Stupid World

[puddytat]

futures trading.

[bogan]

So we're back to you saying people won't work if they aren't financially remunerated. I disagree.

No, even if the work distribution was unchanged, there would be no additional resources brought up out of the ground or from wherever. To get more, you would need to have more people work on it, and use more resources to do so, so where will they come from? The magical efficiency booster of socialism?

[mstriumph]

..............

So you're right, reward doesn't have to be financial. But if you ever want something you can't make for yourself you'd better find a way to make something someone else wants, eh? Whether you enjoy the work or not.

zeroing in on this (because the rest of the argument is hurting my head) can you not agree that, if I want (say) one of your goats plus six duck eggs and you are willing to accept in exchange(say) one of my lambs and a laying hen* that THAT is more beneficial to the parties engaged in the exchange (if less convenient) than dealing through a third party who will charge you the eggs and me the hen for acting as middleman?

Moving on from there, if the middleman then lends the eggs (or the hen, I'm not fussed) and expects not only the principal but also (say) a dozen mixed eggs** ) back in return, then we have the beginnings of the problem

In the great scheme of things, banks and other financiers are the go-betweens reaping far more rewards than the participants in the transaction by taking from BOTH sides ... it's a service that grows/produces/manufactures nothing - smoke and mirrors and, in some instances, misery? I don't agree with some of the opinions here but I can understand and, to a greater or lesser extent, understand the sheer frustration from whence they spring. Can't you?

Both Judaism and Islam are rigid concerning usary ... Christians used to be, too (with a differing opinion on what constitutes kindred) ... religion-wise I'm a nothing, but if you acknowledge the great religions of the world as having a hand in shaping civilization then wouldn't you agree that mebbe, just mebbe, we should take their input on board?

• At the moment we have a financial system with top heavy benefits for those at the top of the pile at the expense of those at the bottom
• we have no democratic way of enforcing a fairer system or of placing limits or parameters on the system we have (even though the rapacious behaviour of the elite is heedless of the fact (based on observations of the rise and fall of punitive systems of various types elsewhere) is likely to end badly, in a 'lose/lose way
• nobody in their right mind wants the chaos this collapse would cause

I don't pretend to have a solution other than the suggestion I made in my post at 09:40 today

I DO know that a) there's a problem and b) it can't be fixed by ignoring it, intellectualising it or saying "she'll be right"

------------------------


* I freely admit these are guesses - I have absolutely NO idea of the going exchange rate of goats, chickens, hens etc etc etc
** and even less idea how to express an interest rate in duck eggs .........

[mashman]

No, even if the work distribution was unchanged, there would be no additional resources brought up out of the ground or from wherever. To get more, you would need to have more people work on it, and use more resources to do so, so where will they come from? The magical efficiency booster of socialism?

How have we suddenly jumped to us needing more resources? If you need more people, then they will be available as the financial system and those who manage finances (accountants, tellers, ATM technicians etc...) will all be available for work. Add to that the huge number of IT staff that will become available, the "admin" staff and likely many others who's "profession" could do without their services. Even the great Ocean himself understands that there are a large number doing jobs that shouldn't need to be done... granted for different reasons, but meh, they're there and could task themselves with anything they fancied.

[bogan]

How have we suddenly jumped to us needing more resources? If you need more people, then they will be available as the financial system and those who manage finances (accountants, tellers, ATM technicians etc...) will all be available for work. Add to that the huge number of IT staff that will become available, the "admin" staff and likely many others who's "profession" could do without their services. Even the great Ocean himself understands that there are a large number doing jobs that shouldn't need to be done... granted for different reasons, but meh, they're there and could task themselves with anything they fancied.

What % of worker are currently emplyed in those jobs, what % of that would be required by the new system to perform resource allocation jobs.

Why is IT and admin staff no longer required, and again, what % of the workforce would that entail. And, what % of work reduction can we expect from people taking more time off?

[mashman]

What % of worker are currently emplyed in those jobs, what % of that would be required by the new system to perform resource allocation jobs.

Why is IT and admin staff no longer required, and again, what % of the workforce would that entail. And, what % of work reduction can we expect from people taking more time off?

I wish I knew.

IT due to the duplication of effort for the "same" product (we'll settle on a standard for the simplicity of integration amongst other things). Admin staff again through duplicate of effort and lack of need to support those "services" that will be "rationalised". Again, I wish knew the percentages.

[bogan]

I wish I knew.

IT due to the duplication of effort for the "same" product (we'll settle on a standard for the simplicity of integration amongst other things). Admin staff again through duplicate of effort and lack of need to support those "services" that will be "rationalised". Again, I wish knew the percentages.

Seems pretty basic due diligence to have done before putting an idea/assertion forward. Somebody in NOW or similar must have done it?

[mashman]

Seems pretty basic due diligence to have done before putting an idea/assertion forward. Somebody in NOW or similar must have done it?

I'm sure they will when the time comes.

[bogan]

I'm sure they will when the time comes.

Well, it's pretty fucking ironic that the time is not NOW

And also doesn't make for a compelling point to back up your assertion that it will balance out for the positive, a lot of us think on balance it would be far into the negative.

[mashman]

Well, it's pretty fucking ironic that the time is not NOW

And also doesn't make for a compelling point to back up your assertion that it will balance out for the positive, a lot of us think on balance it would be far into the negative.

It would be if NOW was a time

I don't have the time to ask every single person in every single job that may not be needed whether or not they'd continue to do that job or would look at "re-retraining". There's more to it than the guess work you're usually used to, sorry, the population sample and extrapolation to give a %. Therein lies the rub:

Once upon a year or so ago I sat outside the pub with some friends and some strangers. As happens I quipped about the financial system and was challenged to provide an alternative. So we went around the houses for a while and I explained NOW. It started to rain. Thanks fuck (paraphrasing), said the guy, can't believe I listened to this negativity... at which point the girlz popped up with, actually we think it's highly positive. Moral of the story: you make of it what you will. The obstacles you put in your way are just that, yours. They do not belong to NOW, they are yours.

I see NOW as a HUGE positive because of what it can achieve for people. I see the financial system as a negative because of what it stops people from achieving. On paper, there's no competition as to which one can provide a better standard of living for the world's population... and it ain't the financial system.

[bogan]

It would be if NOW was a time

I don't have the time to ask every single person in every single job that may not be needed whether or not they'd continue to do that job or would look at "re-retraining". There's more to it than the guess work you're usually used to, sorry, the population sample and extrapolation to give a %. Therein lies the rub:

Once upon a year or so ago I sat outside the pub with some friends and some strangers. As happens I quipped about the financial system and was challenged to provide an alternative. So we went around the houses for a while and I explained NOW. It started to rain. Thanks fuck (paraphrasing), said the guy, can't believe I listened to this negativity... at which point the girlz popped up with, actually we think it's highly positive. Moral of the story: you make of it what you will. The obstacles you put in your way are just that, yours. They do not belong to NOW, they are yours.

I see NOW as a HUGE positive because of what it can achieve for people. I see the financial system as a negative because of what it stops people from achieving. On paper, there's no competition as to which one can provide a better standard of living for the world's population... and it ain't the financial system.

What a cop out. There is census data on how many people are employed in those jobs, you don't have to ask everyone.

Also, that story is fucking stupid, and just highlights your bias, you go into it with the position that having a negative view of the NOW thingo is a bad thing, rather than an honest interpretation.

Where is this paper, you consistently dodge or hand wave away any logical discussion about the logistics of such a system; the whole underpinnings of it are that we could get more work done for less work input then we currently do; yet there is absolutely nothing on paper to show this.

[Ocean1]

Because you say it can't? For every "you" there's a "me" and they are willing to be productive. No, you're describing the rules under which money is supposed to be allowed to be created. Given that they also pluck govt bonds out of thin air etc... to then justify printing money, I fail to see how you can't see it as anything other than infinite. If money solved those problems (which it can't), then yes, "printing" enough for everyone to afford their "bills" and "lifestyle" would go a long way towards addressing the issues.

No, walls of drivel don't refute the facts. I suggested your "system" was based on bullshit, quoting your insistence that money is an infinite resource. The fact hat you fail to see it as anything else is your problem.

Tis the reason many economists tout a system with an unconditional income at its heart.

Show me some.

Really? I took a pay cut and I'm just as productive... in fact the company gets more hours out of me than I'm contracted for. NOW then, I wonder if I'm alone in doing such a thing... no, I know a few people who do the same. Why? Figure it out yourself.

It's not difficult, they decided you wern't worth what they were paying. You agreed. That's how it's supposed to work.

Economic death on a stick eh. Well I'm saying it'll be the opposite. You've got no evidence, I've got no evidence... tell you what, let's try something radical and explain it to the entire country and let them decide whether they'll be willing productive participants... after all, it should be an absolute cake walk for the financial system if that were the case. I reckon it'll be MUCH closer than you think.

Your example above is a tiny slice of the evidence that smacks you around the head every day, you simply translate it into giberish to fit your needs and press on regardless. On the other hand no economy can ever work based on everything being worth whatever the producer wants / whatever the commitee say, (whichever is the flavour of the month).

And any sympathising socialist already has any number of choices of similar systems to chose from, they can fuck off on the same boat as you to enjoy them to their hearts content.

Understood. Not admitted. Well, not until you admit that a binman is just as, if not more, important than a Dr and that they should be remunerated equally.

If you understood that everyone has the right to spend their money as they see fit then you wouldn't be trying to impose conditions on which services they have to pay for and how much they have to pay for them.

[Ocean1]

If that was your point all along you could have just said "money is not a resource"; you made the point of saying "money is not an infinite resource" implying you believe money to be a resource but one that has absolute limits.

I was quoting mushbrain. If you want to know what he was implying you'll have to stand in line with everyone else, we've got no idea either.

But either way as things currently stand I'd say it is a resource alot of others say the same

Yup, not knowing what money is isn't uncommon.

Take a look in your wallet... there it is

Show me some money other than savings that doesn't represent an asset.

[mashman]

What a cop out. There is census data on how many people are employed in those jobs, you don't have to ask everyone.

Also, that story is fucking stupid, and just highlights your bias, you go into it with the position that having a negative view of the NOW thingo is a bad thing, rather than an honest interpretation.

Where is this paper, you consistently dodge or hand wave away any logical discussion about the logistics of such a system; the whole underpinnings of it are that we could get more work done for less work input then we currently do; yet there is absolutely nothing on paper to show this.

If you understood what NOW was trying to achieve, you would understand that it's way more than calculating a percentage. You have made it blatantly obvious that you don't wish to entertain such thoughts. But let's start with: we need IT systems that are easy to manage. 1 version of financial SW, 1 version of logistics SW, 1 version of HR software and more. Some people in IT don't want to be there any more and we want the best IT crowd that we can use to analyse requirements, PM, develop and test (not an exhaustive list). You need to ask everyone as some of those who waqnt to not be in IT may be the best and will need to be asked to persist. Some that want to leave IT may want to do so, not because they want to move out of IT, but that the culture under which they work is shit blah blah blah. Your cold and calculating methodology does not take that into account. SO call it a copout all you like, but you're the one copping out.

What bias? It is what happened.

The paper belongs to the individual. If you didn't have such a bias you'd draw up your own and if you were at all logical you'd find that the same stands. The only issue you can raise that has any bearing is that of who will willingly take part... and for that answer, you have to ask everyone. Your underpinning assumption is wrong. Where have I said that we, as a collective, will do less work to achieve the same result? As an individual you could do less and the result would still be the same as someone who is unemployed could well share your position. I envisage a position, further down the line, where we are proactive and not reactive and we do end up with a situation where we can do less in order to achieve the same. Stop making shit up... and given the moral of the earlier story, which you seemed to miss, I'd say you were projecting your bias and associated negativity into the mouths of an entire population.

[bogan]

If you understood what NOW was trying to achieve, you would understand that it's way more than calculating a percentage. You have made it blatantly obvious that you don't wish to entertain such thoughts. But let's start with: we need IT systems that are easy to manage. 1 version of financial SW, 1 version of logistics SW, 1 version of HR software and more. Some people in IT don't want to be there any more and we want the best IT crowd that we can use to analyse requirements, PM, develop and test (not an exhaustive list). You need to ask everyone as some of those who waqnt to not be in IT may be the best and will need to be asked to persist. Some that want to leave IT may want to do so, not because they want to move out of IT, but that the culture under which they work is shit blah blah blah. Your cold and calculating methodology does not take that into account. SO call it a copout all you like, but you're the one copping out.

What bias? It is what happened.

The paper belongs to the individual. If you didn't have such a bias you'd draw up your own and if you were at all logical you'd find that the same stands. The only issue you can raise that has any bearing is that of who will willingly take part... and for that answer, you have to ask everyone. Your underpinning assumption is wrong. Where have I said that we, as a collective, will do less work to achieve the same result? As an individual you could do less and the result would still be the same as someone who is unemployed could well share your position. I envisage a position, further down the line, where we are proactive and not reactive and we do end up with a situation where we can do less in order to achieve the same. Stop making shit up... and given the moral of the earlier story, which you seemed to miss, I'd say you were projecting your bias and associated negativity into the mouths of an entire population.

But NOW's ability to achieve a functional society is related to that percentage.

The bias is that you misuse the 'make the best of it' ideal. Make the best of it is used when you have to do something, ie, fuck I hate work team building exercises but I may as well make the best of it. It is not used as a justification for doing optional things that you don't think is a good idea, ie, I'm pretty sure sticking my hand in that circular saw is a bad idea, but I may as well make the best of it!

Ok, give me a straight answer to this then, under NOW, would society as a whole, do more, equal, or less work than we currently do? Stop thinking about it in individual terms, I don't care if you get to cut back your hours, if you can cut back only due to someone else taking on some of your work, then that would be equal work input.