would there be disaster? Well, true, going back to the financial system would be a disaster .

I think the first few Linux Kernals were done between 92 and 94, since it was released - thousands of people have contributed to the Linux Kernal, but you dodged the challenged (again) - so you now claim the system is fully formed, so lets go with this:

there is now no incentive other than the love of the job to go through higher education - I grant you that some people will still go through higher education as that is the career choice they want but a significant percentage won't as there is no additional tangible value, there is also no tangible value in enduring the additional pressures and stresses of the more demanding jobs.

As for the Bludgers - what do you define as the bare essentials? Bread and Water? and without Financial pressure, what do you replace it with as an incentive to these people to not be Bludge?

I gave you the an answer that was the equivalent of your question. Not providing me with all of the business logic and detailed application domain interfaces (you're in IT, you know what I mean), along with complete interface documentation down, including socket level instructions... then you must communicate that to the entire user base and have them understand exactly how that works, then I'll give you what you believe you were asking for. You're going to have to extrapolate a few things for yourself if you want to understand how NOW might work. NOW will also have had thousands of people contributing to the system design by the time it is ready for release.

Have you held a survey of every single person in the country as to why they do their job. And by survey, I don'tmean interview 50,000 and then apply a statistical model to it. What additional stresses and pressures of what more demanding jobs?

Bare essentials is food, water, a house, electricity and access to transport (and likely a few other things). There is no way to guarantee that a mate of theirs doesn't decide to see them right in other things, exactly the same as currently happens. NOW won't be perfect remember. The incentive is that you will be helping others out and keeping society ticking over.

So without Currency, why would you need Credit? and therefore a Credit Card?

you still haven't answered my challenge for what safeguards are there on NZ Inc Bank to not turn corrupt - if one organization controls the finances for an Entire country then that one organisation by your owne assertion - controls the country.

Because you need to prove that your GDP isn't artificially inflated else the rest of the world call foul. Therefore we must still "spend", but virtually.

I did answer it.

If someone is screwing NZ Inc, then they'll go to jail for life if caught. After all, they will have screwed everyone in the country. We can't stop that happening in the not so free market economy. Trust is a bitch, but hopefully we'll learn that again. Neither system has a safeguard, just a stick if you get caught. Fortunately, if that happens, the local economy should suffer minimally... but that'll depend on the scale of the theft. You can only hope that people won't screw the country... exactly the same as currently happens. I'm sure there will be those who will go for the money grab. They currently do it and I agree that they will try to do it under NOW. Let's hope your behavioural profile will show them up before they get there.

Not quite. I said that the money controllers were nothing more than a payroll department and a payroll department doesn't own the company does it?

[mashman]

its normally coming out of my mouth than vicey versey...

In which case, swallow, don't spit.

[TheDemonLord]

Ask me to assassinate Mugabe and I'd tell you to go away, offer me $20 million and a safe haven and I may reconsider. Speaking for everyone based on their current actions within the current confines of the system is one thing, them making up their own minds with the alternatives explained is another thing entirely.

I'd Assassinate Mugabe on Principle - I would only ask for a Rifle and a place to take a shot.

To sum up then - You are asserting that presented with alternatives, the population at large will change their behaviour and embrace change.

Noble Sentiments truly - but based on lessons from history, let the people change their behaviour first, then implement the alternative.

Nothing, only themselves. No man is an island. If you remove the bin men it could quite easily all go tits, as it could do through any industry downing tools for whatever reason. A critical mass of people are required to keep society functioning and vice versa.

I don't know about you - but I find that a truly terrifying prospect - with nothing to stop them, society can in effect be held hostage by anyone with nefarious intent - if your system could be modified in a way that safeguards against this, then perhaps you might have a viable alternative IMO.

Given the direction we're headed (you may see no problem with our current direction, but there are those who do), is it not better to have tried and failed than to have not tried at all? For the record, I don't class changing financial policy as trying anything other than to fool the people. If it fails why would there be disaster? Well, true, going back to the financial system would be a disaster .

I agree on the principle here, but not the practice - when a different financial system is implemented and it fails, the consequences tend to be long lasting and catastrophic, its not a case of someone going "oh well, that hasn't worked" then flipping a switch and everything is back to the way it was.

I gave you the an answer that was the equivalent of your question. Not providing me with all of the business logic and detailed application domain interfaces (you're in IT, you know what I mean), along with complete interface documentation down, including socket level instructions... then you must communicate that to the entire user base and have them understand exactly how that works, then I'll give you what you believe you were asking for. You're going to have to extrapolate a few things for yourself if you want to understand how NOW might work. NOW will also have had thousands of people contributing to the system design by the time it is ready for release.

Until it is in a ready to release state (so in keeping with the IT analogy, at least in Beta) it is premature to discuss it as a viable possible alternative.

Have you held a survey of every single person in the country as to why they do their job. And by survey, I don'tmean interview 50,000 and then apply a statistical model to it. What additional stresses and pressures of what more demanding jobs?

You know as well as I that a survey of every single person in the country, regardless of the question asked is never going to recieve 100% participation so any survey will require extrapolation. Also as you and I know, Surveys tend to be written with leading questions (in order to have the results be in line with what is asked)

Additional Stresses and pressures like "do I address the Aerterial bleeding in the arm or the shattered rib cage" with the consequences being life or death. Compared to "Do I cut the long grass over there first, or start here?"

Bare essentials is food, water, a house, electricity and access to transport (and likely a few other things). There is no way to guarantee that a mate of theirs doesn't decide to see them right in other things, exactly the same as currently happens. NOW won't be perfect remember. The incentive is that you will be helping others out and keeping society ticking over.

That Incentive is luke warm at best - Especially when not everyone has to keep Society ticking over.

Not quite. I said that the money controllers were nothing more than a payroll department and a payroll department doesn't own the company does it?

But a Payroll department can certainly shaft all the employees if they cock it up - which is why there need to be safeguards, currently the safeguards are with the Ballot and with the ability to take business to a competing Bank.

[mashman]

I'd Assassinate Mugabe on Principle - I would only ask for a Rifle and a place to take a shot.

To sum up then - You are asserting that presented with alternatives, the population at large will change their behaviour and embrace change.

Noble Sentiments truly - but based on lessons from history, let the people change their behaviour first, then implement the alternative.

A safe getaway would be nice.

Not change their behaviour, that's a MIGHT based on the fact that human's can change their behaviour given a favourable environment. Similarly with change, but I think most of us want change, unfortunately we're not offered the alternatives and informed about the benefits.

People are already changing their behaviour, or should I say exploring other sides of it. Even still, the environment change can speed that up.

I don't know about you - but I find that a truly terrifying prospect - with nothing to stop them, society can in effect be held hostage by anyone with nefarious intent - if your system could be modified in a way that safeguards against this, then perhaps you might have a viable alternative IMO.

I do... but it currently happens, hence my looking for alternatives/coming up with an addition (the missing link?) to an old idea. The only safeguards that are in place is that payroll can only release money based on the signature of a company CEO, as it happens now. Payroll just pay the bills. Maybe them dodgy folk could be charged with treason, if caught, and put to death? Am sure the smart folk will come up with alternative safeguards... but nothing is inherently safe.

I agree on the principle here, but not the practice - when a different financial system is implemented and it fails, the consequences tend to be long lasting and catastrophic, its not a case of someone going "oh well, that hasn't worked" then flipping a switch and everything is back to the way it was.

True. Either way we will know as payroll will have to keep an eye on what's going in and what's coming out and whether we're heading for a fall. I think the GFC shows that there are no safeguards in that respect.

Until it is in a ready to release state (so in keeping with the IT analogy, at least in Beta) it is premature to discuss it as a viable possible alternative.

I'm with ya in regards to the jargon as I'm an A/P... amongst other things. There will be no soft release as it really the kind of thing you can rollout. It should't be too complicated as we'll have a year or two to prepare for it, vote on whether we still want it, then implement it. The Parallel run will be permanent as we'll still be keeping a financial tally, just virtually.

You know as well as I that a survey of every single person in the country, regardless of the question asked is never going to recieve 100% participation so any survey will require extrapolation. Also as you and I know, Surveys tend to be written with leading questions (in order to have the results be in line with what is asked)

Additional Stresses and pressures like "do I address the Aerterial bleeding in the arm or the shattered rib cage" with the consequences being life or death. Compared to "Do I cut the long grass over there first, or start here?"

Which is why I suggest it be put to a vote. Those who care will vote, those who don't, won't. Could be an interesting voter turnout eh. That gets around the leading questions too.

They're both trained to deal with those situations. Whenever I hear about Doctors complaining, it's usuall because they are being over-worked, not that they find it hard to do the job. Sure being a Doctor will be more stressful, but they chose to do that job. I'm hoping that everyone who wants to be a Doctor will be able to become one, therefore giving us more Doctors, which should then shorten their hours... should they wish to work less.

That Incentive is luke warm at best - Especially when not everyone has to keep Society ticking over.

Luke warm for you, for me I won't care about the incentive as I'll be contributing and enjoying life. Currently we have unemployment and people who don't contribute, but they're a relatively small number of people and I don't begrudge their choice given the environment they are faced with. With any luck, they'll darwin themselves in some way.

But a Payroll department can certainly shaft all the employees if they cock it up - which is why there need to be safeguards, currently the safeguards are with the Ballot and with the ability to take business to a competing Bank.

It happens. Even the banks with all of their top end systems fail BACS runs on occassion and cause people to miss payments etc... some places have smart A/P's that reintegrate the systems in hours instead of weeks . Either way, with people not requiring money, it'd be one less thing to be concerned with.

[Ocean1]

Just for a change, you fill in the blanks yourself.

I'm disappointed. I'd have thought you had at least the basics figured out before you make any claims about any new system.

Seein' as how you're doing so well with understanding the technical jargon; do you know what a negative feedback control loop is dude? The current system removes much of the performance benefits from our top earners, it removes all of the disincentives of non-performance from those that don't contribute. That distortion is already seen as a significant brake on GDP.

What mechanisms do you plan for your system that will reward high performance to the extent required to equal or better current productivity?

That's productivity in every field, not just the ones you consider worthy.

[mashman]

I'm disappointed. I'd have thought you had at least the basics figured out before you make any claims about any new system.

Seein' as how you're doing so well with understanding the technical jargon; do you know what a negative feedback control loop is dude? The current system removes much of the performance benefits from our top earners, it removes all of the disincentives of non-performance from those that don't contribute. That distortion is already seen as a significant brake on GDP.

What mechanisms do you plan for your system that will reward high performance to the extent required to equal or better current productivity?

That's productivity in every field, not just the ones you consider worthy.

I do. You didn't like it. Your objections were read and noted. And that's all I really have to say about thaaaaat.

I get the concept behind a negative concept loop. So give all of the money to business and see what happens. You will incentivise the non-performers into an action that you really don't want, therefore causing the mother of all negative feedback loops. Then again, everyone may just roll over and die nicely. Of course it's seen as a brake on GDP, and looking at it from the other end, it's seen as a brake on social cohesion.

None. Unless, of course, you take gratitude and your own pride as incentive and reward alike.

Understood.

[Ocean1]

What are the reasons for non-financial crime? There are many. One of them will be financial stress (payiong for Doctors, ever increasing bills, 55% of the population struggling to the point where they need to be subsidised etc...)

Ignoring, for the moment how financial stress might be the reason for non-financial crime, I'm interested in what you see as the reason that 55% might be under any stress in paying their bills.

[mashman]

Ignoring, for the moment how financial stress might be the reason for non-financial crime, I'm interested in what you see as the reason that 55% might be under any stress in paying their bills.

THE reason? I don't see financial stress as the sole reserve of the "poor". Making the bills can be tricky depending on the weeks/months unexpected expenditure and not being able to meet the requirements of the unexpected expenditure because you have paid the bills can all lead to financial stress. Some people will feel it, some won't. Why you're picking 55%?

[Ocean1]

I do. You didn't like it. Your objections were read and noted. And that's all I really have to say about thaaaaat.

I have seen absolutely nothing that suggests you have any idea about what drives an economy. Quite the reverse.

I get the concept behind a negative concept loop. So give all of the money to business and see what happens. You will incentivise the non-performers into an action that you really don't want, therefore causing the mother of all negative feedback loops.

That first sentence sorta proves that you don't have any idea what a negative CONTROL loop is.

The second is current practice, business being the class of entity that actually generates the money in the first place.

The third simply demonstrates that you don't know that, AND further demonstrates that you have no idea what a negative control loop is, and again reveals the real reason for your plan: You don't like the idea that businesses actually earn money.

Of course it's seen as a brake on GDP, and looking at it from the other end, it's seen as a brake on social cohesion.

Were you sick the day teacher explained you about the pyramid of needs?

Without an adequate reward system for productivity you don't have product, and without product you don't have a society to enjoy cohesion. Or anything else.

The side you need to get everyone on is the PRODUCTIVE one, not the one that promises to doll out anything anyone wants no matter what they produce...

None. Unless, of course, you take gratitude and your own pride as incentive and reward alike.

...A promise, I might add that is very difficult to believe given the complete lack of incentive to produce anything other than a vague "love thy fellow man".

It simply doesn't add up, dude. As any honest appreciation of similar philosophies throughout history would have demonstrated.

[Ocean1]

THE reason? I don't see financial stress as the sole reserve of the "poor". Making the bills can be tricky depending on the weeks/months unexpected expenditure and not being able to meet the requirements of the unexpected expenditure because you have paid the bills can all lead to financial stress. Some people will feel it, some won't. Why you're picking 55%?

It's not. It's a simple function of the gap between expectations and reality.

And I didn't pick 55%, you did, I quoted you. In fact you originally got it from me.

At the time I was interested to see if you saw the sublime irony of a socialist policy that took so much tax from someone who earned more than average that they had to subsidise him.

I see the penny still hasn't dropped.

[mashman]

I have seen absolutely nothing that suggests you have any idea about what drives an economy. Quite the reverse.

People. Money is just a token to facilitate exchange.

That first sentence sorta proves that you don't have any idea what a negative CONTROL loop is.

The second is current practice, business being the class of entity that actually generates the money in the first place.

The third simply demonstrates that you don't know that, AND further demonstrates that you have no idea what a negative control loop is, and again reveals the real reason for your plan: You don't like the idea that businesses actually earn money.

Go on then Prof, unleash thy wisdom and condense it for us thicko's.



I don't care if business earns money or not, I care that they waste resources and don;t do things for the benefit of the people.

Were you sick the day teacher explained you about the pyramid of needs?

Without an adequate reward system for productivity you don't have product, and without product you don't have a society to enjoy cohesion. Or anything else.

The side you need to get everyone on is the PRODUCTIVE one, not the one that promises to doll out anything anyone wants no matter what they produce...

Maslow's wrong way up bullshit?

You're right, WTF was I thinking.

Not everyone.

...A promise, I might add that is very difficult to believe given the complete lack of incentive to produce anything other than a vague "love thy fellow man".

It simply doesn't add up, dude. As any honest appreciation of similar philosophies throughout history would have demonstrated.

You don't have to believe it. It isn't solely down to you. I'm alright with "dude, I'll do my job if you do yours and I'll see you at fishin next week", before grabbing the next bin as my mate heads off to his job.

For you it doesn't, man. We live in a different age, things have changed. Time to change with them or forever suffer budget constrained advances.

[TheDemonLord]

Mashman,

I haven't quoted your last post as there is nothing I feel I need to rebut directly, but it seems we have reached some conclusion

There are points we have agreed on that the NOW theory is not yet complete and that additional work is needed.

There is a possibility that once these points are addressed it may be a viable alternative - I myself still doubt this, but I would have to look at the system with the modifications before reaching a final judgement.