My first poll for the NZ public

[Woodman]

Not quite correct. The reward will have changed. If we don't work, yes I include me coming out of retirement, then none of us get anything because no one will produce anything. I'd love to know how people not working will be able to live much more of a high life than they already do? What are you going to lose? or is it just the principle of the thing and to hell with the consequences of what that system produces as outcomes? ya know, why would you prefer to cut your, and everyone else in the country's, nose off to spite your, our, face? I have an insult prepared and I want to use it

What I was meaning was that in your system everything is free whether you work (put in an effort) or not (put in no effort). At least in the one we have now if you do fuck all you generally get fuck all. Human nature being what it is, if you see someone sunning themselves on the beach and holidaying all the time while you sluice sewerage at the ponds for 10 hours a day then your work ethic is probarbly not going to be that good. Like I say the work/reward system is ass backwards. There needs to be a consequence for lazy fuckers.

[mashman]

What I was meaning was that in your system everything is free whether you work (put in an effort) or not (put in no effort). At least in the one we have now if you do fuck all you generally get fuck all. Human nature being what it is, if you see someone sunning themselves on the beach and holidaying all the time while you sluice sewerage at the ponds for 10 hours a day then your work ethic is probarbly not going to be that good. Like I say the work/reward system is ass backwards. There needs to be a consequence for lazy fuckers.

Oh I get what you mean, as the capitalist pig in me is still strong... and yes, I have thought of certain ways to curtail "bludging". Human nature? So I'm not human then? I know that there are people doing very well out of doing fuck all. I lived in among the "lazy" for 6 years, ironically after living in a millionaire household for 7 years, and they do not do fuck all for the most part, not the adults anyway. I could have quite easily adopted the practices that they were willing to share and contributed to their market. They were easy, no one would know etc... yet I didn't. Human nature? Given that those I lived among did holiday etc... and given that there were also others in the street who worked legally, there was a remarkable lack of us and them. Human nature? Nah, a lack of understanding and a deep seated need to tell others what they are and aren't allowed to have.

Like I said earlier. Give the "lazy" hat they want, coz that will allow the rest of us, who want "better" things for society, to focus on that instead of wasting resources (inc money) on policing those "we" deem unworthy of having stuff, that they'll get by hook or crook anyway, based on perceived contribution. There is more than enough to go around, and the "lazy" (adults) quite often aren't. A bitter pill to swallow perhaps, but not swallowing it is fucking our future.

[Ocean1]

Sounds like the taxation system. Yup, Communism.

I understand Communism fine thanks. Gunpoint never suited, so I went for RBE instead which gives rise to open source economics and completely free markets. Something I know you'd like to see, but you want it to work using money, and by the sounds of things guns too

Taxation is communism, now?

Well certainly voting yourself more of the public purse than you contributed is pretty close.

Probably as close as anyone wants to come who's actually produced more than they've used.

And no, a free market doesn't include anyone that isn't buying or selling. Not even if they have a funny hat and a big gun.

PS: I reckon you can learn a lot about open source economics from watching some of NZ's team sports.

[Brian d marge]

So it does.

So where the fuck are those links you claim I’ve posted before?

Actually, don’t bother, you’ve just demonstrated you’re not actually capable of following your own instructions let alone conduct any sort of coherent discourse.

Originally Posted by Ocean1 What limits resource availability is the production of resources. Work. Effort. Negative entropy. Unless someone produces it it don't exist. Money is simply the unit of measuring negative entropy, as valued by the majority of society. 17th December 2014, 16:19 post number 4592 of stupid world

this one

its colored crayons time .... As I said I had never used the words neg entropy ... YOU had ..off I went and did a quick search and there ya go .....


So now we have established you're Blind and stupid ... Scared, and your sexual relationship with ya mom are the only ones left to positively determine .

Now as for entropy and the links. Please at least read the fking things before u post em. ... Mr Roegen had to invent a 4th law ... to explain the use of entropy and the use of entropy was from from an even earlier discussion on General systems theory was originally proposed by biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy in 1928 if I remember correctly.

anyway SCIENCE DONT WORK LIKE THAT ...... SO Roegen was using entropy as an analogy an analogy to explain the movement of the hidden hand generating economic velocity but as You honestly have NO CLUE what you're talking about .... but at least ya posting links now , thats a giant leap that must have been distressing

but hey feel free to bluster and generate web traffic if it makes u feel better

hey ho

[mashman]

Taxation is communism, now?

Well certainly voting yourself more of the public purse than you contributed is pretty close.

Probably as close as anyone wants to come who's actually produced more than they've used.

And no, a free market doesn't include anyone that isn't buying or selling. Not even if they have a funny hat and a big gun.

PS: I reckon you can learn a lot about open source economics from watching some of NZ's team sports.

Has there ever been a tax rate of 100%?

A free market is without rule or regulation. Ergo, it includes everyone and excludes no one. Else it ain't a free market.

PS: quite possibly... well, the ones that aren't paid .

[Ocean1]

Originally Posted by Ocean1 What limits resource availability is the production of resources. Work. Effort. Negative entropy. Unless someone produces it it don't exist. Money is simply the unit of measuring negative entropy, as valued by the majority of society. 17th December 2014, 16:19 post number 4592 of stupid world

this one

Yes. That's not actually either of the links I posted.

Is it?

It's a post I made years ago discussing the same thing.

A comment which, knowing fuck all about economic entropy you violently disagreed with.

So now you've had two opportunities to learn about it, and have completely fucked up both of them.

Now fuck off, I've wasted enough time on you.

[Ocean1]

Has there ever been a tax rate of 100%?

A free market is without rule or regulation. Ergo, it includes everyone and excludes no one. Else it ain't a free market.

PS: quite possibly... well, the ones that aren't paid .

Only in communist economies.

Got a reference for that definition of a free market? Only, it's more or less the exact opposite to everyone else's: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/free-market

No, the opposite, if anything. But I don't think pay is actually relevant, it's just that typical Kiwi high performance units tend to pull resources from a wider range of sources and entities, and they generate product few other groups manage, regardless of budget.

NZ's sailing industry is a classic example. The competition elements and the manufacturing elements.

[Brian d marge]

Yes. That's not actually either of the links I posted.

Is it?

It's a post I made years ago discussing the same thing.

A comment which, knowing fuck all about economic entropy you violently disagreed with.

So now you've had two opportunities to learn about it, and have completely fucked up both of them.

Now fuck off, I've wasted enough time on you.

youre trolling right?

Shall I walk you through it ? I can even color the difficult bits

go on let me walk you through it , .... Not that I enjoy making people look stupid but in your case, I have time ( time thats not wasted )

unlike his lordship , wasting time on us peasants ... yes sir thank you sir , doffs his hat in deference......

[mashman]

Only in communist economies.

Got a reference for that definition of a free market? Only, it's more or less the exact opposite to everyone else's: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/free-market

No, the opposite, if anything. But I don't think pay is actually relevant, it's just that typical Kiwi high performance units tend to pull resources from a wider range of sources and entities, and they generate product few other groups manage, regardless of budget.

NZ's sailing industry is a classic example. The competition elements and the manufacturing elements.

Is France communist then?

Oh irony. Shit naming convention to hide what it actually is eh. Ok, I'll call yours a self regulated market from now on, and mine can be a pure market.

@elements. Elements does no the same thing make... but I get your point.

[Ocean1]

Is France communist then?

Oh irony. Shit naming convention to hide what it actually is eh. Ok, I'll call yours a self regulated market from now on, and mine can be a pure market.

@elements. Elements does no the same thing make... but I get your point.

If they tax their people 100% then yes. Obviously. That's what defines communism: state control of all resources. In fact most people probably equate level of personal and corporate tax with the degree of government communist traits.

Why not call it what it is: a market free from outside interference, that's what it is, and that's why convention calls it a free market. The meaning doesn't change just 'cause you don't like it.

Elements of the industry are exactly what they are though, so again why not call then what they are?

And unless you've worked with the industry at an international level then you probably don't get the point. Which is that it's an example of how a market that is too small to work under classic, accepted employment models can be made to work very successfully by instead simply rewarding individual contributors according to the value of their particular contribution.

[mashman]

If they tax their people 100% then yes. Obviously. That's what defines communism: state control of all resources.

Why not call it what it is: a market free from outside interference, that's what it is, and that's why convention calls it a free market. The meaning doesn't change just 'cause you don't like it.

Elements of the industry are exactly what they are though, so again why not call then what they are?

And unless you've worked with the industry at an international level then you probably don't get the point. Which is that it's an example of how a market that is too small to work under classic, accepted employment models can be made to work very successfully by instead simply rewarding individual contributors according to the value of their particular contribution.

heh... it only applies to the really rich in France. The state owns all resources though.

Yeah, but you still want some controls in place don't you? I'm merely looking for terms that make the distinction in lieu of the free market only referring to free from govt interference. Also, I've seen "self regulated" used by economists making it clearer what that Free actually means... hence it's not my term.

I agree, elements are what they are... but they're only elements, not the whole. Which is why I said that I get your point. Virtually every market system contains elements of other market systems... even in pure or self regulated markets.

Yeah, I get how it's supposed to work.

[Ocean1]

heh... it only applies to the really rich in France. The state owns all resources though.

Yeah, but you still want some controls in place don't you? I'm merely looking for terms that make the distinction in lieu of the free market only referring to free from govt interference. Also, I've seen "self regulated" used by economists making it clearer what that Free actually means... hence it's not my term.

I agree, elements are what they are... but they're only elements, not the whole. Which is why I said that I get your point. Virtually every market system contains elements of other market systems... even in pure or self regulated markets.

Yeah, I get how it's supposed to work.

Hmmm, according to this: https://www.easycalculation.com/tax/france.php my tax in France would be slightly less than it is here. And that's including social security, which somehow is effectively still mine, should I need it. And if they own all resources then how come I can buy a house there?

Yes. I don't want people selling shit that's not theirs, that was obtained illegally or that's dangerous. All functions of governance. Outside of that, if you're not the buyer or the seller you get to fuck off. In which case markets are, in fact self regulating in terms of price whereas no other sort of market is.

Well actually the boating production element of the industry here IS the whole boat building industry. I was simply pointing out that it's successful here in a way that can't / doesn't work elsewhere. So changing that would likely fuch the whole industry good and proper.

And the competitive element is the boat racing industry, which also works here in a way that doesn't overseas. In fact rather a lot of overseas racing technology IS NZ technology, which they wouldn't have if NZ had bothered patenting it. We don't bother simply because the way you succeed in that type of competition is not to protect your technology but to always be developing better technology.

A model you're only ever going to beat by either being more innovative or by applying 10 times the budget, and only then very briefly.

[mashman]

Hmmm, according to this: https://www.easycalculation.com/tax/france.php my tax in France would be slightly less than it is here. And that's including social security, which somehow is effectively still mine, should I need it. And if they own all resources then how come I can buy a house there?

Yes. I don't want people selling shit that's not theirs, that was obtained illegally or that's dangerous. All functions of governance. Outside of that, if you're not the buyer or the seller you get to fuck off. In which case markets are, in fact self regulating in terms of price whereas no other sort of market is.

A model you're only ever going to beat by either being more innovative or by applying 10 times the budget, and only then very briefly.

Fuck off then. Au revoir. It was reported that several thousand households were taxed over 100% a couple of years ago. You buy the lease, not the house. Any govt can take what you class as your property from you without batting an eyelid should they choose. In other words, you own nothing... in fact you go to the govt justice department to settle disputes over asset "ownership". Who are they to decide if they are not the owner?

Ironic that so many are scared of RBE because they believe that force will be used to keep people to rule... especially when they want regulations to enforce who should get what

10 times the budget eh? RBE makes the budget limitless. Consider the model beaten!

[husaberg]

Fuck off then. Au revoir. It was reported that several thousand households were taxed over 100% a couple of years ago. You buy the lease, not the house. Any govt can take what you class as your property from you without batting an eyelid should they choose. In other words, you own nothing... in fact you go to the govt justice department to settle disputes over asset "ownership". Who are they to decide if they are not the owner?

Ironic that so many are scared of RBE because they believe that force will be used to keep people to rule... especially when they want regulations to enforce who should get what

10 times the budget eh? RBE makes the budget limitless. Consider the model beaten!

You might want to investigate who why and for how long and how many they were taxed so highly.

More than 8,000 French households' tax bills topped 100 percent of their income in 2012, according to a French newspaper report.
"In 2011, 5,221 households had a tax rate of more than 100 percent on their revenues, Some 6,203 households had a rate of more than 85 percent and 6,343 house holds a rate of more than 75 percent," the newspaper said but households could take advantage of a "tax shield" introduced by Sarkozy to cap an individual's overall taxation at 50 percent of their income.
Last year, for the first time in 25 years, Les Echos reported, that cap was removed which "substantially increased [the tax rates'] impact."
Citing data from France's finance ministry, the business newspaper Les Echos reported on Friday that in addition to those taxed at over 100 percent last year, almost 12,000 households paid taxes worth more than 75 percent of their 2011 income and that a further 9,910 households were taxed at more than 85 percent of their income. (France has 25,253,000 households)
The paper said this was due to a one-off levy imposed on the 2011 incomes of households with assets of more than 1.3 million euros ($1.67 million). The surcharge was introduced by socialist President Francois Hollande in an attempt to offset the cost of a rebate scheme and taxation cap introduced by former President Nikolas Sarkozy, the paper added.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100749491

[Ocean1]

Fuck off then. Au revoir. It was reported that several thousand households were taxed over 100% a couple of years ago. You buy the lease, not the house.

What report?

And there's no such thing as a freehold house in France?

Any govt can take what you class as your property from you without batting an eyelid should they choose. In other words, you own nothing... in fact you go to the govt justice department to settle disputes over asset "ownership". Who are they to decide if they are not the owner?

According to what law can they assume ownership of my shit?

And the justice department can rule against the established law now, can it?

Sounds like more bullshit to me.

10 times the budget eh? RBE makes the budget limitless. Consider the model beaten!

Yeah? Try telling any industry that an economy without money makes for a limitless budget.

An RBE makes the budget zero, fool.