#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Yes.
Side Score: 104
|
 |
No.
Side Score: 84
|
|
Absolutely. Moreover, I think we should just cut to the chase and bring back slavery for everyone who just hasn't had the breaks that a good many of us get just by virtue of the circumstances of our births. I believe that if for whatever reason you end up an unfortunate you should be punished by society in whatever way it deems suitable. Any monies we can invest in human beings is a bloody waste--well, unless you're from the upper classes, in which case I believe you should be able to milk the system; steal from the poor and declining middle class while giving them short shrift. I think that welfare should begin at the top--like what's actually going on right now--fully supported by the sheeple who will wake up one of these days in the not too distant future and wonder, WTF, WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED?!!!! Ooopsies, ya should have been paying attention and helping out those who couldn't help themselves--and now YOU are one of THEM. Alas, you too have been royally screwed. Welcome to the club--the very big, non-exclusive club of the minions. Don't ever give a guy a break. Punish and deprive instead. Only way to go to keep us on the road to inevitable self annhilation. Yeah, go ahead and abolish that pesky minimum wage.........notwithstanding that a minimum wage has never ever been enough to bring others on board to a liveable existence. Side: Yes.
The minimum wage is one if the biggest causes, if not the biggest cause, of unemployment. It is illogical, discriminatory, and deceitful. What the law says is that unless your marketable skillset is worth above a certain amount, you cannot have a job. It appalls me that one can work for free, but if they want to be paid, cannot work for below a $7.50. It is likely the biggest barrier preventing the unemployed from finding a job. Side: Yes.
That was the purpose, yes. And by forcing people who cannot find labor under the minimum wage to be unemployed, how exactly does it fulfill that purpose? Yemen assuming they are paid more for their services, what happens is because businesses are forced to pay people more than their skills are worth, prices go up. This creates an endless cycle: Minimum wage increased - cost of living rises - minimum wage is insufficient - minimum wage increased Side: No.
1
point
That is not fair, it boosts their pay if they manage to get a job so that they're not just being payed a couple dollars for an hour of hard labor. If we abolish minimum wage the poor will be taken advantage of and exploited because of their delicate financial standings. Side: No.
This something I have to disagree with you on. Minimum wage makes it so people won't so people get a decent enough pay to live off of. If there wasn't a minimum wage an employer could easily give someone a penny an hour without it. You could work all day, every day, something that's impossible, and only make $168 a week. That's not enough to live on. And most people who are unemployed are that way because their own fault. If you applied EVERYWHERE in your town that pays minimum wage you are going to get a job eventually. The only excuse if you have a handicap preventing you from working. Side: No.
Minimum wage makes it so people won't so people get a decent enough pay to live off of. It ensures that people whose work is less valuable than the minimum wage don't go unemployed. It also makes sure that people aren't payed more than their labor is worth, making business more efficient and lowering costs. If there wasn't a minimum wage an employer could easily give someone a penny an hour without it. If a business was offering only a penny and hour, no one would accept the contract. Employers need labor to carry out their business. The free market competition between employers would raise wages. If company X is offering more than Y, Y will have to raise wages to acquire necessary labor. - Why don't we just raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour? Then everyone wouldn't have any financial problems. The market doesn't work that way. Cost of goods would increase, employment would decrease. Side: Yes.
1
point
First off, wealth is intertwined to the purchasing power of the people in general, so if they are unable to purchase the products, the company will have to reduce prices in order to make a sale. Paying people a penny is not going to be the wisest choice in that regard, since it is going to become progressively harder to make a profit.
Secondly, what I find with people who are unemployed is that the system for getting them a job is beyond their control, usually impeded by the internal politics and/or HR department and/or the hiring manger of the employing association or because they will never know if it is something to do with the resume or their appearance. And you really shouldn't be applying everywhere in your town in the first place because you're qualifications are not likely to match up and you are just making it difficult for the organization in question to find the right person because now they are burdened with even more paperwork or E-mails, paper and/or broadband which could have been put to better use finding the right candidate. Side: Yes.
1
point
It also restricts the how many skill sets are below that amount, by restricting the level of competition by creating a price floor in products. So instead of companies lowering wages in a market with plenty of labor competition in order to lower prices and thus be comptitive, they have to go more long term and invest in capital instead. Depending on who the product is sold to, this could be very good for the working class since the same number will be employed at a living wage(instead of below one). This assumes an economy which is doing well. The minimum wage helps to increase actualizatible demand, making the lower classes more of a viable market, and may allow for even more jobs due to that. Consider the food service worker which spends the equivlant of 2 hours of his time on, well having his food served to him. He may make 7 dollars an hour making pizzas, and spend 2 on eating one. He is much more unlikely to spend 6 on eating one. The minimum wage has a very wide and diverse set of effects, and in a complex market, can not be simply analyse. Side: No.
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Precisely, triangular intervention is the main cause for unemployment via unions, licenses and minimum wage among others, and minimum wage creates surpluses, so many unskilled labor of $7.50 will be unemployed for years and some a lifetime whereas binary intervention just makes everyone poorer due to the misallocation of resources. Unfortunately, there is an push by Democrats for an increase in the minimum wage upwards as much as $9.80. My question is if minimum wage makes economic sense, then why are these legislatures so cheap, why not push the minimum wage up to $100? Well, nobody would be employed even those at the top? Side: Yes.
Actually, I agree that minimum wage is a cause of unemployment. It is one of the reasons all jobs are shipped off overseas. However, it is corporate greed and government compliance (as well as a governmental push) that allows these jobs to move out of the country. Many of these countries have a much lower cost of living, as well. In my opinion, $7.xx per hour, in this country, is equivalent to slave labour - yet you would have people working for less? Side: No.
Employees earning higher real wages is great. It's a sign of economic advancement. Therefore, we should artificially force employers to pay their employees more... right? Wrong. It's a common fallacy amongst the economically illiterate that you can force an economy into prosperity by manipulating the market so that it resembles a more prosperous economy. What these people don't understand is that a "poor" (laissez-faire) economy isn't actually "poor" economy, it's an "opportunity" economy. That is, because competition is low and demand is high, the door is open for many new entrepreneurs to meet that demand, each trying to "one-up" the other in terms of price and/or quality until equilibrium is more-or-less met, thus inciting an era of economic prosperity. By avidly fighting to skip the "poor" economy stage, you're foolishly skipping over opportunity for actual growth to make way for artificial growth which will inevitably lead to economic regression when investors and employers start to catch on that the market isn't actually as good as this artificial growth would have them think. In the case of the minimum wage, this manifests itself in unemployment as many people whose product of their labour is now worth less than their labour, requiring employers to fire employees and both overwork and over pay a select few employees. Everybody losses, but it looks good on paper, and that's all that matters, right? Right?... Side: Yes.
2
points
Minimum wage forces employers to pay their workers more which dose a few things, first they have to lay off some of their workers because they can't afford to hire them, second now that they have to pay more for their workers they have to raise the price of goods. It makes the amount of jobs go down and prices go up, over time it evens out and everything will go back to normal, there will be the same amount of workers but prices will still be higher than they were before, but because of the inflation minimum wage created, they will seem reasonable. So it causes job loss, higher prices and inflation. Abolish it. Side: Yes.
2
points
Raising the minimum wage will not get people more money. It will decrease jobs, and force companies to pay more for their employees, which will cause them to also raise the price of their porduct or service, so the end result will end up being a big cycle of inflation. This is something we have already experienced to an extent, and getting rid of the minimum wage will only help. It will create many more low-paying jobs, which can be used as a starting point of good experience. Every job is not meant to support a family, and raising the minimum wage will not change that, nor will it allow every job to support a family, because as I said before it will only result in a cycle of inflation. Side: Yes.
Apollo's arguments help explain the problem it brings to the impoverished, so I'll go at it from another angle: Small businesses, truly small, can not thrive as long as minimum wage exists. Big business will not likely hire nor lower the current wages of employees if minimum wage were abolished. In the interests of big business, things will pretty much be the same. The only differences will come to light once a new generation of employments starts to rise, such as 10 years later when a business needs to hire new people for various tasks. They will make decisions on whom to hire for how much and for what purpose. Where the immediate results come in is for small businesses that are starting off. As simple as someone who creates a small market no larger than your living room. One the issue of employment, they will have to decide who to hire and for what costs. They could hire 3 employees for 3 dollars and hour each, or they could hire only one employee at 7.50 and hour. With minimum wage out of the way, the small business owner will be able to have more employment at a lower cost, making sure that the costs of his business will result in profit. If labor is cheap, the small business owner can hire more labor to help out with the business, resulting, if the business provides what the consumer wants, in more profit. This will, of course, have the business have more money to expand his/her business and to hire more labor. Depending on the job criteria and how much this labor is worth the business owner, (s)he will be able to give higher wages and more employment. A minimum wage pretty much sets the costs of labor to a minimum of what the minimum wage is. An employer will then have to make all labor decisions based on the fact that he needs to buy 7.50 worth of labor, which can often result in less labor. Side: Yes.
1
point
Minimum wage makes it illegal to hire people who produce less than the arbitrarily set wage control. What's worse, it means that those people who are now priced out of the market have no income, can't find a job, and then resort to welfare. A monumental hypocrisy then results. The same people who said it was immoral and therefore illegal to work for less than a given wage, then pay these people far less than this wage in welfare, to do contribute nothing to the economy, all at the expense of the taxpayer. You want jobs, get rid of minimum wage. Side: Yes.
yes,i think the minimum wages should be abolidhed. as you know government issure certain laws to protect worker' wages. some private companies,contractors normally want to make as much profit as they can.in the drive for profit,they might deny workers their rights and not pay them wages. this is wrong.if any worker badly need work,worker having no bargaining power and his bose paid low wages.so you tell this wrong.... Side: Yes.
Yes, it should be abolished. Let the market place work itself out. However, with that being said, be careful what you wish for. If people cant afford a place to live or have enough money for food or health care then the government will step in and help the less fortunate out. You would be naive to think that such a wealthy country like the USA wont help the poor. This will be achieved through higher taxes on companys' and the wealthy. Do you really think if a company is making millions or billions of dollars a year and paying some of their employees $5.00 an hour they wont get nailed one way or the other. The best way to achieve a strong economy is through liveable wages for a majority of its citizens. Side: Yes.
1
point
1
point
(minimum wage should be abolished. I do not understand why it says 'no' at the bottom) Why isn't minimum wage $1,000,000 ? Why not grant a millionaire salary for everyone? Why can't we all be millionaires? It's because most of us cannot produce at that level. Therefore, unemployment will be near 100%. So then, it's not the wage that comes first, it is the labor. We first ask, how productive is the labor THEN we price it. Price never comes first. If the labor is unproductive, then the wage will fall. Minimum wage is a price control on labor and the most unproductive people, will be laid off. Precisely the people it was meant to help. But who does it really help? It helps the ones already employed in senior levels. They don't have to worry about people coming onto their turf and lowering their salary via supply and demand. It's the same thing with licenses, it shifts the supply line to the left, thus raising prices (and their salaries). Labor unions always love minimum wages, but they understand, they cannot raise the minimum wage too much, otherwise, free market forces will just lay them off later, or the company will be overcome by labor costs and forced to go out of business, laying off EVERYONE. Side: Yes.
|
3
points
The minimum wage is the simplest and most effective form of collective bargaining. If there was no minimum wage, then the millions of people who can produce a service or good valued at minimum wage would all be in competition as to who can offer the lower price. Wages would be sticky downward, and would get lower and lower and lower. Yes, this would mean that all people are employed. However, a substantial amount would be earning wages less than at the minimum wage. Those with money are those with power in such a situation, which I do not agree with. I believe that only through mass collective bargaining, a minimum wage, will all those who can produce at equal or greater value to the minimum wage be paid a fair deal. Remember that for all those who work at less, there are substantial benefits systems in most developed economies. They therefore have time to either look for a job where they can produce at minimum wage, or to increase their skillset until they can. Without benefits, I would agree that the minimum wage would put people into poverty for unjust reasons, however with it, I feel that it is the best way to protect the largest amount of people from unfair payment practices. Side: No.
You seem to be arguing that in the absence of a minimum wage, wages would decreased with competition. This is were I think I whoops point out a key distinction. - The competition will result in the increase in wages if the demand for workers outstrips the supply. This is the ideal situation. If the supply of jobs is lower than the demand for them, yes, people will compete for LOWER wages. But this is a vast improvement over an economy with a minimum wage. With a minimum wage, if you are no longer economical to employ at above minimum wage, you are fired. Plain and simple. If there is no minimum wage, you can simply work for less. I don't think you will argue that taking a pay cut is better than unemployment. Side: Yes.
3
points
The competition will result in the increase in wages if the demand for workers outstrips the supply. This is the ideal situation. Again, I still disagree. Even in cases where there is great demand for workers than supply, there is a much great magnitude of demand (not in economic terms) for the job from the worker, than the employer. They will be much more desperate, and therefore if the employee offers the job for less than the going market rate, many workers will happily accept. You have to remember that the world is not ideal, people are not all knowing, and they cannot refuse to work simply because they aren't being offered enough. Employers are motivated by self interest, yes? Logically, they should want to pay the minimum amount for workers as possible. In any situation (even where demand outstrips supply), there will be cyclical unemployment, therefore willing and able workers with no jobs. If an employer offers these people lower than market rate wages, will they accept or not? Even if an employer gives all of his current workers a wage cut, many will take it. Other employers take note, and they too reduce their rates. It is much simpler for collective bargaining to happen on behalf of the employers, as there is significantly less of them, than on behalf of the workers. Therefore I believe that only by having a minimum wage will this sort of behaviour be prevented. If there is no minimum wage, you can simply work for less. I don't think you will argue that taking a pay cut is better than unemployment. This is a necessary evil. I agree that it would be better if employees had the opportunity to work for less, but I do not see how they can have this freedom without it being abused by employers. Side: No.
Even in cases where there is great demand for workers than supply, there is a much great magnitude of demand (not in economic terms) for the job from the worker, than the employer. The two are inseparable and inherently bound to each other. The increase in demand for labor necessitates an increase in demand for laborers. You have to remember that the world is not ideal, people are not all knowing, and they cannot refuse to work simply because they aren't being offered enough. Indeed they can. And if another employer is offering more, they likely will. Employers are motivated by self interest, yes? Logically, they should want to pay the minimum amount for workers as possible. Yes. But the greater the demand for workers, the higher this amount is. And adding a minimum wage doesn't solve it. A minimum wage simply forces employers to A) Work at a loss/tiny profit margin and cause cost of their products/services to go up for everyone B) to reduce their employment because they can't afford to pay all their workers minimum wage, especially if the work they do doesn't justify such a pay. - Here's the point again: When demand for labor outstrips the supply of laborers, wages will go up. One piece of evidence for this is the case of the BLACK DEATH. When it swept across Europe, massive portions of the population died. This results in the a decrease in the supply of labor. What happened? Income per capita shot up as wages INCREASED. - This is a necessary evil. I agree that it would be better if employees had the opportunity to work for less, but I do not see how they can have this freedom without it being abused by employers. There is no empirical evidence that this abuse occurs in the absence of a minimum wage. Side: Yes.
1
point
You have to remember that the world is not ideal, people are not all knowing, and they cannot refuse to work simply because they aren't being offered enough. But what if all employees are offering low wages? Not because of low supply/high demand, but because of collusive behaviour, abusive wage tactics, or misinformation. That's part of what the minimum wage is there to prevent. Work at a loss/tiny profit margin and cause cost of their products/services to go up for everyone I see no major problem with this. John Rawls' theory of justice incorporates the idea of maximin: all inequalities must benefit those least advantaged in society. A minimum wage (arguably) benefits the least advantaged, therefore is justified. To reduce their employment because they can't afford to pay all their workers minimum wage, especially if the work they do doesn't justify such a pay. Agreed. This I can only justify with social security, along with training to increase skills and other such things to help them get back into employment. One piece of evidence for this is the case of the BLACK DEATH. This simply proves that supply and demand have an affect on each other. I'm not debating this. I'm saying that government intervention is justified on the grounds that it can benefit the worst off in society. There is no empirical evidence that this abuse occurs in the absence of a minimum wage. That's because there are very few countries with no minimum wage (are there any?). But it's only common sense that employees would try and pay the lowest price that they can for the work that they get, or else they are irrational and the entire free market is potentially broken. And that would force some people to take these jobs. Considering that at the current minimum wage in America, people working 40 hour weeks can still often earn significantly less than a typical 'living wage' - the cost of food & living & other general costs, unique to each city. In some cities, people would have to work over 120 hours a week to earn this. So yes, I would consider that empirical evidence that abuse occurs regardless of minimum wage. There's also no empirical evidence that abolishing the minimum wage would reduce unemployment. There is no country that has proposed such a motion in the recent recession, or even to lower it. That should be somewhat telling. Side: No.
Wages would be sticky downward? What? Are honestly trying to argue that people will willingly work for less than the market rate? If one's wage goes down after the abolishment of the minimum wage, it's because they were being over-paid, not because of reverse-sticky-wages. Their wage stops dropping once economic equilibrium is met and unless you're advocating a labour theory of value (if you are then good luck to you...) I don't see how you can argue that the market rate is "unfair". Side: Yes.
3
points
Are honestly trying to argue that people will willingly work for less than the market rate? Yes. I don't see why this is so surprising. I've lived in India for over 3 years. Every single day, I saw people living in absolute poverty, 8 people in a slum, sharing beds, lucky if they had electricity, or any form of stable income. I can say with absolute certainty that if I asked them to do a job at a below market rate, they willingly do it, and be thankful for how lucky they are. This is why a minimum wage should be based on the productive capabilities of people, so that it allows businesses to hire almost everyone profitably, with the rest supported by social security methods, or trained into higher potential. If one's wage goes down after the abolishment of the minimum wage, it's because they were being over-paid, not because of reverse-sticky-wages. Why? If the minimum wage was abolished tomorrow, I am fairly sure that many employers would cut rates. The current workers are profitable at minimum wage. The minimum wage is there to protect workers from being forced into lower rates than they need to a) survive & b) deserve for their work. Their wage stops dropping once economic equilibrium is met No, their wages stops going down when they can't live on those wages. If suddenly, all minimum wage jobs went down to 3 dollars an hour, what choice would those workers have but to accept this huge pay drop? Could they go somewhere else? Could they refuse, and wait until wages went up? No, they would starve and die if they listened to your logic. Low paid workers do not have the economic freedoms that your logic assumes that they do, they cannot go somewhere else, they do not have time to look for more jobs, they cannot collectively agree at a certain wage. This is why things like minimum wages are there to protect these workers from abusive employment. Side: No.
India has minimum wage laws too. So what you're telling me is that you saw rampant unemployment and poverty in a country with a minimum wage and therefore concluded that the minimum wage is good? Okay... Furthermore, If supply is high and demand is low, then price will naturally drop. Whatever it drops to is the market rate. If every interaction is voluntary, then whatever the cost comes to equilibrium at is, by definition, the market rate. If that rate happens to be shitty due to an over-abundance of workers, then that's where the market is. The current workers are only profitable at minimum wage because either barriers-to-entry have been put in place to allow the larger companies to raise prices without fear of competition or because they've decided to be under-staffed to cut costs. Whatever the market rate is is what they deserve for their labour. How exactly are you defining value to mean something else? Are you a marxist? You know, if you're hiring at $3 an hour and as a result there is a surplus of workers who don't want to work for you, I can start hiring at $4 an hour and expand my company while yours stagnates, thus running you out of business. This process will continue until the workers are being paid near the same rate as the product of their labour. Problem solved What is someone's PoL is only $3.5 an hour? Then that job will be filled by people with low human capital, such as teens entering the workforce who don't even need a living wage. And since the wage is now at the market rate, the company can afford to hire more people, thus making the populace more wealthy overall. Problem solved again. Side: Yes.
This shouldn't even be a question. If there was no minimum wage do you think companies would pay at least reasonable amount to their employees, so they could have a decent life? Maybe a few but not the majority, it would literally be slavery, or even worse. There is more than enough money to pay triple the current minimum wages, globally. The only reason why it isn't so is greed. The easiest jobs (washing dishes, simple cleaning, simple physical jobs, etc.) should guarantee a decent wage (8-10 hours a day) per person. That means getting enough money for food, clothes, rent, also some money left over for hobbies and leisure time. No luxuries. That is not how it currently is; it already is part slavery. Side: No.
The problem is, if the minimum wage is higher than the market value of these "easy jobs", then many people will go unemployed in order for the employee's labour to be profitable. Unless you contend that people will willingly work for free, slavery won't happen. Hell, if it's voluntary, then it isn't slavery by definition anyway so you can put that fear to rest. Companies will pay the market rate. Competition amongst employers guarantees this as whoever is willing to pay the highest wage will get the most employees. Side: Yes.
If money is the means of acquiring sustenance, as it mostly is, then abolishing minimum wage would lead to slavery. Companies make the market, they determine the prices. Governments put taxes on them, increasing the prices. The outcome is that you might have enough money for food but nothing will be left for clothes, hygiene, and all else. Companies pay as much as they want, without minimum wage that would mostly be not enough to have even a barely decent life (as it already is with the current minimum wages). While the companies have more than enough money to pay triple the amount of a minimum wage. It is simple greed and obsession with money. Hoarding anything you will not use is just pointless, that is what most companies do. They hoard money they will never even use. Companies are far more eager to hire someone who asks the smallest income. Competition is for the smallest pay, and the longest work hours, if you want the job. Side: No.
Absolutely companies want the best workers they can find for the lowest wage, but if they aren't willing to pay said worker near the same rate as the product of their labour, then they've left room open for their competition to swoop in, offer a higher wage, and steal their employees. When things are allowed to rest at the market rate, companies are price takers, not price makers. Side: Yes.
Absolutely companies want the best workers they can find for the lowest wage, This debate is about minimum wage, not competition. If there can be competition that means it has nothing to do with minimum wage. What I was saying is that minimum wage is too small. If it were higher then all people would have the chance for a better life than the current salary can provide. When things are allowed to rest at the market rate, companies are price takers, not price makers. Companies make prices, they determine how much their products cost. As I have said companies have more than enough money to pay triple the minimum wage. That money is just sitting and doing nothing, it is not used. Hoarding anything with no justified purpose is very stupid. Side: No.
Wrong. This debate is about competition, because competition is the reason why the abolishment of the minimum wage won't result in wage slavery. A company can charge whatever it wants for its products/services, but if someone else is offering a better service/good at a lower price, then they will get business and the other company will go bankrupt. Excess capital doesn't stagnate, it is either invested or becomes deffered consumption, where the banks loan it out to be invested anyway. This is very basic economics 101. If you don't know these things already, you have no business debating here. But, I have a question for you, why not just raise minimum wage to $1000/hour? won't that make the economy 100x better than it is now? Side: Yes.
"Should the minimum wage be abolished?" Looks familiar, doesn't it? Minimum wage forces companies to not pay employees below a certain amount. If there was no minimum wage, people would have to work for a much lower salary, and most probably for longer hours a day. It would be slavery. Companies care only about one thing - profit. That means having their products as expensive as possible without people starting to nag too much and paying the employees as little as possible so they would also not begin nagging. A company can charge whatever it wants for its products/services, but if someone else is offering a better service/good at a lower price, then they will get business and the other company will go bankrupt. By that logic every service and product should already be free of charge. Just so they could "sell" it. The fact is that prices of products and services have only gone up, not down. Excess capital doesn't stagnate, it is either invested or becomes deffered consumption, where the banks loan it out to be invested anyway. Wrong. That money is never really being used. Moving it from one deposit to another makes no difference. It's a game of rich people. Normal people never see that money, not even slightly. There is money that is in circulation and money that is just kept and grown. This is very basic economics 101. If you don't know these things already, you have no business debating here. So stupid... If you cannot think for yourself then you have no business debating here. I look at the world as it really is, not base my opinions on some rules predetermined by some other people. But, I have a question for you, why not just raise minimum wage to $1000/hour? won't that make the economy 100x better than it is now? I have an even better suggestion. Why not remove all money from use and base our society on what really matters - people being smart enough to do things without having a stupid motivator called money to make them do things. In reality there is no need for money to make humanity work. Without it, assuming people would be smart enough, things would be much better. Money is used as a motivator for people to do things. Not just that, people actually live for money, they work for money. They don't work for something essential to get done, they don't work because it is required, they don't work because they like it. They work for money. That is extremely fucked up. Side: No.
That's the point. Lower the salary on people who are already earning more than the market value of the product of their labour and more people will be able to find work. You obviously don't understand supply and demand. Prices don't go down infinitely just because they started to go down. When supply is high and demand is low, price drops, but not to zero... I'm not even sure how to argue against this because I don't see any way for you to have logically concluded this. Moving money is the definition of using it. Money exchanges hands when one party values a good/service more than the money required to purchase said good/service. Furthermore, when you put money into a bank, the bank loans that money out. Did you not know this? Are you criticizing me for not being ignorant of various economic theories? that's a new one. What's next? Are you going to criticise biologists for basing their life's work off of Darwin's? Good lord... Way to dodge the question. Are you honestly advocating the removal of money from society? Are you a communist now? Spoiler alert, communism doesn't work. Do you not understand what money is? It's merely a medium of exchange. Without money, the only thing you will change is that bartering will now be more of a pain in the ass. Market forces will still apply as seen in the USSR. You simply can't and shouldn't try to remove capitalism from society. It ends in catastrophe. Side: Yes.
Lowering the salary of some won't make more jobs. You obviously don't understand supply and demand... This debate is about minimum wage, not the whole economy. Moving money is the definition of using it. I didn't mean the circulation where it goes from buyers to companies to workers. The money that has been hoarded by companies will in most cases never be seen again. All because the owners are too greedy. Are you criticizing me for not being ignorant of various economic theories? that's a new one. What's next? Are you going to criticise biologists for basing their life's work off of Darwin's? Good lord... ... So stupid. You clearly base all your opinions on what has already been made up, without first thinking on your own. Way to not use your own mind. Are you honestly advocating the removal of money from society? You gave me a stupid example. I gave one that could actually work, assuming preparations for a change that will never be made were to be made. Are you a communist now? Communist, fascist, nazi, etc. I use my own mind to figure things out, not base my opinions on views that have already been established. And I do not even care if what I come up with accords with some already existing views. Do you not understand what money is? I seem to understand it better than you do. It is a tool, a means, of getting things done, and it is constantly being abused. Without money, the only thing you will change is that bartering will now be more of a pain in the ass. You clearly cannot come up with alternative possibilities. This goes way out of the debate's topic. You simply can't and shouldn't try to remove capitalism from society. It ends in catastrophe. No, it wouldn't, assuming idiots weren't in control of the change. It would require a change of worldview, a change of the whole current human civilization. Something that will in most likelihood never happen. But who knows, perhaps one day in far far future humanity will come to its senses and fix the mess. Side: No.
When you are allowed to lower a workers salary to the market rate, you will have excess profit that can be used to expand your company, thus creating more jobs. Minimum wage doesn't exist in a vacuum. It affects the economy and if you don't first understand how the economy works then you won't be able to understand why the minimum wage results in unemployment. I don't think you understand. 97% of U.S. dollars are theoretical. They don't exist in paper form, only in banks. If this money is in banks, then it is being loaned out and is in circulation. I am using my mind. You're not as you don't seem to understand even the connection between the minimum wage and the economy... What you've come up with does coincide with already existing views -- and they failed. Miserably. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ if you understood what money is, you wouldn't oppose it. There are no alternatives. Either bartering is mediated by a uniform medium of exchange like money or gold, or everybody simply struggles to find other people who happen to be looking for the same deal they are. Every time a government tries to remove the "bartering" part of exchange, the economy collapses. A change in world view? A la Marx's theory of the emerging "new man"? Yeah, that doesn't happen. 71 years of coercive communism didn't see the rise of a new man. As it turns out, competition drives advancement. It's a lot like evolution in that regard. Take the competition out of evolution and watch the gene-pool degenerate, eventually causing the species to go extinct. You don't know it because you are wilfully ignorant of basic economics, but you are advocating the complete obliteration of behavioural modernity and everything that came with it. Side: Yes.
I am using my mind. Repeating what you have been taught is not exactly using your own mind. Think outside the box. You're not as you don't seem to understand even the connection between the minimum wage and the economy... Says who doesn't understand why a minimum wage is needed. What you've come up with does coincide with already existing views -- and they failed. Miserably. You have no idea what my views are like. This, what you read here, is simply a small part. There's far more to it, and I'm fairly certain my views cross many already existing ones. Russia? No wonder it failed, the leaders were total idiots, not to mention the intelligence of the people. Even presently that country is seriously messed up. if you understood what money is, you wouldn't oppose it. If you understood it you would oppose it. There are no alternatives. Yes, there are. Open your mind and think. Money is not necessary for the success of a civilization. A change in world view? A la Marx's theory of the emerging "new man"? Yeah, that doesn't happen. 71 years of coercive communism didn't see the rise of a new man. As it turns out, competition drives advancement. It's a lot like evolution in that regard. Take the competition out of evolution and watch the gene-pool degenerate, eventually causing the species to go extinct. As I've said, open your mind and think outside the box. Competition drives advancement? What advancement are you talking about? The use of money? Evolution? You do realize that we, humans, can and do create our own conditions? That we have abstract thoughts? That we can and in many cases do control ourselves, while animals are mostly driven by instincts and urges? We do not need competition any longer to survive. All we have to do is think, and act according to that. You don't know it because you are wilfully ignorant of basic economics, but you are advocating the complete obliteration of behavioural modernity and everything that came with it. Unlike you, and so many others, I do not blindly follow what has been shoved in front of me, I think first, for myself, and decide myself if it is right or wrong or if there are better possibilities. You cannot think outside the box you were raised into. Side: No.
Being wilfully ignorant of the last 100 years of economics is not "thinking outside the box". You give yourself too much credit. The minimum wage is not needed. Asserting that over and over doesn't make it so. I know exactly what your views are like. You've outlined them clearly here. You are a Marxist communist. Don't blame Russia, the Russian people are fine, your ideas are bad. Or are the Chinese total idiots too? You're obviously very young. You shouldn't tell others they need to think when the farthest you've gotten is Marxism. Once again, these are famously debunked economic theories. Enough of this nonsense. You're obviously too lazy to read up on and study the history of economics and politics and you hide behind "thinking for yourself" as an excuse. Being knowledgeable about a topic does not make you less able to think critically about it, just the opposite. Your ignorance has lead you face first into the cement floor of economic theories. Side: Yes.
Being wilfully ignorant of the last 100 years of economics is not "thinking outside the box". I'm not ignorant, I just don't follow it unquestioningly as you do. You give yourself too much credit. Apparently not enough. The minimum wage is not needed. Asserting that over and over doesn't make it so. Money is not needed. Asserting that over and over doesn't make it so. Since money does exist and there are too many greedy idiot who are very eager to abuse it and nothing is done about them, then that does mean a minimum wage is needed. I know exactly what your views are like. No you don't. Asserting that you do is a delusion, you know nothing about me. You've outlined them clearly here. All my views? Hardly a small fraction. You are a Marxist communist. Nope, I'm not. Don't blame Russia, the Russian people are fine, Only a part of Russians are fine, not all. I live right next to Russia, so I know much better what I am talking about when it comes to Russia. your ideas are bad. Nope, they're not. You're simply taught to think that some views connected to very bad events are bad. If you hear or read a view like that you immediately ascribe that to a specific worldview and to the specific events that happened in relation to that. It's... stupid. You're obviously very young. Age has very little to do with mental maturity. If you lack the capacity to think and come up with good or better answers then you're not exactly intelligent, or just not that intelligent. You shouldn't tell others they need to think when the farthest you've gotten is Marxism. Again you and your pointless predetermined "views". How about breaking the walls of your box? Once again, these are famously debunked economic theories. And as you should've understood already, I do not care about any existing views. I use my own mind to make my own views, not take some existing flawed ones and stick to them. Enough of this nonsense. As I see it, you began this nonsense. Adhering to some specific predetermined views sounds like religion, doesn't it? You're obviously too lazy to read up on and study the history of economics and politics and you hide behind "thinking for yourself" as an excuse. I'm not lazy, I simply don't waste my time with pointless crap. Politics are for idiots, mostly. And I don't hide anywhere. How is using my own mind hiding? You are hiding if you can't and don't want get away from what you were taught to believe or follow. Being knowledgeable about a topic does not make you less able to think critically about it, just the opposite. So, you are knowledgeable and you strictly adhere to it, like religious people... I'm fairly certain you know what they are like. You can have critical thinking if you are knowledgeable and you have an open mind. Although having previous knowledge about something specific is not always necessary. Critical thinking is questioning and coming up with alternatives. You don't seem to be able to do that. That's bad for you, not me. Your ignorance has lead you face first into the cement floor of economic theories. Well, ain't that sweet, and dead wrong. Side: No.
I've said nothing to suggest I follow anything without question. To the contrary, you are the one refuses to open your mind to new ideas just because you didn't personally think of them. There's just no excuse for that level of egoism. No, definitely too much. You're just some kid who thinks he's figured the world out because he's accidental become a communist. I've not asserted it, I've tediously made the case for why money is needed. All money is is a medium of exchange. All this other nonsense is your invention. I know you are a Marxist communist. Nothing else about you is relevant here. You're not mysterious, I can see right through you. You say I small fraction, I say the relevant fraction. Your views on things other than economics don't matter here. You are a Marxist communist. You both deny the necessity of money and believe in a labour theory of value. Both of which have been both theoretically and historically proven wrong. You never answered my question about China. Are they idiots too? You've said it yourself, you don't see any need for money. You are a communist by definition. It's not my invention, it's the political theory you've chosen to live by, intentionally or not. You're both young and lacking mental maturity. You refuse to educate yourselves on even the basics of economics due to laziness and you twist it in your head to convince yourself it's because you don't want to be tainted with knowledge and wisdom or some nonsense like that. You're ignorant of the world. That's nothing to be proud of. I'm not in a box, I have the world of economics and it's history at my disposal to judge and conclude on what works and what doesn't. You are a wilfully ignorant teenager who thinks they're smarter than literally every single contemporary economist simply because they are 'blinded by knowledge'. Absolutely absurd. The ideas you've come up with on your own are wrong. These ideas have been around for almost 200 years now. They've been tried. They've failed. You have nothing going for you here. Do you believe in evolution? Well, that's a predetermined view, so I guess that's a religion too according to you. Your own mind has given you no understanding of the basic of economics, yet you believe you know more about economics than someone with extensive education on the matter. You're a lazy ignoramus kid who can't handle the thought of not automatically being right all the time, but also doesn't want to do any research whatsoever to make sure he is even in the same ballpark as being right. Economics is a highly mathematics field. There is a definitive correct answer to most economic questions. This isn't philosophy. You can't re-invent the wheel here and expect to be taken seriously. having knowledge about economics is absolutely necessary in order to think critically on the topic. If you don't even know about various theories, let alone their tried and proven effects on the market, you may end up, Oh, I don't know, coming up with communism and believing there's nothing wrong with it. But hey, there's a problem with your argument on a more fundamental level. You say I should reject pre-existing theories and instead come up with my own (Which I did, I just wasn't so egotistical as to contend I was the first to think of it when I learned it already existed). The problem with this is that to me, your proto-communist ideas are pre-existing. therefore I cannot adhere to your theory. Side: Yes.
To the contrary, you are the one refuses to open your mind to new ideas just because you didn't personally think of them. I hear other people's opinions all the time... My mind is very open. I see alternative possibilities rather easily, I just hold the better ones more strongly. There's just no excuse for that level of egoism. Using my own mind instead of repeating those that have gone before me is egoism? I see flaws almost everywhere, because there are flaws almost everywhere, and that is why I don't repeat others. My own opinions I can change whenever I notice they need improvements. No, definitely too much. You're just some kid who thinks he's figured the world out because he's accidental become a communist. Yeah... you are rather stupid. As I said before, age does not necessarily make one smart. A twenty year old could easily be smarter than a sixty year old. Individuals' intelligence differ. I am not a communist. But you seem to be an idiot, as you claim me being someone without you knowing me at all. I've not asserted it, I've tediously made the case for why money is needed. Something is needed when it is absolutely necessary for life's continuance or the advancement of society or science. Money is not needed, all those could go on, could advance without money, and faster than they currently do. If there is no money there is no movement, if money did not exist no one would be waiting for it to start moving, they would just move, because it would be their job. Money keeps things moving and it also keeps things not moving, and it determines how fast they move. With no money they would have almost always a constant speed. I know you are a Marxist communist. Nothing else about you is relevant here. No I'm not. You don't know enough about me. You're not mysterious, I can see right through you. Now this is a delusion. It is not? Okay then, describe me in detail. You say I small fraction, I say the relevant fraction. Your views on things other than economics don't matter here. Everything is connected, so yes, if you claim me to be someone I'm not then you have to know every single aspect, every detail, about me, and you don't. You are a Marxist communist. You both deny the necessity of money and believe in a labour theory of value. Both of which have been both theoretically and historically proven wrong. Society with no money has been proven wrong? No, it hasn't, because it hasn't even really been tried. Think logically and you'll notice that it is very much possible. As I've said, you've been taught things you cannot think outside of, things that make the basis of your thinking. My basis comes from myself, and I can change it whenever I like, and I have changed it before, and I'm fairly certain I will improve it the future. You never answered my question about China. Are they idiots too? China? They've got issues... apparently they're not smart enough to solve them. Because they are communist... I see. The reason I keep telling you I am not a communist is because I'm not a communist. You've said it yourself, you don't see any need for money. You are a communist by definition. It's not my invention, it's the political theory you've chosen to live by, intentionally or not. Read my above statement. I haven't chosen to live by any political theory. Choosing something is intentional, I have not chosen anything already existing. All my opinions are of my own origin. You're both young and lacking mental maturity. I seem mentally more mature than you. You refuse to educate yourselves on even the basics of economics due to laziness and you twist it in your head to convince yourself it's because you don't want to be tainted with knowledge and wisdom or some nonsense like that. So wrong. Learning about something in detail that is utterly worthless to me is a waste of time. Why should I willingly want to brainwash myself? Or I simply learn and nothing changes, I simply get proof of me being right? I'd rather look at things as they really are, without any kind of bias. The human civilization is very messed up, if you just looked at it from outside your box. You're ignorant of the world. That's nothing to be proud of. Ignorant of the world? Seeing the world as it really is is being ignorant? I'm not in a box, I have the world of economics and it's history at my disposal to judge and conclude on what works and what doesn't. So, you look at what has happened and take that as absolute truth, without thinking about alternative possibilities, why exactly things went the way they did, whether there are better ways or not. You are in a box, too bad you cannot see it yourself. You are a wilfully ignorant teenager who thinks they're smarter than literally every single contemporary economist simply because they are 'blinded by knowledge'. Absolutely absurd. Teenager? Teenage ends with 19 and I'm above that... Have I ever said I'm smarter than someone else? Well, I certainly am smarter than you. You are blinded by knowledge, knowledge with what you keep shutting out other, better, possibilities of human civilization, you don't even consider them, you simply follow what you have been taught, without questioning. Now that is absurd, and sounds just like religion. The ideas you've come up with on your own are wrong. They aren't wrong, not my problem you are unwilling to comprehend them. These ideas have been around for almost 200 years now. They've been tried. They've failed. You have nothing going for you here. How long has money been around? Far more than 200 years, and there are still problems with it. The fact that money is being kept is because people are raised in its environment. The net effect money will have is only negative. As time goes on humanity becomes only smarter. At one point money will be abolished, assuming we don't kill ourselves before that. First attempts at anything tend to fail miserably, this is no exception. The sooner you realize the truth abut money, the better for you. Do you believe in evolution? Well, that's a predetermined view, so I guess that's a religion too according to you. Evolution is not a predetermined view... It's what has literally been happening since the beginning of our universe. And on Earth since the first reproductive "molecules". Worldviews are all man-made while evolution is not only in our minds, it's all around us, happening at this very moment. Do you even know what religion means? Did I not say like religion? Your own mind has given you no understanding of the basic of economics, yet you believe you know more about economics than someone with extensive education on the matter. Learning something that ultimately is worthless is pointless. Money is negative to humanity. You're a lazy ignoramus kid who can't handle the thought of not automatically being right all the time, but also doesn't want to do any research whatsoever to make sure he is even in the same ballpark as being right. Read some lines up, you'll notice a part where I prove that I'm not a kid. Or you have trouble understanding who a kid is? I am not right all the time, just majority of the times. And about money, I am right. I do research whenever it is necessary, in this topic it is not necessary. Economics is a highly mathematics field. More than physics or information technology? Economics being, as you say, highly mathematics makes no difference. Economy based on money is a waste of time, it could be so much easier. The only reason it is not is greed. There is a definitive correct answer to most economic questions. This isn't philosophy. You can't re-invent the wheel here and expect to be taken seriously. It's not reinventing anything, it's simply logic, just observe and make conclusions. But you seem to lack that ability. If there was no money there would be no need for that much mathematics in economy. Why make things harder if there is a much simpler way? having knowledge about economics is absolutely necessary in order to think critically on the topic. I have enough knowledge about it. It would be better without it, but that would also require a change in worldview, and higher and better education. If you don't even know about various theories, let alone their tried and proven effects on the market, you may end up, Oh, I don't know, coming up with communism and believing there's nothing wrong with it. You simply cannot leave your stupidity behind, can you? As I have said, I use my own mind, not base my opinions on views that have already been established, because they are partly flawed. Coming up with communism? To claim that you first have to know all my opinions, and you don't. (Which I did, I just wasn't so egotistical as to contend I was the first to think of it when I learned it already existed). I highly doubt that. The problem with this is that to me, your proto-communist ideas are pre-existing. And as I have said, I am not a communist. therefore I cannot adhere to your theory. There are two main reasons for adhering to something. First is if you were taught in a certain way (your current way). The second is through understanding and considering all possibilities and taking the best one of them (that's me). There are some other ones in between, but they're not relevant here. Side: No.
Communism and marxism are not better ideas than capitalism. Not that you'd know, as you're ignorant of all three. You see flaws everywhere, but not in yourself? nd you say you're NOT egotistical? Okay there... You want a society free of money and you adhere to a labour theory of value. How is that not communism? Money is a medium of exchange. Literally anything you trade can be argued as money. Literally every nation on earth has some form of money, even the communist ones, because even the communists understand that the economy grinds to a complete halt without a medium of exchange. You don't think money is needed because you have no understanding about the role of money in the market. I've described you. You're a Marxist and a communist. I don't need to know your birthday or your religious views or any of that nonsense to see this. I don't know why you keep insinuating this. No, I don't need to know everything about you to know that your economic ideas are wrong. That's simply raising the bar. You don't know everything about me, does that mean I'm right too? Hmm? Hasn't been tried? have you ever heard of the USSR? their every effort was to remove money and guess what? It didn't work. Black markets grew and people found other mediums of exchange. I really hope your ideas improve in the future, because they are terrible right now. Which part of your ideology is not communist, exactly? You have chosen something already existing, but a combination of your ignorance and your unwarranted high view of yourself blind you to this. saying "I'm more mentally mature than you" is the teenage equivalent of saying "I know you are, but what am I?". You lack maturity. Economics is utterly worthless to you when it comes to forming opinions on economics? If you say so... I know exactly why your ideas will fail and if you continue with these pointless assertions then my next post will only consist of these reasons. You are not above 19. No way. Soviet Russia collapsed in 1991. For you to be older than 20, but not know anything about communism means you are abhorrently unaware of the world around you. Evolution has NOT, I repeat NOT been happening since the beginning of our universe. Not even close. Evolution hasn't even been happening since the Earth formed. Evolution didn't start until after abiogenesis. Furthermore, molecules cannot reproduce. The word you should have used was "organisms". Is there any topic you are not woefully ignorant of? Furthermore, the theory of evolution is a predetermined view. It's tenants have been laid out and refined for the last 150 years or so. The mathematic extent of economics means that there are definitive correct answers that can be calculated. As it stands, there is no theory of a monetarily void economic system accepted and possibly functional by any economist professor anywhere. Are you honestly saying you know more about economics than literally everyone involved in the field of economics? That's rather egotistical of you. Saying you're not a kid does not prove you're not a kid. Sorry. If there was no money, there would be no economics for there to be any math on, you fool. I didn't read the rest, Frankly, you're not worth the time. Side: Yes.
Communism and marxism are not better ideas than capitalism. Not that you'd know, as you're ignorant of all three. You're not getting what I've been saying at all. You see flaws everywhere, but not in yourself? nd you say you're NOT egotistical? Okay there... Everywhere means everywhere, should be obvious by definition what it means. If you think my views and opinions are flawed in some aspects that does not necessarily make it true, in case you are the one whose views and opinions are flawed. You can, still, understand what I'm saying with this? You want a society free of money and you adhere to a labour theory of value. How is that not communism? I won't repeat myself here. Money is a medium of exchange. Literally anything you trade can be argued as money. Literally every nation on earth has some form of money, even the communist ones, because even the communists understand that the economy grinds to a complete halt without a medium of exchange. You are saying that communists think that money is not needed and now you say they think it is needed? Economy based on money would come to a halt. That means people's worldview, their view of values, etc., and most importantly, you don't base our civilization on money. You don't think money is needed because you have no understanding about the role of money in the market. I understand very well the role of money and what its results will be if it is kept. If there was no money there could be no economic collapse, things would advance much faster, there would be no greed as it currently is, people would work because it was necessary not because they need money. If you needed something you wouldn't have to worry about first getting the money to acquire it, you would just get it. I've described you. You're a Marxist and a communist. I don't need to know your birthday or your religious views or any of that nonsense to see this. I don't know why you keep insinuating this. You're still not getting it. I only follow what I myself have come up with. Not some predetermined views. No, I don't need to know everything about you to know that your economic ideas are wrong. That's simply raising the bar. You don't know everything about me, does that mean I'm right too? Hmm? My economic ideas are not wrong. Not my problem you were taught and most probably raised wrong. I don't know everything about you, that's why I'm not claiming you to be someone anymore than you are claiming me to be. This, what you have been going about here, is all wrong. It works, with flaws, but there are better ways with far less flaws, if any. Hasn't been tried? have you ever heard of the USSR? their every effort was to remove money and guess what? It didn't work. Black markets grew and people found other mediums of exchange. I really hope your ideas improve in the future, because they are terrible right now. You're still not getting it. People are greedy, if they are not smart enough to know better. They were used to money, they were raised in an environment dictated by money. Money is not necessary, at all. Money only causes issues. My ideas aren't currently terrible, in fact they are far better than yours, and they will also improve, I'm fairly certain in that. Are your views improving? Or are they already set in place? Which part of your ideology is not communist, exactly? As I've said, you don't know everything about me. And as I've said, ... You have chosen something already existing, but a combination of your ignorance and your unwarranted high view of yourself blind you to this. Developing my own views is not choosing something already existing. You are ignorant and blind if you cannot understand that and comprehend the truth about money. High view of myself? I know I have flaws, and I also know I am much smarter than most of humanity, and that does not make me wrong. I simply look at reality, I observe and conclude (that includes me), you obviously cannot do any of it. saying "I'm more mentally mature than you" is the teenage equivalent of saying "I know you are, but what am I?". You lack maturity. More of your delusions? Seems so. As I've made clear, I'm not a teenager. You must be rather stupid to not understand that. You clearly lack maturity. Or do you call thinking with prejudice mature? Economics is utterly worthless to you when it comes to forming opinions on economics? If you say so... ??? You do know what economics means? The definition? There is no need for money for that word to be valid. I know exactly why your ideas will fail and if you continue with these pointless assertions then my next post will only consist of these reasons. Seriously, open your mind and think. You are not above 19. No way. Soviet Russia collapsed in 1991. For you to be older than 20, but not know anything about communism means you are abhorrently unaware of the world around you. I am far more aware of the world than you are. That's what being unbiased causes. Evolution has NOT, I repeat NOT been happening since the beginning of our universe. Not even close. Evolution hasn't even been happening since the Earth formed. Evolution didn't start until after abiogenesis. Furthermore, molecules cannot reproduce. The word you should have used was "organisms". Is there any topic you are not woefully ignorant of? Furthermore, the theory of evolution is a predetermined view. It's tenants have been laid out and refined for the last 150 years or so. There are different evolutions. I am surprised you did not know that. The evolution of the universe. The evolution of a language. The evolution of science. The evolution of life. If you meant only life you should've said so. Molecules cannot reproduce? http://www.newscientist.com/article/ And DNA is a molecule. You are the one who is ignorant in, apparently, many topics. Evolution is a fact, not a view. We all evolved from previous ancestors back to the first organisms on this planet. The mathematic extent of economics means that there are definitive correct answers that can be calculated. As it stands, there is no theory of a monetarily void economic system accepted and possibly functional by any economist professor anywhere. Are you honestly saying you know more about economics than literally everyone involved in the field of economics? That's rather egotistical of you. And more of your ignorant crap. I'm not saying you're ignorant in economics based on money, but that does seem to blind you. You clearly cannot come up with how humanity could work without money. That is, rather pathetic. Stuffing your head full of books does not necessarily make one smart if one is incapable of thinking without some predetermined opinions in the first place. Education does not necessarily make one smart, you either have the natural inclination or you don't, and you don't, clearly. More about economics? Why should I if I know there is a better way without money. Knowing money based economics in detail is pointless to me, it would give me nothing. Saying you're not a kid does not prove you're not a kid. Sorry. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ I'm a young goat? Nope. I'm leather? Nope. It's quite impossible to be activity. A wooden tub? Definitely not. Saying you're right does not prove you're right. Sorry. Honestly, begin using your mind without bias, it'll do good to you. If there was no money, there would be no economics for there to be any math on, you fool. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics Care to rethink what you claimed? There would still be math. There would always be math in physics, chemistry, some other fields. Even in economics, although not as much. How is making things simpler a bad thing? Can you make physics simpler? No. I didn't read the rest, Frankly, you're not worth the time. So, that's how weak you are, cannot even finish. But, yeah, it was rather long... You are definitely worth the time. Just to argue with your flawed opinions and views. Side: No.
I didn't read any of this. I'm just going to make my case and leave it to you to counter. Minimum wage Having a minimum wage guarantees unemployment because if the market rate calls for a lower wage than the minimum wage allows for, then companies will have to lay off workers to cut costs. Furthermore, already large companies can lobby the government to enact further barriers-to-entry such as unnecessary licences and unfair tax-brackets to hinder competition, allowing them to increase the cost of said product above the market rate until it is enough to turn a profit despite having over-paid workers, thus allowing themselves to expand while their competition struggles to get off the ground. The greed you so adamantly oppose? Yeah, it's easier when there is a minimum wage in place. Money As for money, money is a medium of exchange. Removing money =/= removing greed. All that will happen is another medium will arise because the market tends towards standardization. In order to enforce such a thing would require the complete expansion of the state into the private sector (which is communism, in case you still haven't looked into it). Little known fact, since market forces had been pretty much eradicated in the USSR, the central planners had no idea where to redistribute tax money. Eventually they started looking at the U.S. economy to see where supply and demand were reaching equilibrium and mirrored their own economy after it. Understand the implication of this; this means that a nation without money was only sustainable to the extent that they followed the lead of a country doing the exact opposite of what they were doing. Why did they fail anyway? Well, take nails for example. Since nail production couldn't be governed by market forces, the government required them to meet a certain quota of nail production. They had to produce a certain amount of kg of nails per week. The problem is, they had no idea which kinds of nails to make since there was no way to tell which kinds had the highest demand. So, in order to meet the quota faster, they over-produced large scaffold and cut nails and under-produced the small roofing and slating nails, thus simultaneously causing both a crippling shortage and rampant over-abundance in the same sector. This happened in pretty much every sector which eventually lead to the total collapse of this money-free system. The "New man" Man will never change his world view to a money-free perspective on economics. Money is merely a medium of exchange, a standard measure to make competitive choices. What you want is for man to evolve out of his competitive nature, which is exactly the opposite of what evolution does. Evolution is driven by competition and so is the market. What you're asking for is impossible. Besides, competition in the market does not lead to poverty and wage slavery. Just the opposite, competition amongst like firms is the reason why we are as wealthy and technologically advanced as we are today. The large abusive corporation we have are the result of the governments expansion into the private sector by enacting barriers-to-entry used to cripple competition. You think it's the other way around because you don't know anything about economics. You only see the surface and assume you're seeing the whole picture. You're not. Side: Yes.
Not true, you are the one who brought up how knowledge somehow hinders your ability to make decisions, everything else spawned from that asinine statement. My actually arguments have been made before now, you've just never actually countered them. If you refuse to do so, I'll have to take it that you can't. Side: Yes.
Not true, you are the one who brought up how knowledge somehow hinders your ability to make decisions, everything else spawned from that asinine statement. You led it there, not me. As I said, I simply replied to your arguments. Knowledge can hinder ones ability to make right decisions, if it is accompanied by some other factor or factors. Religious people have knowledge about their religion and they don't think outside of it, they cannot or don't want to or are afraid of doing so. You and your precious money based economics is exactly the same. You deny all other possibilities without really thinking about them, as you have so clearly indicated. My actually arguments have been made before now, you've just never actually countered them. If you refuse to do so, I'll have to take it that you can't. I have countered your arguments... as much as they required. Not my problem you cannot comprehend what I said. The very first post up there is mine. You countered it. Things went on and you began ignoring my arguments. If you ignore mine I will ignore yours. Debating is not about ignoring your opponent. At this point I am not surprised you did not know that, considering all else you don't have the capacity for. And you call me immature? Grow up. Side: No.
You see what's going on right now? It's the same thing that happened before. You're ignoring my arguments and responding to inessential things. You're merely obfuscating the issue to cover up for you inability to defend your position, and you're unable to defend your position because you're incredibly ignorant of the issues your trying to debate about. Knock it off. You have my arguments. If they're so easy to dispute, then do it. Put up or shut up. Hey, if you actually have already countered them, then all you need to do is copy and paste, right? Well, I'm waiting... Side: Yes.
You are so stupid... You see what's going on right now? It's the same thing that happened before. You're ignoring my arguments and responding to inessential things. I am not the one who ignored your arguments. There is only one of your arguments I ignored, because you ignored mine which preceded yours and partly another previous one. Inessential? Then don't introduce inessential or stupid things! I gave clear reasons to why there must be a minimum wage, not my problem you cannot grasp them. You're merely obfuscating the issue to cover up for you inability to defend your position, and you're unable to defend your position because you're incredibly ignorant of the issues your trying to debate about. Obfuscating? All I have done is dispute your arguments. You are obfuscating the issue, or rather trying to. I gave some clear reasons in my first argument as to why there should be a minimum wage, you must be very stupid if you cannot comprehend what I said there. I am able to defend my point. But you aren't, all you've given me are flawed and biased views and opinions. I'm the ignorant one? I know what money is and I see the flaws it has and thus I have come up with a better way. Yet I gave clear reasons to why there should be a minimum wage, since our civilization is based on money. You are close-minded and thus ignorant. Knock it off. That's something you should do. You have my arguments. I have them, I disputed them (except the ones in your post I ignored for a obvious reason). If they're so easy to dispute, then do it. I did, but you are unwilling to understand them, even consider them. And you ignored some of my arguments. Put up or shut up. That is exactly what you should do. As long as you keep providing me stupidity I will keep disputing all of it. Hey, if you actually have already countered them, then all you need to do is copy and paste, right? Well, I'm waiting... Copy paste??? So stupid... Read my arguments above and dispute them if they have flaws, including the ones you ignored. And don't give me flawed nor idiotic arguments, that means thinking with logic. It's like fussing with a religious idiot who just keeps providing pointless crap over and over, and ignoring everything I say. You're such a moron. Are you too egotistical to see yourself? Ironic, isn't it? You do know what ironic means? As you've shown many times you don't know the meanings of some words. Side: No.
^ You see? This is exactly the kind of nonsense I'm talking about. Stick to the issues, please and thank you. So, this is what you descend to if you are unable to handle something you initiated. You should've sticked to the issue, and not provided some stupid arguments. Grow up, mentally, please and thank you. Side: No.
Re-read the last comment you sent me before I outlined my arguments. Literally nothing you said was on point. The only one even close to being relevant was you citing the definition of economics, which by the way does NOT prove that money is not integral to the market. Once again, if you refuse to counter the arguments I've outlined above then it's clear that you can't. If it's so easy, then go ahead. Side: Yes.
You just don't know when to stop. As I've said already, you initiated the whole mess. And I gave clear reasons to why there should be a minimum wage. Money is not necessary for our civilization to be successful. In fact, it'd be better without money, as I have also explained how and why. Or is the problem you're not getting me because you fail to include certain important aspects? I'm not talking about what is in the books, I'm talking about reality, how it is in real world. Once again, if you refuse to counter the arguments I've outlined above then it's clear that you can't. If it's so easy, then go ahead. Read the above. If you still don't get it, read again. Seriously... Side: No.
Mmmm I understand now. You think asserting something enough times makes it an argument. Look, you've said that an economy can function without money and in fact is better because... greed will stop existing without out money somehow I guess. This is not an argument, this is what you're trying to prove. So, my question to you is, without money, how will exchanges be carried out? Side: Yes.
Mmmm I understand now. You think asserting something enough times makes it an argument. How many times did you insert things? If you keep asking and saying the same things over and over I will keep repeating if i don't get bored. because... greed will stop existing without out money somehow I guess. This is not an argument, this is what you're trying to prove. Never said it. Not to mention proving it. So, my question to you is, without money, how will exchanges be carried out? Everyone will get everything they need for free. In fact I said it up there somewhere. Side: No.
Insert things?... What? Whatever, I'm just going to ignore everything you say that isn't directly relevant to the debate. But seriously, assert and insert aren't the same thing... So, everyone will get everything for free. Great. So how will, say, car companies know how many of which types of cars to make? Normally they would look at the sales of high-demand cars and use that money gained to produce more like-vehicles which would in turn lower the cost of said car, but without money this is not possible. So, what is your alternative? Second question: Since there will no longer be any money to be made in the American market, foreign businesses will start funnelling out of America. Since America is a country of consumers, this means American's will either have to leave or live in poverty unless a solution is found. What is your solution? Just for fun, consider that the only reason why china doesn't call on our debt is because China earns so much money from selling to us and without that promise of American dollars, they will lose interest and demand their money... and since we no longer have any money at all let alone enough to pay off our debt to the Chinese, China will technically own the U.S... making us literally slaves. Side: Yes.
Insert things?... What? Whatever, I'm just going to ignore everything you say that isn't directly relevant to the debate. But seriously, assert and insert aren't the same thing... You cannot even notice if someone makes a small mistake, like confusing a word, and automatically go for thinking it was meant exactly as it was written. Haven't you made small spelling errors or similar, ever? So, everyone will get everything for free. Great. So how will, say, car companies know how many of which types of cars to make? So, what is your alternative? Isn't there even currently a demand for things? Aren't people's needs being recorded? Aren't people being asked about things they'd like, what they'd not like? How many products leave the stores and how many came in? How many cars to produce does not come from the money they get, it comes from the number of sells, from the number of cars that go to people and leave the stores. Ever heard of communication? Normally they would look at the sales of high-demand cars and use that money gained to produce more like-vehicles which would in turn lower the cost of said car, but without money this is not possible. Without money there is no point nor need to use money (because there would no money in the first place...), they would simply begin producing them. Without money things would be much easier and faster, there would be no need to wait, for something like money, or stop if money ran out. Second question: Since there will no longer be any money to be made in the American market, foreign businesses will start funnelling out of America. Since America is a country of consumers, this means American's will either have to leave or live in poverty unless a solution is found. What is your solution? Just for fun, consider that the only reason why china doesn't call on our debt is because China earns so much money from selling to us and without that promise of American dollars, they will lose interest and demand their money... and since we no longer have any money at all let alone enough to pay off our debt to the Chinese, China will technically own the U.S... making us literally slaves. America??? If you looked again perhaps you'd notice a word "globally" in my first argument, also I've said human civilization a couple of times. I'm not talking about just one country, I'm talking about all of them. Neither does the debate itself have any elaboration about the extent. Side: No.
You don't see the problem. The flow of money allows for pre-emptive understanding of where to pour time and resources into. If things aren't ready-made, then everything will have to come from order, which means you won't know what's in short supply and what has been over-produced until after the fact. This problem is only exacerbated by the fact that since acquiring goods no longer takes any trade-off, people will over-consume to ensure that they don't miss-out on a particular good. This means everything will have an artificially high demand and deferred consumption will go through the roof -- and without any sort of standard medium of exchange to act as motivation to sell said products, they will become wasted capital. This means the government will have to have an infinitely increasing tax rate to stay on par with overconsumption. The problem is, without a standard medium to compare value with - they'll have to take unused items, which brings up two questions: How will they know how much of which items to take, since they all have an indeterminable value? Also, the people won't own up to which items the don't need because from their perspective, any one of these items could be in short supply next and therefore are worth holding onto. The state will simply have to take things at random (assuming they are first able to determine value in an unstandardised economy). So, are you advocating routine theft by the government? The things is, seeing that there's a shortage isn't enough, you also have to know how much raw materials to pour into that sector of the economy to compensate and without the ability to base your choice off of price fluctuations, it becomes impossible to tell how much more needs to be produces at what rate, especially with artificially high demand. You need a more accurate method than words. You're short-sighted. This change you want will have to start somewhere -- and for this idea to catch on it will have to start in a country that has significant influence over the planet. These same problems will come up wherever it starts and threaten to halt the expansion of your ideology unless they're solved. You need some kind of solution here. Side: Yes.
You have been taught something and you cannot see pass that. Without money there would be no over-consumption. If you go to a shop you see massive amounts of different goods, it would be similar but no money would be required. Are currently produced and consumed goods being counted? Yes. Production and consumption would always be in harmony, with slight over-production to ensure no shortages. The production of goods is not based on how much money you get, it is based on how much were sold and how big demand there is. Goods ordered from factories are based on the number of goods consumed and on demand, not how much money they got from selling them. You order however is necessary and it will cost as much as it will. With no money you'd simply order and get. How much raw materials need to be used is determined by the quantity of goods to be produced, not by money. You are short-sighted and close-minded. There are no problems in my views, you cannot understand them because of your biased opinions. As humanity is slowly becoming smarter and smarter, then one day, assuming we won't kill ourselves first, money will be abolished. Abolishing money would solve so many issues. Very many criminals would lose everything, or would they simply continue from the good of their heart? Greed would almost completely be gone, why hoard or keep things if it is all free? There would be no wait for money to begin some work, if people and resources are available you'd simply get them, or get them as soon as they are available. There would be no worrying of running out of money. And people wouldn't be so miserable because of lack of money for some items and they wouldn't have to worry about paying rent or worry about running out of money. Currently all of it is rather impossible, as most humans are far too stupid (different and higher education would be necessary). Management of economy would be with far less waste (as currently there is a lot of money that is not used). But since currently there is money then that means there must be a minimum wage, otherwise it would incline heavily toward slavery, as it in truth is even with current minimum wages. The jobs that have minimum wage are also necessary, someone has to do them. Or would you rather people stopped doing those jobs? Abolishing minimum wage would not solve that issue, if anything it would make it worse. Why aren't they being paid enough currently if there is money for that? Side: No.
You never make minor mistakes? I have noticed a few times that I have written your instead of you're. You clearly don't read much. Haven't lately had time for much reading. Priorities first. You must be rather stupid to even make a comment like that. As it is completely irrelevant. Side: Yes.
You don't understand. Listen, since things are now free, people will overstock on goods that are in high demand because, why not? It's free! People will "purchase" extra vehicles and summer homes and expensive foods etc. This will result in massive shortages of said goods since everyone will purposely over-comsume to insure they don't miss out. Also, since resale value no longer exists, we will be over-producing on goods that will never circulate their value. We will run out of high demand things and the people will move on to less "expensive" things. This process continues until people have over-consumed on lesser goods to the point that they too become scarce, thus causing crippling poverty. What's worse is that this "locust" like shifting in demand will require the constant construction of new machinery to meet the specifics of these radical market fluctuations; All of which will become virtually useless once demand moves on, thus wasting further capital. Even the USSR understood these problem and implemented government control on distribution to counteract it, and you don't think any solution is needed? Get real. Supply and demand only work because things in low supply have the potential to be expensive. Greed is a human quality, not a money quality. Animals have been known to display acts of greed. They don't use money, so how do you explain this? It's as though there's some intrinsic biological trait that drives animals to over-consume... Which makes perfect sense from an evolutionist perspective. The more food and shelter you have, the easier your life is. Your ideas are utopian. You're ignoring human motivation. When you separate labour from profit, you remove one's motivation to work hard or innovate. You end up with a problem known as (and yes, this is another one of those pesky economics terms that people who actually know what they're talking about use) the Free Rider Problem. Since everything is free whether I work hard enough to meet the hyper-inflated demand of whatever-good-it-is-I-make or not, I have no reason to worry about coming up a bit short, or producing poor quality products, and I certainly don't have any reason to invent something to revolutionize the industry. You see, the problem I listed above is actually the best case scenario of events. What's more likely to happen is that business owners will catch on that incentive has hit the floor and demand is shifting too rapidly to keep up with anyway, so the market stagnates. The only thing even approaching a solution that any human being has ever come up with is a rapid expansion of state control over production and distribution, which has proven to only prolong the catastrophic failure of a money-free system. You can't worm your way around this. These problems exist and require some kind of solution. What's yours? I'm ignoring your argument on minimum wage on the grounds that it assumes the very thing you're trying to prove. You need more than, "... it would incline heavily toward slavery..." to prove slavery would occur without the minimum wage. Side: Yes.
people will overstock on goods that are in high demand because, why not? ... Why would you overstock things if you could just get new ones any time? Overstocking comes from fear of not being able to acquire new. If you can get them any time then that fear would be irrational. Currently people expect to count on money, if they know or feel like hard times are coming they will begin overstocking by buying excessive amounts of goods. No money would also require a change in views, in values, in education, etc. You do understand what that means? You don't base it on current ways, that's when things won't work, as you have so clearly explained. Get real. You get real. Greed is a human quality, not a money quality. How would you express your greed with no money? Hoarding things that are freely available anyway? What would be the point? Animals are different from humans, they don't have the kind of mind we do. Animals don't know when they should have more luck then usually, so of course they will get greedy. Animals cannot create their own environments, they cannot produce their own food, they have to hunt and search for food, and in many cases that will end with death. Your ideas are utopian. You're ignoring human motivation. When you separate labour from profit, you remove one's motivation to work hard or innovate. Utopia is subjective. Absolute utopia is impossible. And you are calling money human motivation? With that you are essentially saying that with no money people would do nothing... Survival is the highest motivation, nothing tops that. You do things because it is necessary, not because you get paid for it with money. We created money, not the other way around. Are you saying we created our own motivation? With our peculiar minds we do create our own motivations, since clearly survival does not come naturally anymore. Why replace survival with money? I have no reason to worry about coming up a bit short, or producing poor quality products, and I certainly don't have any reason to invent something to revolutionize the industry. As I have mention new values, new views, better and higher education... And add survival to all of it - survival for as long as possible. That means, aside other aspects, developing new technology, advancing science, expanding across the universe to increase the chance of survival. Assuming we can get that far... we definitely have the potential. You see, the problem I listed above is actually the best case scenario of events. What's more likely to happen is that business owners will catch on that incentive has hit the floor and demand is shifting too rapidly to keep up with anyway, so the market stagnates. moving smoothly. The only thing even approaching a solution that any human being has ever come up with is a rapid expansion of state control over production and distribution, which has proven to only prolong the catastrophic failure of a money-free system. Ever heard of economic management? You seem to be saying that no one would keep things under control and moving smoothly. You can't worm your way around this. These problems exist and require some kind of solution. What's yours? You are the one worming around this. You fail to include many important aspects. The solutions are simple to come up with, simply use logic (something you seem to have on a rather weak level). I'm ignoring your argument on minimum wage on the grounds that it assumes the very thing you're trying to prove. You need more than, "... it would incline heavily toward slavery..." to prove slavery would occur without the minimum wage. Why are companies paying minimum wages if they have enough money to pay above that? You think they would pay more if minimum wage was removed? You don't see where slavery comes in? If they paid less people would have to work for much longer hours. If not then they'd have to choose between having food, clothes, a place to live, and all other necessities. They could not afford all of them. Side: No.
1
point
How would you express your greed with no money? Hoarding things that are freely available anyway? What would be the point? No, the whole point of currency was to simplify trade, if there was no currency then the greedy would hoard possessions and things with high value + there is more to greed than just wanting wealth, greed can also be associated with a great lust for power. Even if money was non-existent people would still be greedy. Side: Yes.
No, the whole point of currency was to simplify trade There is no need for item exchange. Everyone would work because it was necessary, they would be given items freely because it was necessary. if there was no currency then the greedy would hoard possessions and things with high value + there is more to greed than just wanting wealth, greed can also be associated with a great lust for power. What would be the point of hoarding things if they gain nothing from it? What kind of things of high value are you talking about? Currently they hoard money and that also enables power. Do you think there would be no policing force? There would always be infringements that must be dealt with one way or another. Greed is detrimental and even in present day it should be dealt with, but evidently is not (because the greedy ones are the ones who currently determine the rules). You don't base an economy of no money on our current inferior values. If you do it won't work. Even if money was non-existent people would still be greedy. They would, but there would be less ways to express it. Seeing the massive amount of items present they would be more inclined to see the errors they have made, and correct themselves. Better education also reduces greed. Side: No.
1
point
There is no need for item exchange. Everyone would work because it was necessary, they would be given items freely because it was necessary. What the hell are you talking about? How trade used to work was everyone would work, then whatever was left over would be traded, this was called the barter system, as you may know it made trade difficult at times so people decided "hey gold and silver are valuable, lets use this as a medium for trade" then when banks started storing the gold and silver, they would give people bank notes, the first paper money. The entire reason currency was created was to simplify trade. What would be the point of hoarding things if they gain nothing from it? What kind of things of high value are you talking about? Currently they hoard money and that also enables power. Do you think there would be no policing force? There would always be infringements that must be dealt with one way or another. Greed is detrimental and even in present day it should be dealt with, but evidently is not (because the greedy ones are the ones who currently determine the rules). Do you not understand that other things have value besides money? And greed and rich are two different things, being successful and making money doesn't make you greedy. They would, but there would be less ways to express it. Seeing the massive amount of items present they would be more inclined to see the errors they have made, and correct themselves. Better education also reduces greed. Better education doesnt reduce greed, its a human quality that will always be around, its like saying "oh lets educate people, then lust will be reduced" go ahead, I dare you to try, but it won't work. And again, they will still have ways to express it, other things besides money have wealth, if you got rid of currency, the people who sell and make the most product would still be on top, it would just make trade harder. Side: Yes.
You clearly cannot imagine a world with no money. That world would work well. Do you not understand that other things have value besides money? Do you understand that if there was no money and everything was available there would be no point for hoarding, no point to succumb to greed. Those people would simply be ignored. If by hoarding they were to cause issues then those people would be dealt with. And I also mentioned better education and new values... being successful and making money doesn't make you greedy. When did I say it does? Although it can, you get the taste and cannot stop, until you notice yourself. Better education doesnt reduce greed, its a human quality that will always be around, its like saying "oh lets educate people, then lust will be reduced" go ahead, I dare you to try, but it won't work. It would always be around but there would be less of it. Smarter people are far more inclined to notice themselves and everything around them. And so they would be more inclined to controlling themselves. And again, they will still have ways to express it, other things besides money have wealth, if you got rid of currency, the people who sell and make the most product would still be on top, it would just make trade harder. What part of "there would be no trade" don't you understand? Things would be produced for one purpose - because they are needed, not because they are for trading. They are produced for people to be used not for trading. They are produced directly for the people. No middle medium, other than places where to receive them. There are those who produce food, those who make tools, who make all other things. They would make them for everyone. Side: No.
1
point
Although it can, you get the taste and cannot stop, until you notice yourself. Its not about noticing it, most people who are greedy know it, and they'll keep on doing it. Smarter people are far more inclined to notice themselves and everything around them. And so they would be more inclined to controlling themselves. Education can not help someone control them selves, through meditation, self reflection, and happiness, yes. What part of "there would be no trade" don't you understand? Things would be produced for one purpose - because they are needed, not because they are for trading. I don't mean this as an insult, I truely don't but I don't have a better way to ask this, are you economically retarded? Trade is what makes countries great, trade is good for everyone and to think that getting rid of it would help, well, your dead wrong. You sound like you want a utopia which can not be achieved and if it could I would not want to be a part of it cause it sounds terrible. Side: Yes.
Its not about noticing it, most people who are greedy know it, and they'll keep on doing it. That's where the police or some force that deals with issues like that should come in. Education can not help someone control them selves, through meditation, self reflection, and happiness, yes. Education has the potential of leading people to that. Also depends on the education. I don't mean this as an insult, I truely don't but I don't have a better way to ask this, are you economically retarded? Trade works, but it is not necessary for a civilization to work. Trade is what makes countries great, trade is good for everyone and to think that getting rid of it would help, well, your dead wrong. As I said, different values, education, etc. It would make things better. You just cannot imagine it, it seems. You sound like you want a utopia which can not be achieved and if it could I would not want to be a part of it cause it sounds terrible. Utopia is subjective. Absolute utopia is impossible. Something like part-utopia (there would still be issues, as people do differ and people do stupid things) is possible. Side: No.
1
point
That's where the police or some force that deals with issues like that should come in. You shouldn't be able to arrest someone for greed, just as you should be able to arrest someone for being angry or lustful. Trade works, but it is not necessary for a civilization to work. Its is not necessary, but if there is no trade the effects will be dramatic. As I said, different values, education, etc. It would make things better. You just cannot imagine it, it seems. Things would not be better, thats the whole point, I'm imagining what it would be like, your just imagining what you want it to be like. Utopia is subjective. Absolute utopia is impossible. Something like part-utopia (there would still be issues, as people do differ and people do stupid things) is possible. I'm guess by a part-utopia you mean a very collective society that everyone is forced into? Side: Yes.
You shouldn't be able to arrest someone for greed, just as you should be able to arrest someone for being angry or lustful. Even if greed causes harm to society? If someone is so angry that begins beating people up? Lust that leads to rape? Its is not necessary, but if there is no trade the effects will be dramatic. Dramatic only if you kept current values and simply removed money. People wouldn't have the time to adjust, adjusting would require organized help anyway, otherwise it'd all get really messed up. Things would not be better, thats the whole point, I'm imagining what it would be like, your just imagining what you want it to be like. Your imagining is based on current values, as I said they should be different for it to work. My imagination is based on logic, as in what would it take to make it work, how could it work. I'm guess by a part-utopia you mean a very collective society that everyone is forced into? Any drastic change comes with force of some sort, unless people on average become a lot smarter. Change in values, education, etc., would mean they would not be forced, they would understand why it's so and they would accept it, and as is currently, they would also be raised into it. Everyone would still be free and free to think and do whatever they like (unless that is harming others). Side: No.
1
point
Even if greed causes harm to society? If someone is so angry that begins beating people up? Lust that leads to rape? Your have a right to be greedy, angry and lustful, you do not have a right to theft, violence and rape. Your imagining is based on current values, as I said they should be different for it to work. My imagination is based on logic, as in what would it take to make it work, how could it work. What it would take to work is not worth what it is, for this to happen you would need a very large collectivist government and a forced unity. Any drastic change comes with force of some sort, unless people on average become a lot smarter. Change in values, education, etc., would mean they would not be forced, they would understand why it's so and they would accept it, and as is currently, they would also be raised into it. Everyone would still be free and free to think and do whatever they like (unless that is harming others). Brainwashing someone with education is not having them accept it. Its not based of values, its based on how things work, yes the idea of no currency and only working for what is absolutley needed works... on a very small scale, such as a small group of people or a tribe, but when you have 6 billion people, no. Side: Yes.
Brainwashing someone with education is not having them accept it. In that case what is currently going on is also brainwashing. There's only talk about how this all is great and how only this all can work, that there are no working alternatives (even though in reality the alternatives haven't really been tested). Well, that is just dead wrong. Its not based of values, its based on how things work, yes the idea of no currency and only working for what is absolutley needed works... Value = something regarded as important. And yes, there would also be the part of how things work. on a very small scale, such as a small group of people or a tribe, but when you have 6 billion people, no. Imagine bigger, and what it would take to make it work. It is possible. Getting it done is the hard part, as people are used to current ways and seem to fear all sudden and drastic changes, and they are taught that this is the only way. Side: No.
1
point
In that case what is currently going on is also brainwashing. There's only talk about how this all is great and how only this all can work, that there are no working alternatives (even though in reality the alternatives haven't really been tested). Well, that is just dead wrong. Bullshit, most schools either don't educate kids about economics and government or they have a socialist view on it. And the alternatives have been tested, even in america, and they fail. Value = something regarded as important. And yes, there would also be the part of how things work. If your idea of new values is Marxist equality and survival, im sorry, but your trapped in the past. Imagine bigger, and what it would take to make it work. It is possible. Getting it done is the hard part, as people are used to current ways and seem to fear all sudden and drastic changes, and they are taught that this is the only way. No one is taught this is the only way, most colleges have very liberal and socialist views on government and economics. We have seen the other ways and they don't work out so well. If you want to "imagine" it, go ahead, but I suggest you read a history book first, you'll find this has been tried before. Side: Yes.
Bullshit, most schools either don't educate kids about economics and government or they have a socialist view on it. And the alternatives have been tested, even in america, and they fail. You clearly cannot view current ways from the outside. The alternatives have never really been tested. It takes far more than just an idea and some flawed fussing to get it done correctly. If your idea of new values is Marxist equality and survival, im sorry, but your trapped in the past. I'm the one trapped in the past, yet you are the one who cannot look away from it. I've never liked history anyway... All my views come from me, not from some previously established ones'. No one is taught this is the only way, most colleges have very liberal and socialist views on government and economics. We have seen the other ways and they don't work out so well. If you want to "imagine" it, go ahead, but I suggest you read a history book first, you'll find this has been tried before. We have not seen the other ways, as they have never truly been tested. In every bigger society, to this point, there has been money and it has always been used. Not to mention other significant flaws. I'd suggest you kept away from history books (as you cannot differentiate crap from "truth", more or less). Not to mention they are filled with worthless dates. If you looked at present and then at past, you'd notice significant differences... History is mostly useless crap. Dwelling over past that is written pretty much as absolute truth and usually by the victors or whoever wants things one way or another, even though corrections are, time to time, being done, is simply a waste of time. A short review would do just well. Side: No.
1
point
I'd suggest you kept away from history books (as you cannot differentiate crap from "truth", more or less). Not to mention they are filled with worthless dates. Your thinking of school history books, where it says "in 1873 this happened" thats not history, thats a bunch of facts. History is mostly useless crap. Those who forget the past almost always repeat its mistakes. Dwelling over past that is written pretty much as absolute truth and usually by the victors or whoever wants things one way or another, even though corrections are, time to time, being done, is simply a waste of time. A short review would do just well. I apologize that you had a terrible experience with being taught history and that you have such a skewed view about it. History is not a list of facts, its an argument about the past, if you want to not sound like an ignorant person trying to push their "new view" no everyone, you might want to do some research first. Side: Yes.
Your thinking of school history books, where it says "in 1873 this happened" thats not history, thats a bunch of facts. If it is about the past, it is history. Does not matter whether they are facts or not (in fact there is no way to tell whether some of those "facts" are really facts, as there have been made corrections before). Either way, there's no point for dates that give nothing useful to you, unless you like wasting time on insignificant material. Those who forget the past almost always repeat its mistakes. If people are more highly educated and know how the world really works (we have far more knowledge about the world now than we did in the past), then there will be far less mistakes, because they can perceive mistakes before they are made and not do them (this does not include history on such detail as knowing specific dates, if at all). Knowing specific dates is pointless, it literally is a waste of time. Wait... you refer to history to determine whether something is right or wrong? You have no inherent ability of your own to make the right decisions? I apologize that you had a terrible experience with being taught history and that you have such a skewed view about it. It didn't come from how I was taught. At one point I began thinking, what is the point of knowing all those dates if I will, literally, never need them? My views aren't skewed at all. Using my own mind is skewed? All the dates and facts you know about history, what do they give you besides knowing them? Don't say the knowledge of what is right and wrong because that you should have without referring to some written texts. The only reason you think history is so important is because you were raised and taught to think so. You call my views skewed, yet you aren't looking at things with an objective and practical mind. As I said, a short review will do just well. History is not a list of facts, its an argument about the past, if you want to not sound like an ignorant person trying to push their "new view" no everyone, you might want to do some research first. History is taught as a list of facts. That research would give me nothing. Being ignorant on history is pretty much a good thing. There is no point knowing everything that has happened in detail. The point is moving on, not dwelling over useless past. Things have changed, the mistakes that have been made before are becoming more and more impossible to make again, as our knowledge about everything currently existing is increasing rather fast. We can see what and how something will affect something else, before first trying it. Human history simply reflects the stupidity of humanity that is increasingly decreasing. Learning specific dates and history in detail is a waste of time. If you do it as a hobby then go ahead. Side: No.
1
point
If people are more highly educated and know how the world really works (we have far more knowledge about the world now than we did in the past), then there will be far less mistakes, because they can perceive mistakes before they are made and not do them (this does not include history on such detail as knowing specific dates, if at all). Knowing specific dates is pointless, it literally is a waste of time. I said dates are pointless because they are not history, its just a list of "facts" or statements. Wait... you refer to history to determine whether something is right or wrong? You have no inherent ability of your own to make the right decisions? No, I'm simply saying that history is a lesson, your supposed to learn from its mistakes not ignore and repeat them. It didn't come from how I was taught. At one point I began thinking, what is the point of knowing all those dates if I will, literally, never need them? Again, facts and dates are not history, thats just bullshit. My views aren't skewed at all. Using my own mind is skewed? No, but pretending that history doesn't matter and that a system with no money would work on a massive scale is very scewed. The only reason you think history is so important is because you were raised and taught to think so. I wasn't raised or taught it, most of what I learned about history I learned outside of school on my own time. You call my views skewed, yet you aren't looking at things with an objective and practical mind. You think eliminating money would work perfectly, thats not very practical. History is taught as a list of facts. If your only source of history is a shitty public school teacher and a text book, then yes. Human history simply reflects the stupidity of humanity that is increasingly decreasing. Decreasing? People will always be people to think that some how human nature is fading away is completely delusional. Side: Yes.
No, I'm simply saying that history is a lesson, your supposed to learn from its mistakes not ignore and repeat them. Current problem with that is that people tend to ascribe certain events to certain views and certain acts (they don't seem to learn from that mistake). Without thinking whether what was intended could actually work if it were to be done correctly. Everyone is flawed in one way or another. Trial and error till you get it right, but claiming something to be absolutely impossible without never really having tried it is just stupid. You stop whatever you are doing at first failure? Again, facts and dates are not history, thats just bullshit. Facts and dates about the past is history. It's basically the definition of history. No, but pretending that history doesn't matter and that a system with no money would work on a massive scale is very scewed. That only shows your views and opinions are skewed, not mine. History, the way it is taught and what about it is taught is almost all useless. A society with no money could work, I have explained a bit how. Not my problem you lack the necessary imagination and creativity to see how exactly. Knowing about history in detail, what has that given to you what you would not have had otherwise? Useless knowledge? I don't need history to tell me what is right or wrong. I'd rather think myself. I wasn't raised or taught it, most of what I learned about history I learned outside of school on my own time. As a hobby... As you might be aware people also collect physical things as a hobby, like stones, candy wrappers, and so many other things. You think eliminating money would work perfectly, thats not very practical. Perfectly? Perfect is subjective, absolute perfect is impossible. But it would work far better than the current system. Currently, the one with money has the power. If there'd be no money it would be the one with the most brains (more or less). It is practical to find better and more efficient ways. If your only source of history is a shitty public school teacher and a text book, then yes. History is facts about the past... that is a fact. Even though those "facts" have sometimes been changed. Or are you saying what history says is not what happened, what was? Decreasing? People will always be people to think that some how human nature is fading away is completely delusional. Human nature? I never said anything about that. It is a fact that humans become smarter the more we find out about everything around us. You call stupidity human nature? That it will always remain so? By saying that you are also saying that we don't change, that we do not evolve. Now that is delusional. Human nature is a made up concept, in reality it does not really exist. The only real "nature" we have is survival, and to become more advanced (this probably to increase the chance of survival, so...). I'd say the rest is simply a product of the second, which itself is very likely a product of the first, even if some of the products of the second are rather stupid (that's what an abstract mind results - there'll be crap). Side: No.
1
point
Trial and error till you get it right, but claiming something to be absolutely impossible without never really having tried it is just stupid. Yes trail and error works, but, when your playing with the fate of billions of people you don't exactly just go in there with the whole "its not gonna work, but eventually we'll get it" attitude. Not my problem you lack the necessary imagination and creativity to see how exactly. Im a rather skilled musician and artist, don't talk to be about creativity. Its not about imagination, just cause someone is unable to see your vision of a perfect world (whether it would be good or not) does not make them unimaginative, if anything you lack realism and are unable to understand that your vision is more of an ideology than an actual system. I don't need history to tell me what is right or wrong. I'd rather think myself. Your supposed to think freely, but, thinking freely does not mean totally ignoring history and reality, for instance, I can think that Meth won't hurt me but regardless of what I think it will, someone who simply shuns the evidence that Meth is bad for you is not a free thinker, there just ignorant. As a hobby... As you might be aware people also collect physical things as a hobby, like stones, candy wrappers, and so many other things. Are you trying to say that since it was a hobby that I was interested in and not a government planned class in a public school that it is somehow less valid? Currently, the one with money has the power. If there'd be no money it would be the one with the most brains (more or less). First off, how do you think people get money? There are a few spoiled brats, but for the most part if you want to obtain wealth you have to be smart or skilled. Secondly, it wouldn't be the one "with the most brains" it would be whoever is incharge, if your going to have a society with no money where all products are rationed your going to have some form of large government, the people who run it will be in power regardless of how smart or stupid they are. You call stupidity human nature? Stupidity is human nature, we are like any other creature, we screw up. No matter how much you make people "learn" about anything, human nature will always be there weather its for the better or worse. Survival is an instinct of human nature and most other behaviors in human nature are linked back to it, but that would be over simplifying it to say that we only care about survival. Side: Yes.
Yes trail and error works, but, when your playing with the fate of billions of people you don't exactly just go in there with the whole "its not gonna work, but eventually we'll get it" attitude. It's not playing, it's correcting ways. A huge difference. You would rather keep following current inferior and stupid ways instead of something much much more efficient and something that is better for everyone? Im a rather skilled musician and artist, don't talk to be about creativity. Its not about imagination, just cause someone is unable to see your vision of a perfect world (whether it would be good or not) does not make them unimaginative, if anything you lack realism and are unable to understand that your vision is more of an ideology than an actual system. Musician and artist? Not exactly into "heavy" creativity... I'm more toward high fantasy and science fiction, so I've got to have a good grasp on reality. That world wouldn't be perfect, perfect is impossible. Currently it is an ideology because it does not exist outside the mind... yet. But it could if it were done and it will one day be done, assuming humanity takes its head out of the hole. That's not lacking realism, it's having more of it than you, clearly, as I can see alternative and better ways for it all to work. There's this what is right now and then there're the other possibilities. Your supposed to think freely, but, thinking freely does not mean totally ignoring history and reality, for instance, I can think that Meth won't hurt me but regardless of what I think it will, someone who simply shuns the evidence that Meth is bad for you is not a free thinker, there just ignorant. I know enough about history. And I'm not ignoring reality, you are, as you deny the possibility. The meth example is a poor one, it does not apply here. We are talking about what is in the minds of people, not what you can touch and consume and see direct effects. They are completely different. Meth is meth, one view is not the same as another and outcomes of views also differ depending on people's views and opinions that can change. Are you trying to say that since it was a hobby that I was interested in and not a government planned class in a public school that it is somehow less valid? Doesn't matter if it comes from school or your own free time, it's rather worthless either way. First off, how do you think people get money? There are a few spoiled brats, but for the most part if you want to obtain wealth you have to be smart or skilled. Or greedy and willing to do anything in your power to get what you want. The rich people basically steal it, as they have far more than they will ever use (and I don't mean using it on worthless junk). Secondly, it wouldn't be the one "with the most brains" it would be whoever is incharge, if your going to have a society with no money where all products are rationed your going to have some form of large government, the people who run it will be in power regardless of how smart or stupid they are. And how would the leading people be selected? People would be smarter on average than they are currently... Currently many people go for leading positions because of money. That means idiots find their way up there. In moneyless society those people would not want that position, they'd gain nothing from it. Stupidity is human nature, we are like any other creature, we screw up. No matter how much you make people "learn" about anything, human nature will always be there weather its for the better or worse. Survival is an instinct of human nature and most other behaviors in human nature are linked back to it, but that would be over simplifying it to say that we only care about survival. In that case I'd say making mistakes is human nature, not stupidity. Not all people are stupid, but all make mistakes. Being ignorant of something is not exactly being stupid, you make a mistake and you learn. Might as well say learning is human nature. I didn't say we only care about survival, I said it all originates from that, if you trace it back. Side: No.
1
point
It's not playing, it's correcting ways. A huge difference. You would rather keep following current inferior and stupid ways instead of something much much more efficient and something that is better for everyone? No, I do not like our current system, however, eliminating money isn't superior, it would make trade much more complex and put humanity back into a survival situation. And you are in a sense playing with them, you would be forcing a system on billions of people that is mainly an ideaology. Musician and artist? Not exactly into "heavy" creativity... I'm more toward high fantasy and science fiction, so I've got to have a good grasp on reality. Heavy? You think because I am able to create music and art that I am unable to imagine other things? Currently it is an ideology because it does not exist outside the mind... yet. But it could if it were done and it will one day be done, assuming humanity takes its head out of the hole. That's not lacking realism, it's having more of it than you, clearly, as I can see alternative and better ways for it all to work. There's this what is right now and then there're the other possibilities. The hole humanities hole is in is currently the idea that mass collectivism and big government are the solution to our problems, a medium that makes trade much easier is not the problem. Doesn't matter if it comes from school or your own free time, it's rather worthless either way. Knowing about has happened isn't worthless and having an understanding of how humans work is not worthless. Or greedy and willing to do anything in your power to get what you want. Greed is an out of control lust for power, not someone simply trying to succeed. The rich people basically steal it, as they have far more than they will ever use (and I don't mean using it on worthless junk). So your saying that anyone who has made more or just has more is greedy and stole it? You understand that some will always do better than others and your not obligated to give away any excess you have made. Currently many people go for leading positions because of money. That means idiots find their way up there. In moneyless society those people would not want that position, they'd gain nothing from it. Wrong, most people take leading positions for the power, money is also a factor, but if you got rid of money do you honestly believe that corrupt people who only care about their well being would end up in charge or find a way to get control? People will always want power and people will always want to control others., eliminating money will stop their motives or them from achieving them. In that case I'd say making mistakes is human nature, not stupidity. Not all people are stupid, but all make mistakes. Being ignorant of something is not exactly being stupid, you make a mistake and you learn. Might as well say learning is human nature. Learning and mistakes are human nature, but mistakes will stupid at times and people will not always learn. Side: Yes.
No, I do not like our current system, however, eliminating money isn't superior, it would make trade much more complex and put humanity back into a survival situation. And you are in a sense playing with them, you would be forcing a system on billions of people that is mainly an ideaology. In moneyless society there is no need for trade, you simply get what you need. Trade, swapping one thing with another, is not necessary. It is an ideology that would work, meaning it would not be playing with them, it would be changing things, for the better. Heavy? You think because I am able to create music and art that I am unable to imagine other things? Not that you aren't able to imagine other things, just that you seem to fail at seeing certain important aspects or making the right connections, like what and how would make it work in real life. The hole humanities hole is in is currently the idea that mass collectivism and big government are the solution to our problems, a medium that makes trade much easier is not the problem. Trade is not necessary in the first place. There have been economic lowpoints and crisis's before, all because of money. With no money there literally could be no major economic declines (unless it's caused by some natural disaster and even that would not last long). The medium is what causes all the problems (almost all). If you hoard enough medium you can have and even control everything, or most of everything. In moneyless society there would be no option like that. Knowing about has happened isn't worthless and having an understanding of how humans work is not worthless. Knowing what happened in detail is worthless, there is no practical use for it. You cannot base how humans work on the past, people and their minds were different back then, and they were stupider. If you want to understand how humans currently work then you have to observe and examine the present, not past. Unless how they work is based on how it worked in the past, that they learned the past to make decisions in the present. But that would be stupid 'cause things have changed... The past is not exactly compatible with the present. So your saying that anyone who has made more or just has more is greedy and stole it? Overpricing products or services, paying low wages. Not all but a lot of them (most of them), enough to make an impact toward the worse. You understand that some will always do better than others and your not obligated to give away any excess you have made. And what is the point of keeping something you will never use (not talking about personal objects with personal value)? There is no point, other than greed of course. With no money this would not be an issue, it literally couldn't exist. Or would they simply hoard products, raw materials, and such? They would need large storehouses for all that... and it would impact economy, meaning they and their issues would be dealt with. Wrong, most people take leading positions for the power, money is also a factor, but if you got rid of money do you honestly believe that corrupt people who only care about their well being would end up in charge or find a way to get control? People will always want power and people will always want to control others., eliminating money will stop their motives or them from achieving them. There would be less greedy morons wanting to get to leading positions if there were no money. There would also be no money to buy people off, to make others support them. People also wouldn't support them simply because they got paid to do so, because it was their job. All they would have would be their thoughts and opinions, and that's all they could use to influence people. Even if they managed to lie their way through... they have the power, then what? Start messing things up? People would notice... There are also those who want power for the right purposes, to use it to make things better and keep them advancing, but that's a much smaller number (currently anyway). Learning and mistakes are human nature, but mistakes will stupid at times and people will not always learn. Some won't, not all. But all make them and all do learn, although not from every mistake. If someone did something stupid it does not necessarily mean that that person is stupid (there are many factors that can influence actions). Side: No.
1
point
In moneyless society there is no need for trade, you simply get what you need. Trade, swapping one thing with another, is not necessary. Heres things, your pushing the system back to the way a small group of survivors would have worked if they were stranded, they would all work and all get the same amount of everything. We are not currently in a survival situation, by eliminating trade not only are you ruining any sense of economy but your going to slow down human progress. It is an ideology that would work, meaning it would not be playing with them, it would be changing things, for the better. No no no, its an ideology that could work, not would work, if you want to help people go ahead im not stopping you but don't drag everyone else down with a utopian ideology. Trade is not necessary in the first place. There have been economic lowpoints and crisis's before, all because of money. With no money there literally could be no major economic declines (unless it's caused by some natural disaster and even that would not last long). Yeah, there would be no economic lowpoints because there would be almost no economy and you'd be acting like were in a survival situation. Overpricing products or services, paying low wages. Not all but a lot of them (most of them), enough to make an impact toward the worse. Just because you make a profit from a worker or product doesn't mean its over priced, and don't forget your free to stop buying that product or work somehwere else at anytime, no one is stopping you. And what is the point of keeping something you will never use (not talking about personal objects with personal value)? There is no point, other than greed of course. With no money this would not be an issue, it literally couldn't exist. Yes it would, do you have no understanding of how power and people work? There will always be a power and a way for people to get more and by human nature we will try to go for it, eliminating money would barley change anything when it comes to who has the power except take it away from the individual. Not giving away your excess is not greed, its called benefiting from your labor. There would be less greedy morons wanting to get to leading positions if there were no money. ITS. NOT. ABOUT. MONEY. Its about power, money can be used for power, most people in political positions take it for the power, not the money, you wouldn't change anything. There would also be no money to buy people off, to make others support them. Can still bribe someone with a product, luxury, sex, power or intimidation. All they would have would be their thoughts and opinions, and that's all they could use to influence people. Even if they managed to lie their way through... they have the power, then what? Start messing things up? People would notice... You are so niave about how people work... Side: Yes.
Heres things, your pushing the system back to the way a small group of survivors would have worked if they were stranded, they would all work and all get the same amount of everything. We are not currently in a survival situation, by eliminating trade not only are you ruining any sense of economy but your going to slow down human progress. It wouldn't be back to that way but it would have similarities. Same amount of everything would also not be exactly true (people have different preferences and needs). Actually, we are always in a survival state. If we one day decided to stop doing what we do each day (go to work) it would get ugly really fast. Just being alive means we are surviving. No no no, its an ideology that could work, not would work, if you want to help people go ahead im not stopping you but don't drag everyone else down with a utopian ideology. It would not ruin economy and it would not slow down human progress, it would speed up human progress. Currently science is behind money, if no money is directed toward some projects then there will be no activity. With no money there would always be optimum activity if people and resources were available. Their work would not be based on money, it would be based on getting it done and once done then moving on. Currently money dictates what gets done and what won't. No no no, its an ideology that could work, not would work, if you want to help people go ahead im not stopping you but don't drag everyone else down with a utopian ideology. It could and it would if it were done. Utopian? That's rather stupid. Utopia is subjective and impossible, there would always be some issues. The only difference is there would be less than are currently. What is the deal with US and money? You like money so much? Without even realizing it's bad, considering there is a better way. Are you afraid of losing money? So afraid that you won't even try to imagine a world without it with an objective mind? Yeah, there would be no economic lowpoints because there would be almost no economy and you'd be acting like were in a survival situation. Economy does not mean the use of money... Survival... there's nothing more important. If we died then everything we have done so far would be for nothing, all pointless. Our existence is constant survival. Just because you make a profit from a worker or product doesn't mean its over priced, and don't forget your free to stop buying that product or work somehwere else at anytime, no one is stopping you. You didn't get what I meant. Some put an example and then almost everyone else will follow. Too high prices everywhere, too low wages everywhere, or just for most people. The profit, they literally don't need that much money. It's called greed. Yes it would, do you have no understanding of how power and people work? There will always be a power and a way for people to get more and by human nature we will try to go for it, People would notice if someone would be abusing power. What would they use it for? To make the economy money-based again? Isn't human nature something that applies to all humans? Being greedy is not human nature. I'm not greedy. Neither does everyone want power. Not giving away your excess is not greed, its called benefiting from your labor. Keeping something that could be used for something better than just keeping it is being greedy. No money means there will be no profits, everything will go into circulation or be stored till comes time for use. Profit is unused excess. The only benefits people gain from labor is what gets done by their work. Working just to get more money... seriously, that's messed up. ITS. NOT. ABOUT. MONEY. Its about power, money can be used for power, most people in political positions take it for the power, not the money, you wouldn't change anything. IT. IS. ABOUT. MONEY. It is about personal welfare and wants and desires, money also provides power. But not always. It would change a lot, almost everything. You are so niave about how people work... I know how people work, better than you do. Apparently. Somewhere up there I also said something about better and higher education. Also new views and values. You completely fail to include them. Side: No.
1
point
It wouldn't be back to that way but it would have similarities. Same amount of everything would also not be exactly true (people have different preferences and needs). Actually, we are always in a survival state. If we one day decided to stop doing what we do each day (go to work) it would get ugly really fast. Just being alive means we are surviving. There is a difference between surviving and being in a survival situation, currently we don't need to be in one so you would just be setting everything back. It would not ruin economy and it would not slow down human progress, it would speed up human progress. You eliminate trade, please explain how that would not ruin the economy. You put a massive government in power and force people to work towards their goals, that wouldn't speed up human progress. With no money there would always be optimum activity if people and resources were available. Their work would not be based on money, it would be based on getting it done and once done then moving on. Currently money dictates what gets done and what won't. Money is a medium for trading, trading what? Resources! Thus if there was no money there were likely no resources to begin with, research usually isn't funded for a reason. It could and it would if it were done. Utopian? That's rather stupid. Utopia is subjective and impossible, there would always be some issues. The only difference is there would be less than are currently. Utopia is a perfect world, obviously that is impossible, but your views on how the world should work are very similar to a utopian, there would be the same amount of issues if not more, except instead of it being in the private sector they would be in the state. Your not solving a problem, your just creating new ones and moving the old one. What is the deal with US and money? You like money so much? Without even realizing it's bad, considering there is a better way. Whats with the united states and money? We were (up until recently) know for being very independent, hardworking and inovative people, we like to keep what we earn. And what is so bad amount money, all it does is simplify trade so to be against money is to be against trade. Your way isn't better, you just cant see past the whole "oh no, someone is wealthier than me... greedy bastard! I deserve some of that!" phase. Are you afraid of losing money? So afraid that you won't even try to imagine a world without it with an objective mind? Its not out of fear of loosing money, its out of the common sense that destroying trade and having a large government run everything is a terrible path, again you bring up imagination, I can imagine your little fantasy unlike you though I can also see what it would be like outside of my head and in the real world. Economy does not mean the use of money... No, it is in reference to trade, you eliminating the main medium for trade and proposing we do almost no trading would destroy the economy. Survival... there's nothing more important. If we died then everything we have done so far would be for nothing, all pointless. Our existence is constant survival. We are currently not on the brink of extinction, stop acting like were on the verge of death. Too high prices everywhere, too low wages everywhere, or just for most people. The profit, they literally don't need that much money. It's called greed. Someone making more than they need isn't called greed, its one form of being successful, most people forget to take into account that whoever is selling and employing is also taking a very large risk and its not exactly easy running a business. People would notice if someone would be abusing power. What would they use it for? To make the economy money-based again? Do you not understand? Ok, there is no currency, everything is run by government, can you not see how much room for corruption there is? Isn't human nature something that applies to all humans? Being greedy is not human nature. I'm not greedy. Neither does everyone want power. Its applies to everyone, every human is greedy on some level, whether you like it or not ALL people have a desire for wealth or power. Of course your not greedy, its always the other guy right? Keeping something that could be used for something better than just keeping it is being greedy. No money means there will be no profits, everything will go into circulation or be stored till comes time for use. Profit is unused excess. The only benefits people gain from labor is what gets done by their work. Working just to get more money... seriously, that's messed up. Who are you decide how the money that they made is to be used? Keeping your profits, regardless if someone wants a share of it or not isn't greed. Its wouldn't be about profits, it would be about much power and resources can you get your hands on. And most work is to get more money how is that messed up? You work, then you get a medium for trade so you can get what you want, not just what the state has available. IT. IS. ABOUT. MONEY. It is about personal welfare and wants and desires, money also provides power. But not always. It would change a lot, almost everything. Because once you eliminate money personal goals, wants and desires will go away? You do not understand human nature at all, stop being so niave, get off your college campus and go into the real world, its time you get out of this state of mind that people are wonderful creatures that can be trusted by "the evil money" has corrupted us and that you understand how human nature really works. I know how people work, better than you do. Apparently. ...No you don't, if you did, you would see how flawed your ideology is. Side: Yes.
There is a difference between surviving and being in a survival situation, currently we don't need to be in one so you would just be setting everything back. It wouldn't set back anything. The only difference would be the economy that would differ from the current one, and that also requires changes in other aspects. You eliminate trade, please explain how that would not ruin the economy. You put a massive government in power and force people to work towards their goals, that wouldn't speed up human progress. As I have said, money is not needed for an economy. There'd be no ruining anything, there would only be change from one to another. Who said anything about forcing people to work? I definitely did not. If you think people would be forced than currently they are also forced because if you don't work you don't get money and you die from inability to buy sustenance. So yes, you are forced to work even presently. Human progress... I've explained that already, not only with the science example. Money is a medium for trading, trading what? Resources! Money is a medium for trading. I'm assuming by resources you mean anything and everything. Thus if there was no money there were likely no resources to begin with, research usually isn't funded for a reason. To have resources you do not need money. To create money you first need resources. Seriously! You are basically saying that before money was made up there were no resources, but since you need resources to make money then how can it currently exist? There were no resources to create it from! Get it? There is a demand for something and it gets delivered, no exchange of money is necessary. And do you think there wouldn't be people evaluating research, whether that something were worth the effort? I doubt it would be much of an issue anyway. As I said, if people and resources were available they'd get them. Utopia is a perfect world, obviously that is impossible, but your views on how the world should work are very similar to a utopian, there would be the same amount of issues if not more, except instead of it being in the private sector they would be in the state. Your not solving a problem, your just creating new ones and moving the old one. They might be similar to utopia because that's what it would be like - similar. There would be less issues, I've already explained that a bit. There would be a private sector. You think if someone gets a good idea that people would benefit from the state would simply claim it? It would solve many problems, I've explained this also. How can you be so narrow-minded? I have overestimated you. And what is so bad amount money, all it does is simplify trade so to be against money is to be against trade. That's naive. Trade is not necessary in the first place, as I've also explained. It causes a lot of problems that wouldn't exist, or would be far less severe, if there was no money. Your way isn't better, you just cant see past the whole "oh no, someone is wealthier than me... greedy bastard! I deserve some of that!" phase. That's prejudice right there. Indoctrination? I'd say yes. My way is better, as I've explained but you clearly lack the capacity to realize it. Its not out of fear of loosing money, its out of the common sense that destroying trade and having a large government run everything is a terrible path, It's not out of common sense, it's from how you have been raised and taught, it's prejudice. Indoctrination pops to mind again... Who said anything about a large government running anything? There would be a large government. Would it run everything? No. You are so clearly biased. again you bring up imagination, I can imagine your little fantasy unlike you though I can also see what it would be like outside of my head and in the real world. If you try imagining it do you include all the necessary aspects? The answer is no, or you lack imaginative power. Oh, and leave prejudice out of it, it will mess it all up. If I imagine something like this I also think how it would work in the real world. It would work. I've explained... No, it is in reference to trade, you eliminating the main medium for trade and proposing we do almost no trading would destroy the economy. I'll leave money aside. Economy means the management and use of resources and products. No trade. How exactly would it destroy economy, if resources, products, and all else are managed? We are currently not on the brink of extinction, stop acting like were on the verge of death. The brink of extinction and survival are different things. Survival itself does not necessarily include an impending extinctive event. And you didn't say you meant the brink of extinction. It would be far more beneficial to currently have moneyless society in case an extinctive event were to come. People would already be used to the fact that money is worthless. They would be used to working because it is required, not because they get paid for it. Or let's take an extinctive event, like a massive solar storm that will scorch the surface of Earth, killing everything. Now, there is a scientific project that could prevent it somehow. Would you rather wait for the massive amount of money (and the money might never come, as you might be aware there's so much fuss over moving it, especially large amounts, and where to get it in the first place), or would you just get on with it and save the planet? And if the money arrives it could be so much that it would cause an economic crisis. Or would the money after be just given back to wherever it came from? To "fix" things? Might as well have no money at all and things would constantly be working, without any money-related setbacks. Someone making more than they need isn't called greed, its one form of being successful, most people forget to take into account that whoever is selling and employing is also taking a very large risk and its not exactly easy running a business. It is called greed, otherwise they'd higher wages or lower prices of products. Successful because you earn far more than you need - distorted understanding. In that sense success is literally worthless, and even negative, as I've said hoarding things you'll never use is pointless. Do you not understand? Ok, there is no currency, everything is run by government, can you not see how much room for corruption there is? You're the one not understanding. There would be far less corruption. I've explained this also. It's like you ignore almost everything I say. Currently, corrupted people use money to get people supporting them, if there were no money they could only use their own mind. There would be less corrupted people in power positions. Its applies to everyone, every human is greedy on some level, whether you like it or not ALL people have a desire for wealth or power. Of course your not greedy, its always the other guy right? I think you don't know what greed means... I'm not greedy, if I want something then there is a practical reason for it. Money promotes greed. No money, far less greed. Who are you decide how the money that they made is to be used? Excessive money, right? Because I see how flawed it all is? Keeping your profits, regardless if someone wants a share of it or not isn't greed. It is greed if you have far more than you need and are unwilling to use it. Its wouldn't be about profits, it would be about much power and resources can you get your hands on. And the point for that would be? Just hoarding things you'll never use? That's stupid. And most work is to get more money how is that messed up? Say, for some reason something happens to money, or the whole money-based economy. People are used to working for money. Would they still work if they didn't get paid for it? I doubt they would. Or they couldn't afford to buy the basics any longer. There are always people, there are always factories and jobs, there's always the necessary workforce to keep people well and fed, to keep things moving and working. Money, it can and is being abused and the result can be devastating. There's no need for money. If there were no money something like this could never happen. Things would always be moving onward, setbacks, if any, would be very few. You work, then you get a medium for trade so you can get what you want, not just what the state has available. Biased again... You work and you get for free anything you need. The state would have available anything you need (assuming it's not something special or custom that needs to be manufactured on special order). You do know that people differ and so there must be many varieties of things? Because once you eliminate money personal goals, wants and desires will go away? No, but money could not be used to get them. Money is an easy way for getting anything, if you have enough of it. No money, all you can use is yourself. You do not understand human nature at all Yet I have corrected you about human nature. get off your college campus and go into the real world Not in college. But I was in university once (chemistry). I know what the real world is like, it's messed up. its time you get out of this state of mind that people are wonderful creatures that can be trusted by "the evil money" has corrupted us and that you understand how human nature really works. I tend to treat people as equals, unless they make clear they are, well, not. The rest, money promotes corruption. No money, no promotion from that source. How human nature really works? Human nature is simply the characteristics that humans have. ...No you don't, if you did, you would see how flawed your ideology is. You got it wrong. If you did, if you included all the necessary aspects and you left your prejudice behind the door you would see that it could and would work. Eh, quite long already. I really must like writing. Side: No.
1
point
Let me start off with this, whenever I disagree with you it doesn't make me ignorant or closed minded and I'm not indoctrination you, its called a debate. As I have said, money is not needed for an economy. There'd be no ruining anything, there would only be change from one to another. Money is not needed for an economy, however, eliminating money would push humanity back to the barter system which would severely complicate and hurt trade. Who said anything about forcing people to work? I definitely did not. Your asking for an economy based on what people need to survive, similar to a distribution center. In this system (doesn't matter if you want it to happen or not) it would be run by a large organization or government, when a government controls everything and what you get is based on your work then you are forced to work for them. To have resources you do not need money. To create money you first need resources. Seriously! You are basically saying that before money was made up there were no resources, but since you need resources to make money then how can it currently exist? There were no resources to create it from! Get it? You need resources to generate money, exactly, thus to the point I made before which you didn't get, I am not saying resources come from money, if they did not have money there were likely no resources to create money from. There is a demand for something and it gets delivered, no exchange of money is necessary. Again, thats what you want to happen, but it will work either of these two ways (or a mix of them): Either there is a massive state that supplies, regulates and distributes all these products and you have to work and serve them to get your share or you have to trade other resources to get what you want, if you dont have what they want then your out of luck where as with money the transaction is simple, they give you a resource and you give them a medium for trading resources. There would be less issues, I've already explained that a bit. There would be a private sector. You think if someone gets a good idea that people would benefit from the state would simply claim it? You didn't explain it, you stated that there would be less problems cause there would be no money, you never countered anything else. There wouldn't be a private sector, the main distributor of these products would likely be the government, if it wasn't it would probably be a large corporation or organization. That's naive. Trade is not necessary in the first place, as I've also explained. You didn't explain, you just said that trade was not needed for survival. Naive? I'm not the one who thinks that eliminating money will solve most of the problems in the world and eliminate most of the negative parts of human nature. My way is better, as I've explained but you clearly lack the capacity to realize it. I don't agree with you, I must obviously not have the brain capacity to understand your naive views of the world. Oh, and leave prejudice out of it, it will mess it all up. SO me supporting my idea is prejudice but you thinking that your little fantasy will work and it will better the world even though it is clearly flawed isn't? I'll leave money aside. Economy means the management and use of resources and products. No trade. How exactly would it destroy economy, if resources, products, and all else are managed? The economy is trade, the regulation of resources and products on a massive scale is called state distribution. If there is no trade, there is no economy. People would already be used to the fact that money is worthless. Do you even know what money is? Allow me to explain to you what money is, for a while there was no medium of trade, we used the barter system, if you wanted food you traded for something the other guy wanted, obviously this system had its problems. Eventually people decided that silver and gold were valuable medals and they should be used as medium to simplify trade and it worked great, but people wanted to keep their money safe, so banks started popping up, now instead of having to run to the bank every time you wanted to buy something they would give you a bank note that you could use as legal tender. THAT is what money is, it is not just some tool used to rule people and be greedy. It is called greed, otherwise they'd higher wages or lower prices of products. Successful because you earn far more than you need - distorted understanding. They shouldn't have to lower their profits, stop expansion and hurt their business because your not happy with it. This whole "earning more than you need" thing is bullshit, alright someone made more than you and have some to spare, they shouldn't be forced to give it up because others were to lazy to earn it or were unable to. You're the one not understanding. There would be far less corruption. I've explained this also. It's like you ignore almost everything I say. You don't get it do you, just because you say "in my little fantasy there would be less corruption because there would be no money" doesnt mean it will work out that way, I don't think your some evil bastard trying to ruin the world, I think you believe what your doing and saying is right, but that doesn't mean it work that way because when you look at it in a realalistic way its a lot far from what you want it to be. Currently, corrupted people use money to get people supporting them, if there were no money they could only use their own mind. There are many other forms of power, money just gets the to it , there are resources, strength, intimidation, fear, authority, sex, false hope, propaganda, ect that can get you to power, destroying money would not put and end to this, it would just change how they get to power. I think you don't know what greed means... I'm not greedy, if I want something then there is a practical reason for it. Money promotes greed. No money, far less greed. We are ALL greedy on some level, just like we are all angry on some level, there is a difference between someone who gets angry every once in awhile and someone who gets in a fight every day. Again, money doesnt promote greed, power promotes greed because greed is a want for power. Excessive money, right? Because I see how flawed it all is? Someone one making more than you and living better than you isn't flawed, your lumping anyone with a higher income than into the same catagory as Africa and Carribean politicians who live in Palaces next shacks and destroyed houses, there is a difference. It is greed if you have far more than you need and are unwilling to use it. They are usuing it, the assumption is that anyone who makes more than you just puts it in the bank, thats called saving there nothing wrong with it but regardless most rich people don't do that, they reinvest their money into the economy. And the point for that would be? Just hoarding things you'll never use? That's stupid. You don't understand, money is a medium for trading resources and is used to get power at times, people who had lots of money would just get lots of resources. You think people were perfect little angels and were far less greedy until simplified trade? Really? Say, for some reason something happens to money, or the whole money-based economy. People are used to working for money. Would they still work if they didn't get paid for it? I doubt they would. No, of course not, the system collapses when a currency becomes worthless which is almost always through inflation, where there is more money than actual gold and silver to back it up. Biased again... You work and you get for free anything you need. Its not free, 1. you had to work it 2. was it free to make? Did no labor, resource or time go into creating it? You do know that people differ and so there must be many varieties of things? Yes, and if there is a variety of things in a system with trade there would be a variety of businesses, so long as there are enough resources to make the product. No, but money could not be used to get them. Money is an easy way for getting anything, if you have enough of it. No money, all you can use is yourself. Money is an easy way to get to power, again there are many other ways that are much easier to get into power. When you say "no money, all you can use is yourself" you say it like money is the only way to power. Yet I have corrected you about human nature. Corrected? You were wrong, thats not really a correction. Not in college. But I was in university once (chemistry). I know what the real world is like, it's messed up. Well your not showing any signs of it, you seem to think that people are little angels and that currency is what causes them to be evil. How human nature really works? Human nature is simply the characteristics that humans have. Yes, and greed is a characteristic that humans have! If you did, if you included all the necessary aspects and you left your prejudice behind the door you would see that it could and would work. Me not agreeing with you isn't called being prejudice, I'm trying to explain to you that your system is flawed. I don't think your an evil person and I know you intend to good with this, people aren't going to pull out a handbook your wrote and say "oh gee, we cant do this cause Nummi said so" they're going to use it to their advantage and corrupt it which happens in ALL systems made by humans. Side: Yes.
Let me start off with this, whenever I disagree with you it doesn't make me ignorant or closed minded and I'm not indoctrination you, its called a debate. I meant that you were indoctrinated. I'm not that familiar with the word yet... and its correct use. Money is not needed for an economy, however, eliminating money would push humanity back to the barter system which would severely complicate and hurt trade. They would get what they need, for free, no bartering. Some people produce the raw materials, the material is shipped to factories where it will be used for products, products go to shop-like places where people can receive them. The consumption of products would be recorded to know how much raw materials are needed and how much must be produced (with slight overproduction, just in case). Same with food. The same happens currently also, there is no point producing far too many products, otherwise your profits would go down. Your asking for an economy based on what people need to survive, similar to a distribution center. In this system (doesn't matter if you want it to happen or not) it would be run by a large organization or government, when a government controls everything and what you get is based on your work then you are forced to work for them. It's common sense even currently that if people do not work everything will fall apart. The only difference is that currently they work for money which can provide them sustenance, they are basically working for sustenance. Not because they are needed. They are forced to work even currently, without really knowing they are required to. If there was no money people would know, if they didn't work, that it would all fall apart. Money is like a game of let's see what happens, what it does, how it moves. It could be used better, but it isn't because it gives many option to abuse it, and many people are too stupid to not abuse it. You need resources to generate money, exactly, thus to the point I made before which you didn't get, I am not saying resources come from money, if they did not have money there were likely no resources to create money from. You are saying with no money there could be no resources, even though that is not true. You don't need money to get resources. Resources are always there, you simply have to go and get them. Again, thats what you want to happen, but it will work either of these two ways (or a mix of them): Either there is a massive state that supplies, regulates and distributes all these products and you have to work and serve them to get your share or you have to trade other resources to get what you want, if you dont have what they want then your out of luck where as with money the transaction is simple, they give you a resource and you give them a medium for trading resources. Not only what I want, it's what would happen if it were done correctly. There is no need for a massive state, simply have more communication between people and places (there's communication even currently, no point ordering something that wouldn't be used, it'd be a waste of money). With money, if you don't have enough for something you need you don't get it. If you have too much, that's unused resources that could be used for something else, to speed up human progress. Without money the transaction would be even simpler, there would be no money involved. You didn't explain it, you stated that there would be less problems cause there would be no money, you never countered anything else. I did, somewhere... There would be no worrying nor struggling over acquiring money to get the necessities. There would be less greed as there would be less means for expressing it. There would be far less unused resources (money that just sits and does nothing) and thus progress would be faster. Stealing from other people would be quite pointless as you could simply go and get it for free. No starvation, no poor people. There wouldn't be a private sector, the main distributor of these products would likely be the government, if it wasn't it would probably be a large corporation or organization. That's what you have been taught about moneyless society, and it is wrong (I'm not talking about dictatorship or something similar). The truth is, there has been no big moneyless societies on Earth (so claiming it does not work is foolish, as there are and have been no examples to base the claim on, only logic that says it would work, if you manage to think objectively). There would be a "private sector" and there would be communication between all parties (as also is currently), to keep things working properly and to prevent far too excessive use of resources (no point producing things you cannot get rid of). Private businesses start small and grow if there is a demand or need for it. You didn't explain, you just said that trade was not needed for survival. I did explain it, somewhere up there. And again in this response. Naive? I'm not the one who thinks that eliminating money will solve most of the problems in the world and eliminate most of the negative parts of human nature. It would solve many problems as I have explained, and again in this response, again. Human nature... It would lessen the negatives. SO me supporting my idea is prejudice but you thinking that your little fantasy will work and it will better the world even though it is clearly flawed isn't? You have been taught to think it won't work, even though it has never been tried. Trying something is doing it for at least a short time, and that has never happened. You have been prejudiced, it seems. As I have explained (more than once) it would be better, there would still be issues but less than there are currently. The economy is trade, the regulation of resources and products on a massive scale is called state distribution. If there is no trade, there is no economy. Trade is swapping one for another. There would be no trade. A "shop" needs new delivery of goods? They send an order to the factory, plantation, etc. Some raw materials are needed? It will arrive on that day. Products are produced and shipped to the location. No trade. Or you call "trading" the thought of making something and receiving the materials for it it? Or you call people working because otherwise nothing would work trading, they trade their workforce for continuance and advancement? That's happening currently also, even though they usually don't think about it, they think about the money they get. "An economy consists of the economic systems of a country or other area; the labor, capital, and land resources; and the manufacturing, production, trade, distribution, and consumption of goods and services of that area." - from wiki Taking capital and trade out changes almost nothing. It would still be economy, simply a little different. Do you even know what money is? I live in a money based society... Because of that I use money. How could I not know what it is? Allow me to explain to you what money is, for a while there was no medium of trade, we used the barter system, if you wanted food you traded for something the other guy wanted, obviously this system had its problems. Eventually people decided that silver and gold were valuable medals and they should be used as medium to simplify trade and it worked great, but people wanted to keep their money safe, so banks started popping up, now instead of having to run to the bank every time you wanted to buy something they would give you a bank note that you could use as legal tender. THAT is what money is, it is not just some tool used to rule people and be greedy. First thing, we don't live in the past. Second, are you really so naive to think that money is working just great with no issues caused by it at all? Yes, it makes trade simpler and also provides many options for abuse that are actively being utilized. You do know that we are advancing, not staying the same, that means that one day, like it or not, money will be gone (as I've explained it would be better then the current way). Assuming we get that far... They shouldn't have to lower their profits, stop expansion and hurt their business because your not happy with it. This whole "earning more than you need" thing is bullshit, alright someone made more than you and have some to spare, they shouldn't be forced to give it up because others were to lazy to earn it or were unable to. If they don't they're simply greedy. Expansion? I'm not talking about the money used for that, I'm talking about that which never sees any use. With no money, if there was a need or demand for expansion then you'd get it. I've said something about not using resources that are available, it is stupid and pointless. They could be used for something, for progressing others or anything. You don't get it do you, just because you say "in my little fantasy there would be less corruption because there would be no money" doesnt mean it will work out that way, I don't think your some evil bastard trying to ruin the world, I think you believe what your doing and saying is right, but that doesn't mean it work that way because when you look at it in a realalistic way its a lot far from what you want it to be. You think this because you don't include all the aspects. You base it on current views and values (because you've been taught so, everyone is but not all adhere to it), I don't. That's why you fail at seeing how and why it could and would work. there are resources, strength, intimidation, fear, authority, sex, false hope, propaganda, ect that can get you to power, destroying money would not put and end to this, it would just change how they get to power. All that you listed comes from the person. What resources if there is no money? Strength? No one can give someone else strength. Intimidation? The same. Fear? The person must cause that. Authority? I'm fairly certain we were talking about getting to the place of power, not already being there. Sex? Something one would have to use the body for. False hope? That's lying. Propaganda? The same. There would be no easy way - something money provides. It would change how they could get to power, it would make it harder, much harder. It would require much more than simply buying people off. Again, money doesnt promote greed, power promotes greed because greed is a want for power. Money promotes it because it makes it easier to acquire. Someone one making more than you and living better than you isn't flawed, your lumping anyone with a higher income than into the same catagory as Africa and Carribean politicians who live in Palaces next shacks and destroyed houses, there is a difference. The difference is that some don't have enough for a decent life and some have far more than they will ever need. No money, there would be none of this. They are usuing it, the assumption is that anyone who makes more than you just puts it in the bank, thats called saving there nothing wrong with it but regardless most rich people don't do that, they reinvest their money into the economy. I'm not talking about saving some for hard times. Or something more expensive? No money, there would be no need for any of it. 'Cause everything's free. And hard times? Only ones that could exist would be related to some disasters. If they reinvest it back into the economy then why do they always have a lot of it? And why is that amount usually increasing, not decreasing, or keeping at a certain level? people who had lots of money would just get lots of resources. The point of that would be? Just hoarding things for no real reason? You think people were perfect little angels and were far less greedy until simplified trade? Really? Back then people also weren't as smart as they are now (they're still quite stupid as a whole but not nearly as much). You think people never change, you think they never become smarter? Its not free, 1. you had to work it 2. was it free to make? Did no labor, resource or time go into creating it? Currently, for some product to exist, someone has to work to create it. Currently you get paid for that job, and then you pay to use that product. Might as well just create them for anyone to use, without fussing with money. In that sense nothing is ever free, even survival itself is not free, you have to work for it. so long as there are enough resources to make the product. You think there wouldn't be enough resources? again there are many other ways that are much easier to get into power. Money is the easiest way. All you have to do is pay people. When you say "no money, all you can use is yourself" you say it like money is the only way to power. How can you misunderstand "no money, all you can use is yourself"? You can do it currently also, but that's not the easiest way. Acquire money and it gets much easier. Corrected? You were wrong, thats not really a correction. I weren't wrong. "Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. It is applied to a markedly high desire for and pursuit of wealth, status, and power." - from wiki I, for one, do not care about keeping something like that just for myself, neither do I want more than is necessary or practical. Because it would be pointless and stupid. Well your not showing any signs of it, you seem to think that people are little angels and that currency is what causes them to be evil. You either misunderstand what I say or you simply pick the parts you like. I'm fairly certain I've mentioned the word "less"... Yes, and greed is a characteristic that humans have! Then why is it in contradiction with me? Or you think I'm not human? That would explain. I'm trying to explain to you that your system is flawed. I'm trying to explain to you that your beliefs are flawed. they're going to use it to their advantage and corrupt it which happens in ALL systems made by humans. Yes, in all systems, and as I've explained a bit, there would be less. Side: No.
1
point
You realize saying "you were taught to like a money based economy" doesnt make me biased and doesnt make things I say invalid, alright? It's common sense even currently that if people do not work everything will fall apart. The only difference is that currently they work for money which can provide them sustenance, they are basically working for sustenance. Not because they are needed. They are forced to work even currently, without really knowing they are required to. Most people understand that they need to work or everything would fall apart, however, what my problem is (I don't care if you "explained" it, this is how it would likely work) that there would be a large organization or government producing and regulating all this, so it would be a monopoly, everyone has to work but they aren't forced to work for one party. You are saying with no money there could be no resources, even though that is not true. Thats not what I'm saying, I'm saying that money is a medium for trading and getting resources, so if there wasn't money there likely weren't enough resources to suppor t the project in the first place, yes there were likely resources being used for other things but you don't have the right to take them away. Not only what I want, it's what would happen if it were done correctly. Everything can be done correctly, but the chance of it being done properly is extremely low and the time it would last is even lower. With money, if you don't have enough for something you need you don't get it. If you have too much, that's unused resources that could be used for something else, to speed up human progress. You can buy stuff you need, and if you don't have enough money then you do without, you don't just waltz out into the world, get a high paying job and get everything you like. People with "unused" resources, regardless of what they do with them, those are their resources, not yours. There would be less greed as there would be less means for expressing it. There would be far less unused resources (money that just sits and does nothing) and thus progress would be faster. You seem to think that anyone who doesn't just blow all their money and spend it all is just "not using them" its called saving, most people who understand how economics and the world works know that spending all your money is bad and risky. Stealing from other people would be quite pointless as you could simply go and get it for free. Its not free, it costs labor, resources, time and transportation. You work and you get money to buy resources, in the current system. You work and get resources, in your system. So why would people not steal and try and get their hands on other people things? You seem to think that everyone is a little angel and that they will act like you... They won't. No starvation, no poor people. Go back to reading Capital by Karl Marx. That's what you have been taught about moneyless society, and it is wrong (I'm not talking about dictatorship or something similar). Its completely right, if everything needs to be regulated, recorded,distributed and managed you would need a large organization or state. And by the way, I wasn't taught this. The truth is, there has been no big moneyless societies on Earth (so claiming it does not work is foolish, as there are and have been no examples to base the claim on, only logic that says it would work, if you manage to think objectively). Just cause it doesnt exist isn't a reason to make it (logic says it won't work, your simplistic view of people and and the world say its would work though) You have been taught to think it won't work, even though it has never been tried. Trying something is doing it for at least a short time, and that has never happened. You have been prejudiced, it seems. I wasn't taught this, stop calling everyone who disagrees with prejudice or closed minded... thats actually quite prejudice I live in a money based society... Because of that I use money. How could I not know what it is? Because you don't understand what it is, you live in a certain society doesnt mean you understand it. First thing, we don't live in the past. First thing, did you read anything I wrote with out saying to yourself "it happened in the past so it doesn't matter" Second, are you really so naive to think that money is working just great with no issues caused by it at all? Money is working great, these issues are cause by people and will exist in any society, your just moving the problem and then thinking it doesnt exist. Yes, it makes trade simpler and also provides many options for abuse that are actively being utilized. And authority over distribution doesnt? Most people don't abuse money, most people in authority abuse it though. You do know that we are advancing, not staying the same, that means that one day, like it or not, money will be gone Were actually going backwards as a species, mutations and mental illnesses and retardation are higher than ever and the average IQ has dropped a bit. If they don't they're simply greedy. Its their money, they earned, they can do what they please with, you have no right to take it away, your opinion doesnt somehow trump others and your are a human just like the one with more money than you, I don't see him trying to steal your money, unless you consider him not giving away his money to be stealing. Expansion? I'm not talking about the money used for that, I'm talking about that which never sees any use. Again, you save money, your supposed to save some, if you have $100,000 and you invest it all and the ivestment goes bad your fucked. PEople should be forced to take that risk because you don't understand economics. You base it on current views and values (because you've been taught so, everyone is but not all adhere to it), I don't. "you were taught this" is that your only point? What resources if there is no money? ... really? Do I really need to explain this? Alright, I will: You get money from resources, if Mr.Nummi eliminates money Mr.Greedy will still have his resources, understand? Strength? No one can give someone else strength. Intimidation? The same. Fear? The person must cause that. ITs funny how your preaching for a mass collectivist society but think that people will still act like individuals. Authority? I'm fairly certain we were talking about getting to the place of power, not already being there. Whatever you do, there will be people in power, people will get into power, and they will find ways to get to power. What comes with power? Authority. Sex? Something one would have to use the body for. Offer an old or ugly person in power a chance to sleep with and extremely attractive person, theres a pretty good chance they'll give in. False hope? That's lying. Propaganda? The same. Give false hope to get in power, once your in power use propaganda to make people believe more lies. Simple. it would make it harder, much harder. Not really, would change that much with power actually, just take money away from normal people and then they have no power. The difference is that some don't have enough for a decent life and some have far more than they will ever need If I had a nice house, good amount of money, good job and a nice life and I saw you were down on your luck I might help you out a bit. However, I'm not obligated to support you or make your life as good as mine. No money, there would be none of this. Yes there would, you just can't seem to understand the money isn't what creates poverty and wealth. If they reinvest it back into the economy then why do they always have a lot of it? Because 1. its risky to invest all/ most of your money in the economy at once and 2. if you have alot of money you can save it or live nicer. Money is the easiest way. All you have to do is pay people. Theres and easier way, its called getting a job in polotics and getting good at lying. How can you misunderstand "no money, all you can use is yourself"? I'm sorry, but to think if there was no money you could only use yourself, thats a stupid thing to say, you can use many more things than yourself, your obviously not familiar with what people do. I, for one, do not care about keeping something like that just for myself, neither do I want more than is necessary or practical. Because it would be pointless and stupid. Your greedy, I'm greedy, were all greedy. Every human is greedy on some level weather they know it or not. I'm fairly certain I've mentioned the word "less"... I'm fairly certain I've mentioned the phrase "just cause you imagined it doesnt mean it will play out that way, stop being ignorant, be realalistic and understand how your system would actually work." Then why is it in contradiction with me? Or you think I'm not human? That would explain. Your greedy on some level just like everyone else, some people are less greedy than others. In todays world we just consider people who are really greedy to be greedy and everyone else is just fine... Its bullshit. Side: Yes.
You realize saying "you were taught to like a money based economy" doesnt make me biased and doesnt make things I say invalid, alright? I meant it as similar teaching (and raising) religious get. You seem as credulous about this as they are about their religion - denying all other possibilities from ever working, thinking if there was no money it would be chaos. Trade works, money works, and no money would work. But no money would be the best and most efficient of those three, as I have explained. Most people understand that they need to work or everything would fall apart, No, they don't, they don't even think about it. All they think about is getting paid for their job, for the time they spend working (this is about most people, not all). that there would be a large organization or government producing and regulating all this, so it would be a monopoly, everyone has to work but they aren't forced to work for one party. This is prejudice... Sounds a lot like Soviet times and lands... but the difference is they had and used money and they had many other problems. There would be communication between everyone to keep things running smoothly (as there is even currently), as I've also said. No need for a monopoly. I might as well ask you why presently it isn't a monopoly? Either way, a monopoly does not necessarily mean a bad thing. Depends on who are running it. Even now, if you are an adult you have to work, assuming you don't have millions to just waste your life away. so if there wasn't money there likely weren't enough resources to suppor t the project in the first place, Not having enough money does not mean there aren't enough resources, resources are always there. You just have to go and get them - something you cannot do in current society, as money is needed to begin using them. yes there were likely resources being used for other things but you don't have the right to take them away. When did I say anything about taking them away? Everything can be done correctly, but the chance of it being done properly is extremely low and the time it would last is even lower. Prejudice again. Doing it properly would not be extremely low, if the leaders knew exactly what was required to be done. The time it would last? As long as humanity would last. Or what, you think they would revert back to money once they'd seen how well it works without? and if you don't have enough money then you do without, If you don't have enough you stay homeless and depend on charity, or starve to death. In current society, if you don't have enough money you cannot live a decent and normal life. you don't just waltz out into the world, get a high paying job and get everything you like. Have I ever said the contrary? People with "unused" resources, regardless of what they do with them, those are their resources, not yours. That means they are greedy, if they have more than enough and don't use them. There is no point having something you don't use, while someone else would have use for them. How can you not get it? This wouldn't be an issue with no money. There would be no wasting resources in this manner. You seem to think that anyone who doesn't just blow all their money and spend it all is just "not using them" its called saving, most people who understand how economics and the world works know that spending all your money is bad and risky. Saving for some harder times or for something more expensive, I wasn't talking about that. But with no money there'd be no need for it anyway, as, you know, if you need it you get it. I was talking about having more than needed, that means more than just that which is saved for something. Still, that which is saved is for some time not used, it is not in circulation and thus it has no use at all, it doesn't help anything progress. Its not free, it costs labor, resources, time and transportation. You work and you get money to buy resources, in the current system. You work and get resources, in your system. So why would people not steal and try and get their hands on other people things? You seem to think that everyone is a little angel and that they will act like you... They won't. Currently also it costs labor, resources, time and transportation AND it costs something extra - money. Even though it has been produced for use you cannot use it till you have the money you got for creating it to pay for it. Might as well remove money from the equation... Yes, you work, and from that work the necessities are produced for you and others, to keep everything running. The same is currently but for some stupid reason there is an extra thing called money. People would have no need to steal as they could simply go and get it for free. There would definitely be a very little bit of stealing but not as it currently is. A little angel? No, there would be less reasons to do stupid things like stealing (although presently stealing isn't always a stupid thing). Go back to reading Capital by Karl Marx. And you open your mind. No starvation and no poor people as everything would be free. If someone chose to not be part of it then that'd be their problem. Its completely right, if everything needs to be regulated, recorded,distributed and managed you would need a large organization or state. And by the way, I wasn't taught this. You think that is not happening in present? Everything, more or less, is regulated by people, recorded by people, and managed by people, and by organizations and states. There would be no need for a large organization or state any more than is presently. So books and texts told you it can never work and you simply take it as truth? Just cause it doesnt exist isn't a reason to make it (logic says it won't work, your simplistic view of people and and the world say its would work though) Since it would be much more efficient than current way then yes, it should be done. You are biased, you literally cannot think objectively about any of this. Simplistic while I have actually thought about all this, with an open and objective mind? You are strictly adhering to one thing - money is the best. Without actually thinking about whether you are right or not. I wasn't taught this, stop calling everyone who disagrees with prejudice or closed minded... thats actually quite prejudice I only call people that if they give me a reason to. By denying something that is, would be, etc. You have given me a reason by saying it would not work and by giving rather stupid explanations and examples that would not even exist the way you claim they would, if it were done. You completely cannot make connections between different aspects and what they would result. You are biased, you think the current way is the only and the best way, without even considering others. Because you don't understand what it is, you live in a certain society doesnt mean you understand it. I seem to understand it better than you do, as I know it is not necessary for it all to work. Money is working great, these issues are cause by people and will exist in any society, your just moving the problem and then thinking it doesnt exist. I've said so many times that there would still be issues but there would be far less. Money is not working great. You call abusing it great? You think it is great that it promotes greed? You think it is great that very many people are paid close to slave wage? You call it great that it is used for buying people off? You call it great that people work not because they are needed to to keep it all running but because they get paid for it, and if they didn't get paid they'd simply not work? That most companies only care about profits not the quality of the product? That it causes people to steal money from others, by cheating, by physical force, or by stealing items they can later sell? There are many other examples. Get it? Money is not even remotely close to great, considering there is a better way where all that would not exist or would be significantly reduced. And authority over distribution doesnt? Most people don't abuse money, most people in authority abuse it though. Authority over distribution? And how exactly would they abuse it? You think there wouldn't be others who'd notice? Normally you don't see money moving around. Try to say the same about products and resources, if they are missing then there's an empty spot. Or they'd forge numbers? What for? To buy people off that way? Everything's free... Were actually going backwards as a species, mutations and mental illnesses and retardation are higher than ever and the average IQ has dropped a bit. That's wrong. We're going forward (but not in everything...). Of course there's more of all those, haven't you noticed the growing population? More people, more illnesses and retardation. And in the past ill people and retarded had less chances of surviving, now everything's delivered to them on a plate, they have better chances of surviving longer. Average IQ? I don't know where you took that but you're wrong, it has increased. I am fairly certain you are aware that we know far now than we did in the past. And that knowledge is increasing also and it effects people and their minds. Is education better now or was it better in the past? Its their money, they earned, they can do what they please with, you have no right to take it away, your opinion doesnt somehow trump others and your are a human just like the one with more money than you, I don't see him trying to steal your money, unless you consider him not giving away his money to be stealing. Is there a point for hoarding or keeping something you will never need nor use? You think they have the right to impede progress by keeping resources out of use? How did they get that much money in the first place? By overcharging products and services and/or by paying low wages (that's basically stealing)? Again, you save money, your supposed to save some, if you have $100,000 and you invest it all and the ivestment goes bad your fucked. PEople should be forced to take that risk because you don't understand economics. You don't understand that money has an overall negative effect, and you don't understand how it would work with no money. There would be no investing, if there's need for expansion then that would happen. "you were taught this" is that your only point? The only thing that made sense, considering your biased views. Now I'm simply thinking you're credulous in some areas. ... really? Do I really need to explain this? Alright, I will: You get money from resources, if Mr.Nummi eliminates money Mr.Greedy will still have his resources, understand? You don't understand. How will he use those resources? Force others to be his slaves? Everything's free... Somehow stop free items from getting to people and then into slavery? That would never work... People would go against him with force. You think there wouldn't be others in power who are not greedy and who also have power, enough that they could stop the Mr. Greedy? This all aside, I never talked about a dictatorship. Give a chunk of this to that guy over there and a chunk to that one there, and then they will unquestioningly follow him? Don't you get it? There's no medium of exchange, everything you want would be free. Or you think all resources would belong to one guy? As I've said, I'm not talking about a monopoly or dictatorship. If you think that's how it would be like then why isn't it so currently (everywhere)? ITs funny how your preaching for a mass collectivist society but think that people will still act like individuals. So people would be afraid of a person without knowing anything about him? That person would first have to do something or say something to frighten or intimidate others, preferably backed up by examples that also would have to be done by him. The same goes about getting allies. You would support any random dude without knowing his goals? The mass collectivist thing, that's prejudice. Whatever you do, there will be people in power, people will get into power, and they will find ways to get to power. What comes with power? Authority. Weren't we specifically talking about getting into that position? Offer an old or ugly person in power a chance to sleep with and extremely attractive person, theres a pretty good chance they'll give in. You think that wouldn't work even now? Give false hope to get in power, once your in power use propaganda to make people believe more lies. Simple. You think that isn't happening even presently? Or you think that would be the only way it could go with no money? That's prejudice, again. Not really, would change that much with power actually, just take money away from normal people and then they have no power. Really? If currently the government wanted some huge and rich organization or company gone it would get done rather fast. Doesn't matter if people have money or not, they have no real power either way. There will always be some people who are in charge of things. If I had a nice house, good amount of money, good job and a nice life and I saw you were down on your luck I might help you out a bit. However, I'm not obligated to support you or make your life as good as mine. With no money no one would need any help from others. Another one, money promotes people to not care about others. Yes there would, you just can't seem to understand the money isn't what creates poverty and wealth. Currently, poverty comes from having too little or no money. Wealth comes from having a lot of it. If everything would be free then how could people be poor? Wealth? The things you get for free? Or the things that have personal value? Or you mean it comes from having a far too high population? That should be managed even presently... but isn't (except in China). Because 1. its risky to invest all/ most of your money in the economy at once and 2. if you have alot of money you can save it or live nicer. No money, no risk. Live nicer? Not everyone wants that and not everyone could have that. Even presently everyone couldn't have it even if they wanted and could acquire, everything would collapse if they did. Theres and easier way, its called getting a job in polotics and getting good at lying. You think that isn't done presently? Right now it is accompanied by money, making it even easier. I'm sorry, but to think if there was no money you could only use yourself, thats a stupid thing to say, you can use many more things than yourself, your obviously not familiar with what people do. Exactly, what people do, people. You'd have to convince others or frighten others and that you could only do by first using your your own abilities and skills. Your greedy, I'm greedy, were all greedy. Every human is greedy on some level weather they know it or not. Being greedy is wanting excessive amounts of something, an amount you will never need, or just something you will never need, and for oneself only. I have none of it. I'm not greedy, like it or not. I'm fairly certain I've mentioned the phrase "just cause you imagined it doesnt mean it will play out that way, stop being ignorant, be realalistic and understand how your system would actually work." And I've given plenty of explanation that it would work. Stop being closed-minded, be objective and realistic, and understand all the aspects necessary for it to work. Your greedy on some level just like everyone else, some people are less greedy than others. In todays world we just consider people who are really greedy to be greedy and everyone else is just fine... Its bullshit. greed - 1) excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions (dictionary.com) 2) a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed (merriam-webster.com) 3) The inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. It is applied to a markedly high desire for and pursuit of wealth, status, and power. (wiki) Need more? Side: No.
1
point
I meant it as similar teaching (and raising) religious get. You seem as credulous about this as they are about their religion - denying all other possibilities from ever working, thinking if there was no money it would be chaos. I wasn't raised or taught this, and I didn't say it would be chaos but it would be very nice. All they think about is getting paid for their job, for the time they spend working (this is about most people, not all). Maybe there is a high population of idiots where you live, but most of the people I know understand that they are payed to do their job because it is required and needs to be done. This is prejudice... Sounds a lot like Soviet times and lands... but the difference is they had and used money and they had many other problems. And if you eliminated money then what? There would need to be some large organization or state, and if there didn't need to be, in time one would be created (likely by people who want more for themselves) When did I say anything about taking them away? Your saying these people are greedy and they have un-used resources that need to be used. When you imply and say they will be used anyone with common sense would think that they would not just hand them over to you, so you would have to either take them by force or bribe them. Prejudice again. Doing it properly would not be extremely low, if the leaders knew exactly what was required to be done. Most leaders only have their goals in mind, the people are not their concern, controlling the people and keeping them at bay are but as for our life, no, so don't act like they will make it work for us. The time it would last? As long as humanity would last. When I say last I don't mean "how long will it go till utter collapse and chaos" I mean how long till it is corrupted and ruined by people. If you don't have enough you stay homeless and depend on charity, or starve to death. There are a large amount of soup kitchens and homeless shelters in high homeless areas, within a few days of panhandling you could likely get enough money for some new cloths and a hair cut and then go apply for a job. Have I ever said the contrary? No, but you act like anyone who isn't living an "decent" was somehow screwed over and they deserve part of what other people have created. I don't mind donating my time and money to charity, because I do, but I would have a problem with working long hours and getting up early so others who are "less fortunate" can wake up at noon, wear pajamas in public and have an iPhone. That means they are greedy, if they have more than enough and don't use them. Again, its called saving, no one is going to say "you know, its greedy for me to save the money I earned I'm going to spend it all so I have a balance of $0.00" because its stupid. How can you not get it? This wouldn't be an issue with no money. How can you not get it? IF these "greedy" people are "hording" money that they don't use, what makes you think that people won't be "hording" resources that they don't use? urrently also it costs labor, resources, time and transportation AND it costs something extra - money. Money is used as a medium for trading resources, so instead of giving you 10 tons of the resources you need, I would give you enough money to purchase 10 tons for the resources you need. Even though it has been produced for use you cannot use it till you have the money you got for creating it to pay for it. And what, you should just walk up and take it for free, regardless of everything that has been used to make it? Thats not sharing, thats called theft. People would have no need to steal as they could simply go and get it for free. Really? You think people will just loose the desire to have more then they already have and do better than others, actually, in a system where everyone is the same, the only was to get more would be stealing. No starvation and no poor people as everything would be free. If someone chose to not be part of it then that'd be their problem. There would still be starvation and poor people, your not putting into account the factor of corruption, human nature and the want for more. If your system was implemented perfectly (as in exactly the way you say it and everything turned out the way you wanted it to), there would be no starvation or poor but even then the system would corrupt very quickly. You think that is not happening in present? Everything, more or less, is regulated by people, recorded by people, and managed by people, and by organizations and states. Yes, and it disgusts me. I believe in a free market with very few regulations, I don't believe in mass regulation and massive states, I don't buy into the belief that the elite in a distant capital know how to plan our lives better than we do. There would be no need for a large organization or state any more than is presently. There really is no need for it now, the only reason we have these massive states is because people like to have the power and its a way of getting more for themselves, we don't need all this government. You are biased, you literally cannot think objectively about any of this. The only thing you have on me is that I disagree with you, and I'm not just saying "blah blah blah communist blah blah blah evil" I'm actually arguing, understand the difference? Id you don't thats pretty biased right there. You are strictly adhering to one thing - money is the best. I don't believe our current system is good, I believe it needs to be reformed because (just like your little fantasy would) the money system is corrupting, and like any system, it needs to be reset. I only call people that if they give me a reason to. By denying something that is, would be, etc. You imagining something working doesnt make it so, you act like your word is pure fact. You are biased, you think the current way is the only and the best way, without even considering others. I'v considered systems like yours, thought about it and after thinking about realized that its very flawed, don't call me biased for disagreeing with you. Your acting like college activist who claims to be open to other views but then are shocked and offended that there are other views. I seem to understand it better than you do, as I know it is not necessary for it all to work. NO, you understand the basics of what are needed to work and you believe we should just eliminate everything else. I've said so many times that there would still be issues but there would be far less. Money is not working great. You call abusing it great? And I have said so many times there wouldn't be less issues, abusing doesnt mean having more than you. You think it is great that it promotes greed? You think it is great that very many people are paid close to slave wage? Doesnt' promote greed, and people being paid slave wages isn't a product of money, its a product of an area with a low demand for labor. You call it great that people work not because they are needed to to keep it all running but because they get paid for it, and if they didn't get paid they'd simply not work? And people would't get paid for their service in your system? They would just be givien basic food and housing? Hmm, now what does that sound like... slavery! That most companies only care about profits not the quality of the product? Their main goal is to profit, the quality of the product is driven up by competition, something you clearly don't understand. Authority over distribution? And how exactly would they abuse it? ...and you called me biased and closed minded? Is there a point for hoarding or keeping something you will never need nor use? You think they have the right to impede progress by keeping resources out of use? Its their resources, get it? If your "not using" part of your lawn, I'm not gonna star building on it when you come and tell me to leave I'll say "well your not using, stop being greedy!" How did they get that much money in the first place? By overcharging products and services and/or by paying low wages (that's basically stealing)? Most business started out as small business, even massive corporate chains started out as mom and pop stores or little business. Over charging isn't stealing, do you hate anyone who makes a profit? You don't understand. How will he use those resources? Lets say he owns a large amount of plantations, now instead of paying them in money he pays them in food and he will still control the plantations. You think there wouldn't be others in power who are not greedy and who also have power, enough that they could stop the Mr. Greedy? This all aside, I never talked about a dictatorship. And you think people in power wouldn't protect what was there and wouldn't use their power to take Mr.Greedy's power under the osmisof "helping the people." As for a dictatorship, as you may know, dictatorships are not planned, no one ever sat down and said "ok, were gonna be a democracy but then later we'll become a dictatorship" it doesn't work like that, dictators force there way to power. You think that isn't happening even presently? Or you think that would be the only way it could go with no money? That's prejudice, again. Its done now and it will be be done without money. With no money no one would need any help from others. Another one, money promotes people to not care about others. Unless they built there house, get their water, grow their food, make their electricity and do every other service, they will need help from other people. Money doesnt promote not caring about other people, you just think that because someone has more than you that they don't care. Currently, poverty comes from having too little or no money. Wealth comes from having a lot of it. If everything would be free then how could people be poor? Wealth? The things you get for free? Or the things that have personal value? IF someone has more resources than someone else they are riched and wealthier. There would still be classes and there would still be people with more, you cant eliminate that. Or you mean it comes from having a far too high population? That should be managed even presently... but isn't (except in China). It does come from a high population. A few people can work a farm the can feed more then them. People can work a factory that can supply more then them. Regardless, there will always be leftovers (not the best word to use, but whatever) and in China, the only reason they are doing so well is because there are so many and so many of them want to work, so as the amount of works goes up, their value becomes less, so they are given less. You think that isn't done presently? Right now it is accompanied by money, making it even easier. Getting paid a high salary doesnt make them more powerful, they get to the top by stepping on and cheating their way up with lies. Then when they are where they are where they want to be, they go for their goals. This would not change if money was eliminated. Exactly, what people do, people. You'd have to convince others or frighten others and that you could only do by first using your your own abilities and skills. Team up with a few people and then manipulate others, you act like its a hard thing to do. I'm not greedy, like it or not. Your greedy, just like everyone else on some level. In your mind of course your never greedy its always the other guy, but you are infact, greedy. And I've given plenty of explanation that it would work. Stop being closed-minded, be objective and realistic, and understand all the aspects necessary for it to work. Of course me arguing my point and not saying "good job Nummi, your plan is genius!" makes me closed minded... typical. Side: Yes.
People will overstock on goods because everyone thinks everyone else will overstock on goods, therefore leaving nothing left for them. Think about it, it only takes one asshole to walk into a grocery store and claim all the food for himself. So, to ensure each individual doesn't starve to death, everyone will over-consume as much as possible. Also, since we're talking about food, people will literally kill each other over who gets the most. The Russians 'solved' this problem via the gulags. That is, hard labour camps where food rations were scarce and you were more likely to die working than meet the end of your sentence. These camps acted as deterrents for theft so that people would be more content with their semi-starved lifestyle. After all, being underfed is better than hard labour + malnourishment. Of course the soviets also at least attempted to regulate distribution. If you let it be a free-for-all, people will starve to death en masse. It seems in addition to not understanding anything about economics, you also don't quite grasp the fact that human's don't want to die. Our kindness only exists to the extent that we can afford to be kind. Money can be one form of motivation, but any form of capital will do. My point was that if you separate labour from profit, people won't work as hard. Which they don't. If everything is free, then working hard has no impact on my ability to survive. I have no reason to do a good job. The whole, "I'll do my best because we're all in this together!" line of thinking has only ever worked on a small scale -- tribalism small. The fact of the matter is, get more than 200 people together and the human mind starts to view them as more of a number than a bunch of individuals. This only worked on a tribalism scale because everyone was accountable to everyone else. You didn't work, you didn't eat. That sort of policy is impossible to enforce on a large scale without letting the government control 80%+ of GDP (not that you know what GDP is...). Economic management? All right, who will manage everything and how will they manage it? this is your ideology, simply saying "someone else will solve these problems" isn't going to convince anyone of anything. Companies pay minimum wage because the government will shut them down if they don't. the people with the lowest human capital (at least look up that term for fuck sakes) will be the ones who fill these low-paying jobs. these people are typically teenagers who don't need to pay their own way. This way, they can build up work experience and increase their human capital until they can get better and better jobs. This process can't even get off the ground if they can't find a job period. Side: Yes.
People will overstock on goods because everyone thinks everyone else will overstock on goods, A new level of stupidity, I did not expect that. Did you even think while writing it? Think about it, it only takes one asshole to walk into a grocery store and claim all the food for himself. Ever heard of police? Yeah, there would still be people who keep an eye on things. Especially on stupid acts by other people. So, to ensure each individual doesn't starve to death, everyone will over-consume as much as possible No they would not over-consume, because they would know that everything they need is a few minutes away, assuming they lived close to a shop like place. Also, since we're talking about food, people will literally kill each other over who gets the most. Again, no. You're getting this all so wrong. If there was plenty always available there would be no need, no point, for killing each other over the always available stuff. The Russians 'solved' this problem via the gulags. That is, hard labour camps where food rations were scarce and you were more likely to die working than meet the end of your sentence. There is no point bringing Russia into this. They had money and they used it. Making your point futile. Not to mention the leaders were and still are stupid. Of course the soviets also at least attempted to regulate distribution. If you let it be a free-for-all, people will starve to death en masse. It seems in addition to not understanding anything about economics, you also don't quite grasp the fact that human's don't want to die. Our kindness only exists to the extent that we can afford to be kind. Read what I have already said. What I am talking about has never, not once, been tried before, not really. There are no examples. All there is is logic, and according to that it would work. You simply cannot imagine it. Money can be one form of motivation, but any form of capital will do. My point was that if you separate labour from profit, people won't work as hard. Oh, now I see. You want people to work as hard as possible. Then yes, let's abolish minimum wage and let slavery commence. The motivation would be because it is necessary, it is needed. Because they are the ones who make everything work, whose job enables the continuance and advancement of the human civilization. If money was regarded as the motivation then you would literally be eager to do nothing in its absence. If everything is free, then working hard has no impact on my ability to survive. If you don't work then it would lead to ruin. And I have mention something about new values and education... I'll do my best because we're all in this together! That's not my thinking. That could also apply to serials killers working together, or anyone out for only their own wants and desires. My thinking is more complex and more accurate than that. You didn't work, you didn't eat. The same applies with money, you don't work you don't eat. Because if you don't work you won't get the money to buy food. That sort of policy is impossible to enforce on a large scale without letting the government control 80%+ of GDP (not that you know what GDP is...). Don't repeat being an idiot too much. Again your biased opinion, otherwise you wouldn't have said it. In order for a civilization to work and succeed there must always be some kind of government or control. If the government kept track on things how could that be a bad thing? Government keeping a track on things does not mean a bad thing, it does not mean there is no freedom. The new values and education and all that... Economic management? All right, who will manage everything and how will they manage it? this is your ideology, simply saying "someone else will solve these problems" isn't going to convince anyone of anything. The people whose job is to check the production, consumption, the use of raw materials, services, etc. You are so clearly biased. Companies pay minimum wage because the government will shut them down if they don't. Because if they didn't it would be slavery. (at least look up that term for fuck sakes) At least grow brains for fuck sake! these people are typically teenagers who don't need to pay their own way. And now you bring in teenagers. Ain't that just nice. Don't you understand that we are not talking about teenagers? We are talking about adults who have independent lives, who need to take care of themselves. How are they supposed to do that if they literally don't have the resources for that? This way, they can build up work experience and increase their human capital until they can get better and better jobs. Better and better jobs? What if some people like mundane jobs? Not everyone wants a classy office and secretaries to bang. Either way, that is no excuse to pay slave wage. This process can't even get off the ground if they can't find a job period. You are saying with minimum wage they would find no job? People want more money then current minimum wage offers, in many cases they won't even consider that part-slavery. If minimum wage was abolished you think they would accept even less than that? There is plenty of money to pay them for a decent life, as I've said many times. Or is slavery okay in your mind? Side: No.
Police? What do they have to do with this? Everything is free, so what crime is there in taking as much as you want? Are you insinuating that there will be a legal limit to how much people can consume? If so, what will the limits be? How will they be decided? What will the punishment be for breaking one's limit? Resources aren't infinite (I'm actually a little embarrassed for our species that I ever had to explain that to someone). If the threat of everyone else using up a resource exists, people will over-consume to make sure they don't get left out. Russia was the actualization of your ideology. A money-free system. It's absolutely relevant. I stopped here. The rest of your arguments are non-sequiturs anyway. Look, I don't have all day to correct you on every major misunderstanding you have on life. There's simply too many. Learn to condense your arguments. Side: Yes.
Police? What do they have to do with this? Everything is free, so what crime is there in taking as much as you want? If someone's action harm others, then currently, what will happen? Police comes in. If someone hoards things and thus harms others that person should be dealt with. I bet you are not talking about a few to several bag fulls, but many truck fulls and not because they are needed for something but because the person simply wants to hoard things. Are you insinuating that there will be a legal limit to how much people can consume? Not legal limit, just be reasonable and think what your action can do. Stocking things up just because you want to stock them up is just stupid and wrong. Stocking things up to use over many months without the need for renewal meanwhile would be okay. To have some supplies for "hard times", for example some weather-related things, would also be okay. Don't you know what frugal and reasonable mean? Resources aren't infinite No, they are finite. Perhaps if you include recycling they could be endless, in a sense. (I'm actually a little embarrassed I had to tell you this. Just kidding, not really embarrassed, just wondering how you could not have known that.) If the threat of everyone else using up a resource exists, people will over-consume to make sure they don't get left out. There would be no threat like that. Just because we exist means we are in threat, there are so many possibilities for a disaster to happen (a massive volcano, meteors, solar storm, etc.). Why aren't people already stocking things up? If they did things would end not by some external influence but from within and that is just stupid. I regard humanity as smarter than that. Russia was the actualization of your ideology. A money-free system. It's absolutely relevant. Russia has never been money-free. Money-free means no money at all. They had money and they used it. Meaning it is completely irrelevant. I stopped here. The rest of your arguments are non-sequiturs anyway. Look, I don't have all day to correct you on every major misunderstanding you have on life. There's simply too many. Learn to condense your arguments. Unlike you I don't have misunderstandings on life. As I've said a couple of times, I observe things as they really are. Learn to think unbiased and logically. Side: No.
Seriously, you don't have to respond to every single sentence individually. Most of my sentences tie in together anyway. One well-written paragraph would have been enough here. If the difference between reasonable stocking and hoarding isn't rigidly defined, then people will be arrested on an inconsistent basis. I could buy 10 chickens and go home fine, then the next day my neighbour could try to buy 10 chickens and get arrested. What one officer find reasonable, another would find criminal. You can't leave this up in the air. I'm consistently amazed that you refuse to accept things would work out automatically if left up to market forces, yet are so unwarrantably accepting that things will just "work out" without market forces, the very reason why things work out at all in the first place. Recycling is your solution? I'm sure the poor would love eating recycled food. No, recycling is not enough. Without some sort of limit on what people can consume, a limit that must be rigidly defined, the people will over consume out of fear of others over-consuming. Recycling just isn't enough. Besides, are you going to make it a crime to not recycle? Otherwise, how could you make sure people recycle? Russia made every effort to be money-free. The government intended on being 100% of GDP, but only ended up at 80% GDP.That means 20% of GDP was in the private sector, despite the private sector being illegal. As it turns out, even the death-sentence threat of labour camps wasn't enough to stop people from using money. Russia also held the theory that man would change to be more altruistic. It didn't happen. Side: Yes.
eriously, you don't have to respond to every single sentence individually. Most of my sentences tie in together anyway. One well-written paragraph would have been enough here. I don't have to respond to anything. Either way, I didn't respond to each individually. I respond however I wish. If the difference between reasonable stocking and hoarding isn't rigidly defined, then people will be arrested on an inconsistent basis. I could buy 10 chickens and go home fine, then the next day my neighbour could try to buy 10 chickens and get arrested. What one officer find reasonable, another would find criminal. You can't leave this up in the air. I'm consistently amazed that you refuse to accept things would work out automatically if left up to market forces, yet are so unwarrantably accepting that things will just "work out" without market forces, the very reason why things work out at all in the first place. You aren't getting a single thing I'm saying. And you clearly lack imagination. Recycling is your solution? I'm sure the poor would love eating recycled food. No, recycling is not enough. Without some sort of limit on what people can consume, a limit that must be rigidly defined, the people will over consume out of fear of others over-consuming. Recycling just isn't enough. Besides, are you going to make it a crime to not recycle? Otherwise, how could you make sure people recycle? Apparently you aren't getting why I included new values, education, etc. Recycling? Just an example of how resources could not end, that's all I meant by it. Recycled food becomes dirt... Russia made every effort to be money-free. The government intended on being 100% of GDP, but only ended up at 80% GDP.That means 20% of GDP was in the private sector, despite the private sector being illegal. As it turns out, even the death-sentence threat of labour camps wasn't enough to stop people from using money. Russia also held the theory that man would change to be more altruistic. It didn't happen. Russia had issues anyway. If they had known how to make it work, how to do proceed correctly, they would have succeeded. The ones leading the whole mess were also too disinclined to let go all the power that money enabled. Most politicians only care about money, their personal welfare, and a sense power. I doubt it was different back then. Their society was money based, the people were raised with money, it was all they knew. Then one day, suddenly, came the decision to change things, without preparing the people, without informing them sufficiently (even if they had known what to exactly tell them, how to do it all). Back then people on average were also a lot stupider than they are now and that plays a huge role. Side: No.
Oh, you can respond how ever you want? Well, respond to this; I'm limiting you to 2 paragraphs, maybe three if it's absolutely necessary. Any more than that will be ignored. Condense your arguments or don't make them. Like I've said, I simply don't have enough free time to correct you on everything you're wrong about. So I'm seeing that you've simply shrugged off my arguments about consumption and distribution. Point for con. Moving on. The USSR lasted for 71 years. Several generations of Russians only knew of life without money, so your argument here fails already. I will remind you that the USSR collapsed in 1991, not exactly long enough ago to blame it on the stupidity of our ancestors. Russia had issues, and those issues stemmed from the problems created by the very ideas you are putting forth here now. The only difference between them and you is they recognized these problems and at least tried to solve them while you choose to simply sit here with your hands over your ears pretending like these problems don't exist. Side: Yes.
Oh, you can respond how ever you want? Well, respond to this; I'm limiting you to 2 paragraphs, maybe three if it's absolutely necessary. Any more than that will be ignored. This is as far as I read. You are so clearly narrow-minded and closed-minded. I'm not gonna deal with a biased idiot like yourself any further. No wonder why you are like that, your box seems to be very constricting. Respond as much as you like, I'll not read any of it. Side: No.
I hate how it forces you to one side or the other. Idealistically, yes, it should be abolished. Thinking about it from this way is depressing though. You see, there are too many people alive right now. We simply do not need them all. For this reason there are people who are completely desperate and willing to work for less money than others. This competition of undermining eventually leads to people working for less than what is necessary to sustain life (see industrial period of United States). What it comes down to is that people are not worth the food they eat for big business. Ideologically, a person getting paid more than what they are worth seems unethical (if you subscribe to the idea of capitalism) but the cold truth is that individuals are not worth all that much in the grand scheme of things. We are replaceable cogs. The minimum wage forces companies to give people the minimum needed to sustain life and this allows the quality of life to improve for the working class which creates the satisfaction necessary to sustain a government to preside over the people. So, in practicality, the wage should exist (predicated on the idea that we believe society is worth sustaining). Side: No.
Minimum wage keeps value to jobs and so if the demand of a job is kept above a certain rate then there will be a good supply of jobs. If the minimum wage as reduced we would have an excess supply and the demand would go down. If the demand goes down the value goes down which means that there will be a reduced salary. Side: No.
1
point
The minimum wage can not be simply analyzed and be also accurately analyzed. Would we have the capital growth we have now without globalization, and the level of globalization without the minimum wage. Without the capital growth, what would be the average quality of life in developed countries, would there be more or less employed globally, etc. Also, how would the domestic market be, could a worker afford in any manner what he produces without minimum wage? If not, where would his products be sold? minimum wage could raise actualizable demand up high enough that there are actually more jobs. I could continue, but I hope these thoughts are enough to show that the subject isn't as simple as some would make it out to be. Side: No.
1
point
no way!!!! There are so many people out there who are not able to earn a single penny for days... so what should they do? roam around the streets begging.. and being cursed by everybody!This shouldn't be even debated upon! Minimum wages are so much important! just because you have a man living with you who earns.. doesn't mean everyone has someone like him! Side: No.
1
point
1
point
1
point
We live in a sick and greedy world when we honestly believe that it's morally acceptable to ask people to work for you at wage that is unfair and not enough to make a living. The only reason why would allow this is for our own greed. What we're really doing is allowing for legalized slavery. If you can't afford to pay a worker his fair wage, then you can't afford to be in business. Side: No.
1
point
1
point
Sure let's abolish minimum wage! So that employers can decide to pay their employees even less! People seem not to understand what minimum wage means. It's the limit of how low employers can pay you for your hourly work. Minimum wage is a good thing. If you are not happy with minimum wage, then work on getting a better paying job. It's simple. Getting rid of minimum wage isn't going to get you an increase in your pay. Side: No.
1
point
Of course not. If anything they should bring it up. You hear of people being constantly abused, malnourished, impoverished who are 'receiving below the minimum wage.' And if you want to get rid of the minimum wage all together, then you need to take a long hard look in the mirror..! Side: No.
I don't think you understand the implications of a minimum wage. Basically, if someone's labour is so un-profitable that they can't receive a living wage from it, it means either demand is low, competition is through the roof or they're simply a shitty worker. In all three cases, you don't need the unemployment-guarantee of the minimum-wage to solve the problem. Side: Yes.
Refute both My and ThePyg's arguments as well as respond to the empirical evidence presented in You make claims with no substantiation and then refuse to rebut and criticisms of those claims. - Why don't we just raise the minimum wage to a million dollars an hour. That would solve all of our problems, right? Side: Yes.
0
points
I've read on Friedman, Rothbard, and Marx on the issue of economics. Chomsky more in the issue of Psychology. I like a lot of what Marx has to say, but the few times he actually proposes a minimum wage is not for the sake of increasing living conditions, and he seems to go at it more from the fact that Indian workers were exploited greatly in factories (a possible allegory to how he would feel about modern globalization). The abundance of the working class being so expendable caused the Bourgeoisie to be able to buy lots of cheap labor. With a minimum wage, the Bourgeoisie could only hold a smaller amount of slightly more expensive labor. Marx, in this case, is sort of irrelevant, for a minimum wage would be natural under Communist conditions, since the working class would be equal to the business class. However, we are living far from either a Marxist or free-market Capitalist dream, so minimum wage can be better explained by Friedman. Side: Yes.
Um, guys. There was a reason why the minum law was passed, look it up. It was becuase many employees worked there a off for nothing. Many big companies abused there power over their employees, treated them as slaves, and they didn't had enough to make a modest living. Without it, much of the middle and working class would not exist. We will be like China or some middle east country... Side: No.
2
points
If they are a smart employee, they will not accept a job that doesn't pay enough. If nobody takes the job because they can't make a living off of it, then the company will be forced to raise their salaries to support their business. This is because of competition, which is the major difference between us and China or anywhere in the Middle East: we have a free enterprise system. Ironically, a place like China would be the only place a minimum wage would be a good idea. Side: Yes.
|
