There's tons of food.
People are starving.
There's tons of medicine.
People are dying from curable diseases.
There's millions of empty houses.
People are homeless.
Shit needs done.
People are unemployed.
There's a reason for this.
A perfectly simple reason.
We, both collectively and individually, are still stuck in a mindset that's a throwback to the first time two of our single-celled ancestors both tried to engulf the same particle - scarcity.
Yeah, I know - sacred cow but, fuck it, I went there. So, yeah, maybe our whole lives are centred around trying to collect whole bunch of rare and shiny metal and paper or (more recently) imaginary ones and zeros and, yeah, we use these to exchange for a whole bunch of "while stocks last" goods and services. It's been wired into our DNA since the very first cell division but, lets face it, it's bullshit.
Nature pitted us against ourselves and we evolved into insane, bald talking monkeys and, sure, back at the start beating the shit out of our fellow creatures and taking the food was the best way to proceed but, back then, historically speaking, we were competing with the likes of zebras and t-rex for a slice of the pie.
Not so much nowadays. Now the pie is sliced automatically, using solar powered uranium, all computer controlled and smart-phone friendly. Nowadays we're so efficient that we're producing surpluses of pretty much everything and then it has to be destroyed at the end of the day, just in case those differently coloured bald talking monkeys notice it's there and try to take some of their own, because we all know it's better to set perfectly good shit on fire than handing it out to people in desperate need of it.
FUCK 'EM - THEY DON'T HAVE THE BENJAMINS!
It's important that those people starve and those people die of curable diseases and it's important that those other people sleep in cardboard boxes. It truly is. Our government, our economy our very way of life depends on it. Because all of those things are based on scarcity. Limited resources. The whole thing would cease to make sense if it was glaringly fucking obvious that there is enough food for everyone.
Problem is, it IS glaringly fucking obvious. :argh!:
But we're all individuals now.
And everyone knows how individuals do against a system.
Divided we fail! :horrormirth:
Pretty much, yep.
We are members of a toxic form of society that has prospered due in part to its destructiveness and opportunism. There are other forms, and some of them are thriving, but we choose not to see those because we're so stuck on WE'RE #1!
Just 'cause the trains run on time doesnt mean we get the privilige to ride them.
Just 'cause we build the machine that builds the empire which centers around the trains running on time doesnt mean we are allowed the privilige to do more than look at them with wanton desire, flummoxed by their pristine and immaculate beauty.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 06, 2014, 07:21:44 PM
But we're all individuals now.
And everyone knows how individuals do against a system.
I take it you hate freedom?
Quote from: Alty on January 07, 2014, 12:03:08 AM
Just 'cause the trains run on time doesnt mean we get the privilige to ride them.
This needs something, Alty, and it will be the perfect newsfeed item.
Can't put my finger on it.
Quote from: 375 lbs of twisted steel and sex appeal on January 07, 2014, 01:37:47 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 06, 2014, 07:21:44 PM
But we're all individuals now.
And everyone knows how individuals do against a system.
I take it you hate freedom?
And I spend all my discretionary income on
communism.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 07, 2014, 08:08:46 PM
Quote from: Alty on January 07, 2014, 12:03:08 AM
Just 'cause the trains run on time doesnt mean we get the privilige to ride them.
This needs something, Alty, and it will be the perfect newsfeed item.
Can't put my finger on it.
Spellcheck?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 07, 2014, 08:15:15 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 07, 2014, 08:08:46 PM
Quote from: Alty on January 07, 2014, 12:03:08 AM
Just 'cause the trains run on time doesnt mean we get the privilige to ride them.
This needs something, Alty, and it will be the perfect newsfeed item.
Can't put my finger on it.
Spellcheck?
No, no, Alaska gets a pass on that. It just needs some tweaking.
Surfed onto this earlier (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzgVWpa4fzU) seems related.
Of course scarcity isn't entirely gone. Though that's part of the problem. Our monkey minds can't handle the idea that somethings are near infinite while simultaneously other things aren't.
Then since we think it makes sense to have systems for things that are scarce we then push the same model onto things that aren't.
If it weren't for scarcity and the ability to gather more monies would all these diseases be curable? Without profit would there be empty homes? Without ones and zeros floating from account to account would we have the technology to feed all these people?
The problem you describe could also be the cause of such surplus.
Would communists ever invented a computer? Even if they had what piss poor software would it have?
It's a valid question. My best guess (and that's all anybody's opinion is) is no.
I'm wondering if that's still the case. We're more sophisticated in this day and age. I reckon enough scientists might still want to science and enough mathematicians would still want to math.
Never know unless we try.
Quote from: Penumbral on January 09, 2014, 10:50:59 PM
If it weren't for scarcity and the ability to gather more monies would all these diseases be curable? Without profit would there be empty homes? Without ones and zeros floating from account to account would we have the technology to feed all these people?
The problem you describe could also be the cause of such surplus.
Would communists ever invented a computer? Even if they had what piss poor software would it have?
Throughout most of history, it was
not scarcity economics or capitalism which drove scientific innovation and invention. "Money" is merely a shorthand for "trade", not a shorthand for "Capitalism".
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 10, 2014, 10:30:19 PM
Quote from: Penumbral on January 09, 2014, 10:50:59 PM
If it weren't for scarcity and the ability to gather more monies would all these diseases be curable? Without profit would there be empty homes? Without ones and zeros floating from account to account would we have the technology to feed all these people?
The problem you describe could also be the cause of such surplus.
Would communists ever invented a computer? Even if they had what piss poor software would it have?
Throughout most of history, it was not scarcity economics or capitalism which drove scientific innovation and invention. "Money" is merely a shorthand for "trade", not a shorthand for "Capitalism".
Can't get my head around what you mean by this. Care to spell out for the slow readers? :eek:
Humans actually invent stuff because we can, methinks, because it's fun.
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 06, 2014, 11:11:04 PM
We are members of a toxic form of society that has prospered due in part to its destructiveness and opportunism. There are other forms, and some of them are thriving, but we choose not to see those because we're so stuck on WE'RE #1!
Yup
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 11, 2014, 10:11:01 AM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 10, 2014, 10:30:19 PM
Quote from: Penumbral on January 09, 2014, 10:50:59 PM
If it weren't for scarcity and the ability to gather more monies would all these diseases be curable? Without profit would there be empty homes? Without ones and zeros floating from account to account would we have the technology to feed all these people?
The problem you describe could also be the cause of such surplus.
Would communists ever invented a computer? Even if they had what piss poor software would it have?
Throughout most of history, it was not scarcity economics or capitalism which drove scientific innovation and invention. "Money" is merely a shorthand for "trade", not a shorthand for "Capitalism".
Can't get my head around what you mean by this. Care to spell out for the slow readers? :eek:
I'm not sure where to go with this... capitalism is an economic system, not the exchange of capital, if that makes sense?
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 12, 2014, 04:12:34 PM
I'm not sure where to go with this... Smith M111
capitalism is | a recording of prices dP/dT (http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=%5eGDAXI&t=5d&q=c&l=on&z=l&a=r14&lang=en-US®ion=US)
an economic system, | Not who begat who |OR who was slain by whom
not the exchange of capital, | not sure about this point.
if that makes sense? || 1/2ยข ||| bac2river crossings } if U can }} & ?/?
If I understand Nigel/Hirley correctly, "money" is an agreed-upon surrogate for wealth, trancending the pure barter system.
Capitalism is an economic system where the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits in a market economy.
You don't need Capitalism in order to use money... although, can you have Capitalism without using money?
You could have capitalism without money, but only until some asshole on wall street invented it.
Money is a way to "prove" you deserve to own the things you buy. In theory, you get money by virtue of being productive; therefore, if you have money it can be reasonably expected that you have contributed enough to society to warrant your ownership of whatever it is you're buying. This of course has nothing to do with capitalism, because money has functioned this way forever, and it works the same way under capitalism as under socialism or any other economic system.
Of all the economic systems I am familiar with, capitalism would probably be the easiest system under which to eliminate (or fundamentally change) money. Not that that would be a good thing. It's actually been done many times in the past - the "company store" model where you are paid not in universally recognized money but in credit which you can use to subsist on things the Company provides at a Company-endorsed outlet. It's still technically money in that it limits your consumption to a level justified by your labor, but it isn't really money because you're not free to use it to buy anything anywhere with it. Also you can't go to heaven, because you end up owing your soul to the company store. There's a song about that.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 13, 2014, 04:18:29 PM
If I understand Nigel/Hirley correctly, "money" is an agreed-upon surrogate for wealth, trancending the pure barter system.
Capitalism is an economic system where the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits in a market economy.
You don't need Capitalism in order to use money... although, can you have Capitalism without using money?
I prefer the definition in the Free Disctionary:
QuoteAn economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
"privately or corporately owned", "accumulation and reinvestment of profit, and "free market" are all key elements. "Free" meaning "unregulated", and in the minds of many capitalists, untaxed.