Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LordBucket]

I'm pretty sure most everyone would love a scarcity-free environment

Absolutely. I know quite a few people in this thread have told me I'm evil, accused me eating babies, and so forth...but really, I don't want my success to be at the expense of others and I don't seek to crush others beneath my boots like some people seem to think. And nobody I know really wants that either.

I just want to have the things I want. Whether the things I want are simple food and housing, or gold chandeliers and cartier watches...it doesn't really matter. I want the things I want, and I see nothing wrong with me having them. And contrary to what seem in this thread seem to think...I really don't believe that me having these things harms others. Money may exist in finite quantities, but no baby seals or orphan children were ground up by machinery in order to provide me with the lifestyle I have.

I want the things I want, and I believe it's well and good and proper for me to have them. If others have wants, it seems just as well and good and proper to me that they have their wants fulfilled too. I know plenty of people with more money and better toys than I have, and that doesn't bother me. It seems silly to me that others might look at me and "feel bad" because they don't have the things I have.

Everybody having what they want seems like a good thing to me. Maybe I'm not willing to give up the things I want so that others can have what they want...but I'm not asking anybody else to give up what they want to give me stuff either.

Currency based systems have flaws. A post-scarcity environment would be better for everyone. If I enjoy a glass of wine, I enjoy it because I like it. Not because I'm laughing at the peons beneath my heels compelled to drink water from the gutter. If everybody could have wine and fancy cars, and gold watches and wear nice clothes and fly planes and lead fun and happy lives...I think that would be both healthy and appropriate. If nobody felt compelled to work menial, pointless jobs for the sake of "making a living" that would be a huge improvement for everyone. Personally, that bothers me more than quality of life issues. Going hungry from time to time, not owning a car, taking the bus to get around and eating donated food...yeah, that's not so great. But living an entire lifestyle of dreary servitude, spending the majority of your waking hours every day doing something trivial, pointless and that you hate...all just to barely survive and even still not have the things you want...that's just horrible.

So, yes. If we can outgrow money and advance to a post-scarcity society where nobody works and everybody can have whatever they want at the press of a button, I'm all in favor. I think most of the "rich" people I know would go along with that.

People don't need responsibilities to be productive. Sure, we'd have a lot more artists out there and a lot less people flipping hamburgers, but frankly? That's a huge improvement. Even discounting everything else.

Yes. Absolutely it's a huge improvement. Much of our economy is designed to be self perpetuating. People work to support their work habit. If people didn't need to buy cars and insurance and gas to drive to work, a lot of them could probably spend a third less time working. If people didn't feel the need to go into debt to get degrees, buy work clothes that are uncomfortable anyway, drink gallons of coffee just to keep going...so much money that is spent is spent solely to support the function of the working itself.

It's a bad system.

Now add in mortgages and rent. Plenty of people spend half of their income just on this. If people didn't need to work, didn't need to pay interest and rent and hold mortgages and go into debt...$500/mo would be plenty for just about anybody to live comfortably. The vast majority of "wealth" is spent simply perpetuating the system.

people flipping hamburgers

And that's the other side of this. A lot of work is just unnecessary. Nobody really needs to be flipping hamburgers or waiting tables. I'm perfectly capable of making my own hamburgers, and I can just as easily carry it from the kitchen to the dining room. I don't really need somebody to spend a third of their daily life cooking or waiting tables for me. Society would function perfectly well if all fast food was removed completely. Society would function perfectly well if cashiers were replaced with automated tellers and checkout machines. Ask any office worker how much time they spend sitting around just trying to look busy. A lot of "work" throughout society could very easily be done away with.

But...when you say that, people panic because they feel their livelihood being threatened. They want to work. People rejoice when jobs are created. They panic when jobs are eliminated and workers are replaced with machines, because the system is designed to require people to participate in its self perpetuation. The whole system is dumb. But know that you're participating in it. And you're contributing. If you work a job, if you pay to support your work habit, if you lobby to keep your jobs rather than being replaced by machines...you're working to support the system that enslaves you.

I think it would be healthy if more people understood this. Maybe it's impractical to just walk off your job. Maybe it's impractical to stop perpetuating the system. But if more people understood how it worked, it might be easier to transition out of it.

[Criptfeind]

I gota disagree with you on the fast food part. It would take me a loooot more effort to make a burger just as good as some of the fast food places I frequent, they can do it with way less time and effort because they are set up in ways that I never can be. Sure. Some fast food is crap and a waste of time, but I would argue most is not.

Unless you are arguing I should settle for the crappy burgers I can make myself, but that seems to go against the grain of most of the arguments you have been making.

[Leafsnail]

I just want to have the things I want. Whether the things I want are simple food and housing, or gold chandeliers and cartier watches...it doesn't really matter. I want the things I want, and I see nothing wrong with me having them. And contrary to what seem in this thread seem to think...I really don't believe that me having these things harms others. Money may exist in finite quantities, but no baby seals or orphan children were ground up by machinery in order to provide me with the lifestyle I have.

Here.  I have identified the problem with your thinking: you don't seem to realise that it cost a hell of a lot of money and effort to create the society you live in.  The society that is required, and which you used, in order to get rich.

Transport and communication infrastructure.  Education for your workers.  An army to protect your foreign interests and prevent hostile powers from taking your stuff.  A police force and justice system to prevent what has been designated yours from being taken.  Emergency services to further protect your property.  Regulations that prevented other, larger companies from stamping you out of the market, and stopped your suppliers from fixing their prices at an unreasonable level.

No business could succeed without these things, and all of these things required money.  And yet you tell me that no, actually you don't owe anyone anything and should be allowed to keep all the money to yourself.  I say no: you have to give back to the society that allowed you to become what you are, so that others may have these same societal necessities.

[Strife26]

Yeah, that's called taxes, last time I checked.

I mean, I don't think that anyone's seriously arguing the Ryan-esque sub one percent tax rate for rich people, right?

[Criptfeind]

Yeah... I gota admit to skimming here, but I thought that Lord Bucket was arguing against things like, 100% taxation over certain amounts and hating rich people and such. Not for... That.

[Leafsnail]

It's pretty difficult to tell what LordBucket's position is considering he's been doing virtually nothing but asking leading questions.  But establishing "actually, rich people do have a moral and practical obligation to pay back money to society" (something he seems to be denying) would allow me to nail down his position to some degree and make more progress later.

[GlyphGryph]

If everybody could have wine and fancy cars, and gold watches and wear nice clothes and fly planes and lead fun and happy lives...I think that would be both healthy and appropriate.

You realize this is pretty contrary to the prevailing attitude, though? Among both the poor and the wealthy, having what you want is generally significantly less important than having more than the other guy. Because most people don't want "stuff", they don't want "gold chandeliers", they want other people to be impressed by their gold chandeliers. They want to show off, they want respect, and admiration. They want, ultimately, nothing more than to feel powerful. And that just plain doesn't work if everybody else is as well off as you are. If everybody had the sort of viewpoint you had... well, I think the world would be a much better place. But, psychologically, people value exclusivity - other people getting more makes them feel like they have much much less.

[Criptfeind]

It's pretty difficult to tell what LordBucket's position is considering he's been doing virtually nothing but asking leading questions.  But establishing "actually, rich people do have a moral and practical obligation to pay back money to society" would allow me to nail down his position to some degree and make more progress later.

So. You are going to attack a position that is not his to move the conversation along? I guess that makes sense, but no more disliking strawmen for you I guess.

[Strife26]

If everybody could have wine and fancy cars, and gold watches and wear nice clothes and fly planes and lead fun and happy lives...I think that would be both healthy and appropriate.

You realize this is pretty contrary to the prevailing attitude, though? Among both the poor and the wealthy, having what you want is generally significantly less important than having more than the other guy. Because most people don't want "stuff", they don't want "gold chandeliers", they want other people to be impressed by their gold chandeliers. They want to show off, they want respect, and admiration. They want, ultimately, nothing more than to feel powerful. And that just plain doesn't work if everybody else is as well off as you are. If everybody had the sort of viewpoint you had... well, I think the world would be a much better place. But, psychologically, people value exclusivity - other people getting more makes them feel like they have much much less.

I really don't know if that's the real general mindset, I'd think that "get more than I had last month, and leave a better life for my kids" was the general thought process. Of course, I'd suppose that that's really a question without a way to answer, isn't it?

[MaximumZero]

Believe you me, Keepin' up wit da Jonses is alive and well in the hood. If you don't believe me, look at any beat up Pontiac (fake Cadillac) with 20" rims+spinners and window-rattling speakers. Poor people just express the need to be better by customizing the shit they already have instead of buying new shit. It's cheaper in the short term, and less likely to be stolen.

[Leafsnail]

So. You are going to attack a position that is not his to move the conversation along? I guess that makes sense, but no more disliking strawmen for you I guess.

No.  I am attacking a position that he seems to be saying he holds (through his insistence that he should have everything he earns, and his earlier posts about how rich people should not be legally obliged to give up their money).  That is the best I have since he has not actually expressed a position explicitly.  If you can show me where he gives an actual position and not 2 pages of "Are you sure you're not a lazy bum who enjoys being poor?" then I will address that instead.

[GlyphGryph]

I really don't know if that's the real general mindset, I'd think that "get more than I had last month, and leave a better life for my kids" was the general thought process. Of course, I'd suppose that that's really a question without a way to answer, isn't it?

Most people have multiple motivations, and the dominant one depends on the circumstances and the person.

(The best way to achieve equality while appealing to the exclusivity and comparative value motivations is to have unbalanced equality - if I get a plane and you get a yacht, we can both show off to each other and be happier, but it doesn't work if we both get a plane and a yacht. (or at least the same plane and yacht))

There's a reason two of the seven deadly sins directly address this impulse, to the point where one of it's instances commonly takes the place of the DEADLIEST of deadly sins! It's pretty common to the human condition. It's insidious, too, often acting so that the person motivated by it is completely unaware without introspection. It's just so... natural.

[ECrownofFire]

Prices shouldn't be based on supply and demand. They should be based on the time required to acquire or manufacture something. If a couch can be made with roughly one hour of labor, it should be worth one hour of someone else's labor.As for people not working enough, that's absolutely fine. We really don't need that much production. Not nearly as much as we use. If people want considerable amounts of luxuries though, they will have to work more. Perhaps a certain amount of mandated work for those who are capable to cover food and utility costs, but beyond that, you should get as much out of society as you put in. If people collectively decide they don't want to produce luxuries, there's nothing wrong with that.

Alright, so what about that guy that is so good at his job that it takes him a few minutes to do something, while the "average" guy takes an hour? You do not punish excellence in any field. Doing that only leads to a society that encourages slowing down progress because it's more "fair". What do you do about farmers, who grow their crops for several months, or tree farmers, who grow their crops for years? What about the scientist who spends his entire life researching, but with no "actual" results? Then their research leads to some massive discovery like a cure to all disease a few years after their death, and even that is assuming they were able to get anything done because they were paid NOTHING because they didn't "acquire or manufacture" something. Then you have John Doe who "works" for 8 hours a day watching over a machine that makes stuff for him. That "stuff" happens to be made of gold or some ridiculously rare thing, but it's worth about as much as a fucking wooden table. Supply and demand is basic fucking economics that works on basic fucking laws of nature (things that are rare and useful cost more because they are rare), and suggesting that it's a "flawed" system is about as idiotic as suggesting that humans shouldn't eat because it's damaging to the Earth or even...

This:

Currency based systems have flaws. A post-scarcity environment would be better for everyone. If I enjoy a glass of wine, I enjoy it because I like it. Not because I'm laughing at the peons beneath my heels compelled to drink water from the gutter. If everybody could have wine and fancy cars, and gold watches and wear nice clothes and fly planes and lead fun and happy lives...I think that would be both healthy and appropriate. If nobody felt compelled to work menial, pointless jobs for the sake of "making a living" that would be a huge improvement for everyone. Personally, that bothers me more than quality of life issues. Going hungry from time to time, not owning a car, taking the bus to get around and eating donated food...yeah, that's not so great. But living an entire lifestyle of dreary servitude, spending the majority of your waking hours every day doing something trivial, pointless and that you hate...all just to barely survive and even still not have the things you want...that's just horrible.

So, yes. If we can outgrow money and advance to a post-scarcity society where nobody works and everybody can have whatever they want at the press of a button, I'm all in favor. I think most of the "rich" people I know would go along with that.

Oh sure let's just get rid of all compelling reasons to put effort into society. Money is not the limiting factor to post-scarcity economies, it's the scarcity of basic resources (it's after scarcity). Drinking water is still scarce in many areas. Why? Not because of money, but because it takes a hell of a lot of time and effort to provide it. Without money, you would have absolutely no reason to help people below you other than the own good of your heart. And let's be honest here, nobody wants to give away their stuff for free. They want to get something back for it, and for most people, a good feeling is not enough.

Money is nothing more than a representation of mutual trade and cooperation between two people. It is impossible for money to not exist in a society that has reason for trade (i.e. one that has people that are missing what they want or need, or in other words, a society that is not post-scarcity). Don't look at money to blame for any problems you have, because it's an abstract concept and is about as productive as yelling at the concept of war.

[Criptfeind]

What's the point of the second part of your post there Crown? He says a post scarcity world without money would be better, and you go on a rant about how money is needed in this world and it would only not be needed in a post scarcity world.

[Strife26]

Two different points, I'd say. Second point's standalone that blaming money for anything's kinda silly, because many of the same problems would still exist if I was daily bartering my two liters of water for a chicken.