Stupid World

[bogan]

Show you what exactly?

There's plenty of demand for rocket scientists, there merely isn't enough money to pay for them. Hence, people went to uni to become rocket scientists. Demand. No supply. Always another side of the equation bogdan... and I'd rather have the advances rocket scientists can make than not... and certainly not in the banking sector.

In an R.B.E. you merely ask the person. They either respond well, or don't, it will be their choice... and I'm sure they'll do exactly as you say and hoard because they can .

You're not paying attention.

and people = consumer, unless in some bizarre reporting world they're further broken into classifications to make is seem as though consumers and people aren't the same entity. so instead of producing shit in the hope of selling it, we'll be producing shit to meet demand of the people i.e. consumer. Keep up oh him of large intelligence and mental agility.

Such 2 dimensional thinking is way to hilarious on an empty stomach. We already waste fuckloads of food, at least those who are hungry can walk into the supermarket and get it instead of dumpster diving. C'mon, activate the other 99.9% of your brain... you might like it.

You haven't debunked an R.B.E. as unworkable. Not even close. Not even a dent in it. Quite obviously because you don't understand it. Fair enough, it's not everyone's cup of chai... but it's where we're headed whether you like it or not.

Show my my logic is wrong, don't just say it is.

If there is not money to pay for them, then there is not the demand. You want it to happen, put your money towards it; ie, put your supplies to the demand you see fit.
A load of whiffle, so I'll assume you have no counterpoint to my resource depletion logic.
The end choice of product will be chosen by the people, but what they can choose from is chosen by TPTB, just like it was historically. Well, until it collapsed enough that TPTB only gave people one thing to choose from.

Your lack of logic does show how unworkable your idea of an RBE is. An RBE can work, but only by emerging from within a capitalist system, overturning capitalism in favor of a socialist RBE will not work; it offers little benefit over capitalism, but comes with far more ways to be abused. That is why the dude who tried to trademark the term RBE is aiming to have one emerge from within capitalism, instead of overturning it. So perhaps I know enough about RBE's that you put your head into the sand in fear.

[bogan]

We've already done that, haven't we? Your own figures revealed that houses now cost less per square metre than they did in your "golden years"', didn't they?

Continuing to claim that populist bullshit is something else when you've already proved otherwise yourself is taking the whole Stupid World ethos well above and beyond the call of stupidity.

Not to mention each square meter of that new house is now warmer and more efficient too.

[Ocean1]

I thought I did... The stuff required [general rule] if you wish to enhance your position in life.

Yes. My point was that in fact "necessities" are those things that you require in order to live. Nothing else.

Everyone has a different take on what that represents, but that's the first time I've heard that anything that "enhancing one's position in life" is an absolute must-have.

[SPman]

Yes. My point was that in fact "necessities" are those things that you require in order to live. Nothing else.

Everyone has a different take on what that represents, but that's the first time I've heard that anything that "enhancing one's position in life" is an absolute must-have.

Of course it is - it seems that's what's driving most of the worlds population...or... the advertising agencies, anyway.

[Akzle]

Not to mention each square meter of that new house is now warmer and more efficient too.

no it isn't.

[Ocean1]

some people cant keep up due their circumstances

A circumstantial lack of work ethic, yes.

the biggest spongers on the wellfare system as we have noted before are
. .the oldies

oh but they worked hard and saved for the retirement . . . . its their entitlement . . . . .

And you'd rather the money THEY saved for retirement was given to who?

[Akzle]

A circumstantial lack of work ethic, yes.



And you'd rather the money THEY saved for retirement was given to who?

hahaha. They.

[bogan]

no it isn't.

Maybe not in the mud shack you built

[mashman]

What issues?

Having to redefine poverty in order to actually be able to count the fuckers on the fingers of more than one hand?

Absolutely. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/poverty.shtml

In fact absolute poverty is vanishing at an alarming rate. http://www.economist.com/news/briefi...verty-2030-not

You have to look in some seriously dodgy places to find "opinions" suggesting otherwise.

Count them

I hope that it is falling.

[Ocean1]

Count them

I hope that it is falling.

A bunch of people already have.

Absolute poverty is falling, dramatically, beyond any shadow of doubt, as the most cursory research shows.

Which is reason enough, all by itself to arsehole any changes to the current system. Particularly those that haven't ever produced anything remotely like the same success. Or any success at all.

[mashman]

Show my my logic is wrong, don't just say it is.

If there is not money to pay for them, then there is not the demand. You want it to happen, put your money towards it; ie, put your supplies to the demand you see fit.
A load of whiffle, so I'll assume you have no counterpoint to my resource depletion logic.
The end choice of product will be chosen by the people, but what they can choose from is chosen by TPTB, just like it was historically. Well, until it collapsed enough that TPTB only gave people one thing to choose from.

Your lack of logic does show how unworkable your idea of an RBE is. An RBE can work, but only by emerging from within a capitalist system, overturning capitalism in favor of a socialist RBE will not work; it offers little benefit over capitalism, but comes with far more ways to be abused. That is why the dude who tried to trademark the term RBE is aiming to have one emerge from within capitalism, instead of overturning it. So perhaps I know enough about RBE's that you put your head into the sand in fear.

I did. More than once.

So no demand for food? No demand for toys? No demand for sport? No demand for insert banana of choice? Do you think that everyone is just going to stop working and "lose" everything they currently have? T'would kind of defeat the purpose, no?
I gave you a counterpoint to resource depletion, you didn't like it.
Why would TPTB decide what the people want? They'll be asking what is wanted and will have been voted in by the people.

Overturning at the vote of the people. You seem to miss that bit, or take it for granted that it'll never go that far. I see an R.B.E. as being agreed by the people i.e. voted on, and implemented at a date agreed, again by vote, upon by the people. It's a very simple process. That I see an R.B.E. evolving differently does not mean that there is no logic to the way I see it happening... because absolutely every system and ingredient for it to happen within 6 months exists today. @fear.

[blue rider]

Yes. My point was that in fact "necessities" are those things that you require in order to live. Nothing else.

Everyone has a different take on what that represents, but that's the first time I've heard that anything that "enhancing one's position in life" is an absolute must-have.

in order to live i need

water
air
shelter
food

i do not need

tv
radio
cars
frocks
shoes
man
cheap food
poisoned air
poisoned water
no shelter
no food

however
i can't forage for food anymore as we are getting rid of all and any free food sources, or as in the case of europe thanks to chernobyl we have poisoned our free food sources i.e mushrooms, berries and edible seeds and planst. In nz well once upon a time I heard that poor people went hunting or trapped rabbits or went fishing....pretty much obsolete now for many a people (but i guess it is their choice where they live, it has nothing to do with anything).

i can't run around nekkid, lest i be accused of lewd behavior and then maybe I end up either in prison or with the mentally disabled, but at least i would get food and shelter.

i can't just live under a bridge, cause heck it ain't done and there are now fences under bridges that would prevent peeps from sleeping rough there. I also can't put up a tent in a park or else the good peeps of the community are gonna call the cops on me as they did with the geezer in Ashburton who ended up killing someone at a Winz office, but at least now he has food and shelter in prison.


But yes, it sure enhances life to have shelter, food, and a frock or two. Good air also helps, but hey. One is not choosy.

[mashman]

A bunch of people already have.

Absolute poverty is falling, dramatically, beyond any shadow of doubt, as the most cursory research shows.

Which is reason enough, all by itself to arsehole any changes to the current system. Particularly those that haven't ever produced anything remotely like the same success. Or any success at all.

And graded them. And decided what their needs should be.

It's a ledger entry. But great that we can measure that absolute poverty is falling.

Fuck off. An R.B.E. will render poverty a thing of the past within hours. Blind etc...

[bogan]

I did. More than once.

So no demand for food? No demand for toys? No demand for sport? No demand for insert banana of choice? Do you think that everyone is just going to stop working and "lose" everything they currently have? T'would kind of defeat the purpose, no?
I gave you a counterpoint to resource depletion, you didn't like it.
Why would TPTB decide what the people want? They'll be asking what is wanted and will have been voted in by the people.

Overturning at the vote of the people. You seem to miss that bit, or take it for granted that it'll never go that far. I see an R.B.E. as being agreed by the people i.e. voted on, and implemented at a date agreed, again by vote, upon by the people. It's a very simple process. That I see an R.B.E. evolving differently does not mean that there is no logic to the way I see it happening... because absolutely every system and ingredient for it to happen within 6 months exists today. @fear.

No, you haven't.

You've missed the point I think, demand in the supply/demand context is measured by what people are willing to pay. They are willing to pay for food (more for quality stuff, less for standard), they are less willing to pay for rocket scientists.
It was not logical, so no it didn't stick.
Because they have to balance what the people want, with what the people can produce. That is why in all historical instances of such systems, consumer choices have declined.

Ah back to the circular logic again, it's a good idea cos if the people choose it, it must be good right? Well despite everything it needs existing, you get less than a fraction of 1% approval; the people have spoken mashy, they do not choose it, it is not a good idea. It has always been the way of the ignorant to fear knowledge, so I'm not surprised.

[Scuba_Steve]

Yes. My point was that in fact "necessities" are those things that you require in order to live. Nothing else.

Everyone has a different take on what that represents, but that's the first time I've heard that anything that "enhancing one's position in life" is an absolute must-have.

It's a relative. There are only a few things we Need and none of them need to be brought, but we were talking about "quality of life" and to improve that quality you require/need a lot more now than in the past so the poor are more likely to stay poor