My first poll for the NZ public

[bogan]

It isn't, because virtually no one knows about it.
You see them as complainers, I see them as raising valid concerns. Some are getting to it.

Well what is the tipping point number and why?

I can't see why 100 people don't just pool their resources and live money free; even a group of 10 could do a very successful proof of concept pilot program; if it were indeed possible.

Who is getting to it and how?

[mashman]

Well what is the tipping point number and why?

I can't see why 100 people don't just pool their resources and live money free; even a group of 10 could do a very successful proof of concept pilot program; if it were indeed possible.

Who is getting to it and how?

Tipping point number?

Dunno. Am sure some are doing just that.

Whoever decides to in what ever way they can.

[bogan]

Tipping point number?

Dunno. Am sure some are doing just that.

Whoever decides to in what ever way they can.

So when you said, it isn't because nobody knows about it; then some are doing just that... do you have any examples?

I mean example, I want to see how viable it is. That is how you would convert me. Why are you not one of the ones who is getting to it?

[mashman]

So when you said, it isn't because nobody knows about it; then some are doing just that... do you have any examples?

I mean example, I want to see how viable it is. That is how you would convert me.

I didn't say nobody... examples: Ubuntu. Money Free Party (multiple countries). TVP. Zeitgeist. Money Free Charter... and likely lots of other groups.

It is viable. I'm not trying to convert you .

[mashman]

"The $240 billion net income in 2012 of the richest 100 billionaires would be enough to make extreme poverty history four times over, according Oxfam's report 'The cost of inequality: how wealth and income extremes hurt us all."

So you need $60 billion per year to eradicate extreme poverty.

"Although development aid rose in 2013 to the highest level ever recorded, a trend of a falling share of aid going to the neediest sub-Saharan African countries continued."

Total aid given to countries around the world, $97 billion and rising.

Question: Why do we still have extreme poverty when there's 50% more aid given than is required?

[Ocean1]

"The $240 billion net income in 2012 of the richest 100 billionaires would be enough to make extreme poverty history four times over, according Oxfam's report 'The cost of inequality: how wealth and income extremes hurt us all."

So you need $60 billion per year to eradicate extreme poverty.

"Although development aid rose in 2013 to the highest level ever recorded, a trend of a falling share of aid going to the neediest sub-Saharan African countries continued."

Total aid given to countries around the world, $97 billion and rising.

Question: Why do we still have extreme poverty when there's 50% more aid given than is required?

Because the definition of poverty changes with the level of income. You could make them all millionaires and the official number of poor wouldn't change a jot.

[mashman]

Because the definition of poverty changes with the level of income. You could make them all millionaires and the official number of poor wouldn't change a jot.

Of course it would, especially as they're all millionaires and will be able to afford anything that they want.

[bogan]

I didn't say nobody... examples: Ubuntu. Money Free Party (multiple countries). TVP. Zeitgeist. Money Free Charter... and likely lots of other groups.

It is viable. I'm not trying to convert you .

Ubuntu, that's software, not a way of life.

Money Free Party is a political movement, again not people actually living as they would under a money free system.

TVP is still in planning stages for such a society, and I don't think they have implemented on even in small scale yet; but I could be wrong as they do seem the furthest along.

Zeitgeist is pretty much the same as TVP.

Money Free Charter is pretty much the same as Money Free Party.

All of those things are pushing ideas and ideals, ie, this could work but we need more people/time/technology. What I want to see examples of are sub-society's in which money is not a thing, of course it must still be a thing to interact with society as a whole, but within the sub society they can share everything, have anything (including requisitions from outside), simply by living happily and exporting their production. If it is both possible, and beneficial as you say, why is it not done?

I mean example to see how viable it is; show me, don't just tell me. That is how you would convert me, and many others (see aforementioned reasons for why converts are needed). And why are you not one of the ones who is getting to it? why simply spread the ideas and ideal when you have a chance to live them?

[bogan]

Because the definition of poverty changes with the level of income. You could make them all millionaires and the official number of poor wouldn't change a jot.

Extreme poverty could be done away with though.

But I'm also picking that article didn't take into account supply/demand and subsequent rising prices of aid.

[Ocean1]

Of course it would, especially as they're all millionaires and will be able to afford anything that they want.

No, it wouldn't. The poverty industry measures poverty as the percentage of population with income less than 60% of median income.

Which is bullshit of course, under that definition you could double everyone's net worth and not change poverty. The only way to reduce relative poverty is to reduce "income inequality", the “solution” is to tax people more and hand out more welfare. Classic socialism.

The problem they've got is that both relative AND absolute poverty has taken a very large and sustained drop in the last few decades, so they have to keep re-inventing poverty definitions to make their spiel even vaguely relevant.



Old socialist bullshit is getting old.

[Ocean1]

Extreme poverty could be done away with though.

Probably, but not by increasing aid, you have to teach them how to fish.

[mashman]

Ubuntu, that's software, not a way of life.

Money Free Party is a political movement, again not people actually living as they would under a money free system.

TVP is still in planning stages for such a society, and I don't think they have implemented on even in small scale yet; but I could be wrong as they do seem the furthest along.

Zeitgeist is pretty much the same as TVP.

Money Free Charter is pretty much the same as Money Free Party.

All of those things are pushing ideas and ideals, ie, this could work but we need more people/time/technology. What I want to see examples of are sub-society's in which money is not a thing, of course it must still be a thing to interact with society as a whole, but within the sub society they can share everything, have anything (including requisitions from outside), simply by living happily and exporting their production. If it is both possible, and beneficial as you say, why is it not done?

I mean example to see how viable it is; show me, don't just tell me. That is how you would convert me, and many others (see aforementioned reasons for why converts are needed). And why are you not one of the ones who is getting to it? why simply spread the ideas and ideal when you have a chance to live them?

They're all doing something towards the same goal i.e. to live in an R.B.E. If they make it to Kibbutz level, then great. If they decide to go all the way to the whitehouse, even better.

Nope, I see you're still not wearing your big boy pants and need an example in order to believe it possible... yet if everyone listened to you, there'd never be any examples as we'd all be too busy looking for examples. You need big boy pants.

[bogan]

They're all doing something towards the same goal i.e. to live in an R.B.E. If they make it to Kibbutz level, then great. If they decide to go all the way to the whitehouse, even better.

Nope, I see you're still not wearing your big boy pants and need an example in order to believe it possible... yet if everyone listened to you, there'd never be any examples as we'd all be too busy looking for examples. You need big boy pants.

Kibbutz level, where are those examples then?

No, people like you are the reason there are no examples, too busy whining about a problem and tellings others to be the solution instead of being it yourself. I'll be the example I believe can work, why won't you?

[mashman]

No, it wouldn't. The poverty industry measures poverty as the percentage of population with income less than 60% of median income.

Which is bullshit of course, under that definition you could double everyone's net worth and not change poverty. The only way to reduce relative poverty is to reduce "income inequality", the “solution” is to tax people more and hand out more welfare. Classic socialism.

The problem they've got is that both relative AND absolute poverty has taken a very large and sustained drop in the last few decades, so they have to keep re-inventing poverty definitions to make their spiel even vaguely relevant.

Old socialist bullshit is getting old.

Yes, that's the poverty industry.

Lucky I'm not a socialist then.

No. The problem they've got is that the cost of living is rising faster than there is money available for those who need it. There are loads of reports around about it... you'd think people might make the rather obvious connection eh... but nah.

[mashman]

No, people like you are the reason there are no examples, too busy whining about a problem and tellings others to be the solution instead of being it yourself. I'll be the example I believe can work, why won't you?

I'm not the one insisting that it won't work.