Govt 'covering up' school funding plan

[mansell]

There is the rub, respect is earned rather than demanded.

My point about this is we live in a society that seems to respect a person more for their ability to kick a ball than a person who wins a Nobel Prize in Chemistry and then donates a large chunk of his award to a university.

[mashman]

This is the part you guys don't get though, an RBE is not a choice, it is an evolution. Society may evolve to that state, initially in small groups which then do better and multiply; but we do not yet have the 'plenty' that is the cornerstone of an RBE.

Of course it's a choice. You have to elect to try it before you can try it. Before that, you need to know that it exists. As I've said, the majority of people I have spoken to about NOW (an R.B.E. as a goal) state that they would give it a go. They didn't know about an alternative until they learned of it. I reckon it'll take 10 years to get to a full R.B.E. implementation from being voted in to boom. The first 3 years after being voted in will be to gather all of the alternatives together, R.B.E. as the preferred model. But the current system will absolutely be one of the choices. LVT, Social Credit, Universal Basic Income etc... If the R.B.E. has been chosen, then it's game on as the population will have voted for it because they accept and trust it as a solution. That's 3 years of "education". I believe it's more than enough.

I wish to be here to see all of that happen. I may not be, it may take too long to get to the point were people are ready for it. Do I want it NOW? Youbetcha. Do I expect it to come any time soon? Youbethca. Am I willing to wait? Youbetcha. What's the mot important factor in regard to the timeline? Edumacationecha. Then it's a true choice.

[bogan]

Of course it's a choice. You have to elect to try it before you can try it. Before that, you need to know that it exists. As I've said, the majority of people I have spoken to about NOW (an R.B.E. as a goal) state that they would give it a go. They didn't know about an alternative until they learned of it. I reckon it'll take 10 years to get to a full R.B.E. implementation from being voted in to boom. The first 3 years after being voted in will be to gather all of the alternatives together, R.B.E. as the preferred model. But the current system will absolutely be one of the choices. LVT, Social Credit, Universal Basic Income etc... If the R.B.E. has been chosen, then it's game on as the population will have voted for it because they accept and trust it as a solution. That's 3 years of "education". I believe it's more than enough.

I wish to be here to see all of that happen. I may not be, it may take too long to get to the point were people are ready for it. Do I want it NOW? Youbetcha. Do I expect it to come any time soon? Youbethca. Am I willing to wait? Youbetcha. What's the mot important factor in regard to the timeline? Edumacationecha. Then it's a true choice.

Wrong, there is a reason why nobody has any effective plans for a democratic transition; it is simply because the system cannot work that way. If you want to accelerate the timeline, progress the goals of an RBE withint the bounds of financial system; greater automation/education, pay off all debts etc...

[mashman]

Wrong, there is a reason why nobody has any effective plans for a democratic transition; it is simply because the system cannot work that way. If you want to accelerate the timeline, progress the goals of an RBE withint the bounds of financial system; greater automation/education, pay off all debts etc...

The financial system is a measure of human activity. Yet human activity is bound by the limits of finance. If finance is bound by human activity, then you can value what you like how you like. Who is to tell you that you can't?

[Ocean1]

The financial system is a measure of human activity. Yet human activity is bound by the limits of finance. If finance is bound by human activity, then you can value what you like how you like. Who is to tell you that you can't?

Me.

Finance, (the quantity of cash in the system) is already a function of human activity. So if there's limits to available cash it's caused by limited human productive activity.

Only fools believe it's pulled out of the tooth fairies arse under orders from the wicked banks and that removing it would somehow make everything "better".

[bogan]

The financial system is a measure of human activity. Yet human activity is bound by the limits of finance. If finance is bound by human activity, then you can value what you like how you like. Who is to tell you that you can't?

It's not as bound as you like to think. Money reflects a resource cost, if money were not a thing, we still couldn't all have lambourghinis, simply due to the number of man hours and materials that need to go into them. Once society and technology has matured to the point where people don't need as much, and can create a lot more, then money will be superseded by an RBE, but not before.

[oldrider]

My point about this is we live in a society that seems to respect a person more for their ability to kick a ball than a person who wins a Nobel Prize in Chemistry and then donates a large chunk of his award to a university.

Well when schools go to so much trouble to gain or retain people/pupils? more for their prowess on a rugby field than in the class room, you have a point!

My point is if industry and commerce requires specifically educated people, industry and commerce should provide a share of the cost for the service!

Currently sporting entertainment would seem to be the dominant force shaping the education system in New Zealand, who is paying for that?

[mashman]

It's not as bound as you like to think. Money reflects a resource cost, if money were not a thing, we still couldn't all have lambourghinis, simply due to the number of man hours and materials that need to go into them. Once society and technology has matured to the point where people don't need as much, and can create a lot more, then money will be superseded by an RBE, but not before.

If we decided that making lambourghinis was the goal and we decided to train as many people as possible to build them that would change. The point being that we could because we chose to. I agree though, we're not mature enough, but that's the whole point behind the education and the goal. You know how and you have a target. Similarly with putting more teachers into classrooms. It is entirely possible financially, just pay the current teacher half of their salary. Under a financial system the existing teacher will have to make some drastic lifestyle changes in order to survive "comfortably". Under NOW, they'd lose nothing, we'd gain an extra teacher in the class and the financial system would know no better. They will consume the same amount of food, electricity etc... that they already have been consuming. I'm fully aware that there is more to it than that, but the end game is to produce financials innit? What does it matter how we structure our society and what we value effort and production at to reach the goal as long as the financial target is met?

[mashman]

Me.

Finance, (the quantity of cash in the system) is already a function of human activity. So if there's limits to available cash it's caused by limited human productive activity.

Only fools believe it's pulled out of the tooth fairies arse under orders from the wicked banks and that removing it would somehow make everything "better".

Ok.

You can't just revalue activity? funny, isn't that what inflation does?

So despite one of the lead economists in the country going on television and stating that that is exactly how it is produced, you deny it to be true? I am happy to be called a fool if that is the criteria and your point of view is the alternative.

[bogan]

If we decided that making lambourghinis was the goal and we decided to train as many people as possible to build them that would change. The point being that we could because we chose to. I agree though, we're not mature enough, but that's the whole point behind the education and the goal. You know how and you have a target. Similarly with putting more teachers into classrooms. It is entirely possible financially, just pay the current teacher half of their salary. Under a financial system the existing teacher will have to make some drastic lifestyle changes in order to survive "comfortably". Under NOW, they'd lose nothing, we'd gain an extra teacher in the class and the financial system would know no better. They will consume the same amount of food, electricity etc... that they already have been consuming. I'm fully aware that there is more to it than that, but the end game is to produce financials innit? What does it matter how we structure our society and what we value effort and production at to reach the goal as long as the financial target is met?

It's a metaphor...

My god, I'm just staggered that after all this, you still don't have the slightest grasp of what you're talking about or the problems it faces. I mean, you constantly preach other's have to learn, yet the basics are just so far beyond you it has gone past being a joke.

[mashman]

It's a metaphor...

My god, I'm just staggered that after all this, you still don't have the slightest grasp of what you're talking about or the problems it faces. I mean, you constantly preach other's have to learn, yet the basics are just so far beyond you it has gone past being a joke.

I know it was .

I told you that you'd have to separate the two systems. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you are incapable of doing so. Then you attack what you believe my knowledge level is and go off on one from there. I gave you an example with a teacher before. Use it and tell me why that won't work, in detail and with a full explanation.

[bogan]

I know it was .

I told you that you'd have to separate the two systems. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you are incapable of doing so. Then you attack what you believe my knowledge level is and go off on one from there. I gave you an example with a teacher before. Use it and tell me why that won't work, in detail and with a full explanation.

Money wasn't involved in that metaphor at all. Or do you mean separating things from reality? Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I am incapable from seeing things from your perspective; though I guess it does make a nice sheltered argument for you to hide behind and maintain your ignorance.

[Ocean1]

Ok.

You can't just revalue activity? funny, isn't that what inflation does?

So despite one of the lead economists in the country going on television and stating that that is exactly how it is produced, you deny it to be true? I am happy to be called a fool if that is the criteria and your point of view is the alternative.

You can change the units used to quantify the product of human activities, and yes inflation does that, but you can't change the value of the product itself without fucking with the market.

Yes, I know you think the fact that money is produced almost free means it therefore should be available to anyone who wants some. That, more than anything else is what identifies you as a simpleton, a fool or a con-man. Find me an economist that denies a link between product and monetary value and I'll show you someone attempting to fuck with the market.

[TheDemonLord]

That's all it takes. But if you are unwilling to give people that trust, how can they prove themselves trustworthy? You say that some people won't take part and "bludge", so you use that as an excuse not to try. Yet you live in a society that does just that and accept it?

That is the Student's Fallacy:

'All jobs require experience, All experiance is gained with a Job.'

The solution is to put people in a position where if they fail to perform up to the required standard, it doesn't result in Catastrophic failure.

That last part is the key - Catastrophic Failure.

I am saying that in order to be able to fly a big commercial Airliner safely, someone has to prove first that they can handle a Robin/Cessna, then a multi-engined light aircract, then move up to a small commercial airliner and so on and so forth.

I am not stopping society at large from making changes to its habits that would show that it is ready to move to a RBE - I am just saying that changes need to happen first, not the other way round.

You are suggesting that you chuck a novice pilot in the seat of a A380 and tell him go for it - Sure there is a good chance he will be fine, but if something goes wrong, it results in a catastrophic accident.

[mashman]

Money wasn't involved in that metaphor at all. Or do you mean separating things from reality? Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I am incapable from seeing things from your perspective; though I guess it does make a nice sheltered argument for you to hide behind and maintain your ignorance.

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