Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

This is a forum for discussing philosophical theories of government and social structure. It is not a venue for partisan rants or plugging favored candidates.

Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Mossling on June 19th, 2011, 12:59 am 

There is a theory that 'developed' nations such as the US or the UK have the potential to produce such an excess/abundance of basic and necessary resources that money would no longer be required.

There would be enough of the desired kinds of food, clothing, building materials, etc., available for the whole population, and so exchanging money for these items would be pointless.

The first time I came across this idea was reading about the Venus Project:

Wiki: Venus Project wrote:In a resource-based economy, resources are allocated into the goods and services in consumer demand, based on factors of availability, sustainability and technological advancement. The role of money would be phased out, instead central computers serve a lineup of goods and services (see Star network), which citizens may order upon demand; central computers serve the lineup of goods based on sustainability and the latest in technological advancement; obsolete, unwanted, or unused goods would be recycled, reduced and/or reused, resource waste is a burden the system must eliminate to function efficiently. Link


I can't imagine that all the variety of commodities could be provided for adequately, however, and that personal tastes would be compromised. It's difficult to imagine that the the supporters of such a potential system would not have considered this, as it appears quite obvious. Is there a workaround? Or is the idea flawed due to the potential lack of abundance of certain key goods (never mind the potential for corrupt system administrators to manipulate the distribution procedure to their advantage)?
User avatar
Mossling
Active Member
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: 02 Jul 2009


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 19th, 2011, 1:21 am 

OK, MONETARY SYSTEM -ADVANTAGE TAKING- THINKING ASIDE, I WOULD LIKE TO ADRESS SUTIN B4 SOME BAIT GUY COMES REGURGITATE POPULATION BS:

CHECK THIS VIDEO/ 1 out of 4 series:



Context: if you watch this, take time to understand all the premises and implications,

if you still think population increase is a problem, in the way THEY push it,

then you are a TOOOL, real talk, your part of the problem, open your head.

humans have an innate, uncany ability to help this, unless you wanna get anal about our "nature" <-(TOOOL).

i wanna get that out the way.

im ready to back this up. hard. try me. after, we may proceed.

if you even mention oil in this context, or energy for that matter, you best go hard...
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Paul Anthony on June 19th, 2011, 2:32 am 

Mossling wrote:I can't imagine that all the variety of commodities could be provided for adequately, however, and that personal tastes would be compromised. It's difficult to imagine that the the supporters of such a potential system would not have considered this, as it appears quite obvious. Is there a workaround? Or is the idea flawed due to the potential lack of abundance of certain key goods (never mind the potential for corrupt system administrators to manipulate the distribution procedure to their advantage)?


In addition to those problems you've mentioned...and maybe I'm missing something, but...how does anyone get rewarded for their work? What is the incentive to produce anything new? This sounds like a utopian idea dreamt up by someone who has never had to earn a living or pay bills.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5706
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Mossling on June 19th, 2011, 4:08 am 

Paul Anthony wrote:..how does anyone get rewarded for their work?

I think the idea is that nobody would have to work - we have apparently 'transcended' that requirement via technology.

Wiki: Venus Project wrote:According to Fresco, scarcity is maintained and regulated by the market which leads to an increase in prices, and people need to work harder to pay higher prices; the labour and wealth distribution is according to Fresco controlled by markets, people cannot always receive goods and services they need, although Fresco maintains that a superabundance of resource exists in reality, he claims greed and power inherent in the market economy denies them access. Fresco argues that the world is rich in natural resources and energy and that, with modern technology and judicious efficiency, the needs of the global population can be met with abundance, while at the same time removing the current limits of what is deemed possible because of notions of economic viability. [...] One of the key points in Fresco’s solution is that without the conditions created in a monetary system, vast amounts of resources would not be wasted unproductively.


Although I'm assuming someone would have to engineer and maintain the technology, etc.

Paul Anthony wrote:This sounds like a utopian idea dreamt up by someone who has never had to earn a living or pay bills.

Well, technological advances do put people out of jobs at factories and in offices all around the world all the time. I would assume there would come a point where all jobs could be done by machinery. What would humans do then?
User avatar
Mossling
Active Member
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: 02 Jul 2009


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 19th, 2011, 11:53 am 

Paul Anthony wrote:In addition to those problems you've mentioned...and maybe I'm missing something, but...how does anyone get rewarded for their work? What is the incentive to produce anything new?


What incentive do you have to be on a forum like this, for example. What else do you do in your "spare time"?

How are you getting rewarded here on this forum?

Paul Anthony wrote:This sounds like a utopian idea dreamt up by someone who has never had to earn a living or pay bills.


Ofcourse it does, your brain has been indoctrinated to respond this way to any notion of the sort.

People responding in this way is profitable.
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 19th, 2011, 11:57 am 

Mossling wrote:
Paul Anthony wrote:..how does anyone get rewarded for their work?

I think the idea is that nobody would have to work - we have apparently 'transcended' that requirement via technology.

Wiki: Venus Project wrote:According to Fresco, scarcity is maintained and regulated by the market which leads to an increase in prices, and people need to work harder to pay higher prices; the labour and wealth distribution is according to Fresco controlled by markets, people cannot always receive goods and services they need, although Fresco maintains that a superabundance of resource exists in reality, he claims greed and power inherent in the market economy denies them access. Fresco argues that the world is rich in natural resources and energy and that, with modern technology and judicious efficiency, the needs of the global population can be met with abundance, while at the same time removing the current limits of what is deemed possible because of notions of economic viability. [...] One of the key points in Fresco’s solution is that without the conditions created in a monetary system, vast amounts of resources would not be wasted unproductively.


Although I'm assuming someone would have to engineer and maintain the technology, etc.

Paul Anthony wrote:This sounds like a utopian idea dreamt up by someone who has never had to earn a living or pay bills.

Well, technological advances do put people out of jobs at factories and in offices all around the world all the time. I would assume there would come a point where all jobs could be done by machinery. What would humans do then?


Yes, alot of what hes saying has to do with how alot of work that humans do now could be done by machinery/automation, but arn't, becuase of the monetary system.

Like, automation is very threatening in a dog eat dog world, but very helpful in a dog help dog world, so to speak.

It's not that we dont need to work, or trancended that need.

It's, we do alot of work that could be done by machines.
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 19th, 2011, 12:08 pm 

Mossling wrote:I can't imagine that all the variety of commodities could be provided for adequately, however, and that personal tastes would be compromised. It's difficult to imagine that the the supporters of such a potential system would not have considered this, as it appears quite obvious. Is there a workaround? Or is the idea flawed due to the potential lack of abundance of certain key goods (never mind the potential for corrupt system administrators to manipulate the distribution procedure to their advantage)?


First of all, to a large extent, personal tastes are enviromentaly dictated.

The idea moves away from ownership.

For instance, do you need to own that camera you have? The one made out of valuable resourses. The one that probaly wont work in 5 years time. The one that is not designed to be upgraded, but thrown away. The one that is profitable to make.

How often do you take pictures?

Can you imagine going to something like a library, and borrowing a camera when you want to take pictures? For "free"?

Also, if something like a resource based economy is put into effect, someone brought up in it has no reason to be corrupt, as it wouln't be beneficial like it is now.
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 19th, 2011, 12:55 pm 



A feature length documentary work which presents a case for a needed transition out of the current socioeconomic monetary paradigm which governs the entire world society. This subject matter will transcend the issues of cultural relativism and traditional ideology and move to relate the core, empirical "life ground" attributes of human and social survival, extrapolating those immutable natural laws into a new sustainable social paradigm called a "Resource-Based Economy".


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1781069/
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Paul Anthony on June 19th, 2011, 2:43 pm 

If humanity had adopted such a philosophy a few thousand years ago, we would all have our own caves.

That's about all we would have.

We wouldn't be "going to something like a library, and borrowing a camera when you want to take pictures" because there wouldn't be anything like libraries - or cameras.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5706
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 19th, 2011, 3:30 pm 

Paul Anthony wrote:If humanity had adopted such a philosophy a few thousand years ago, we would all have our own caves.

That's about all we would have.

We wouldn't be "going to something like a library, and borrowing a camera when you want to take pictures" because there wouldn't be anything like libraries - or cameras.


First of all, your notion seems to be based upon the premise that humans require competition to do anything productive.

Correct?

If you could elaborate on the premises and reasoning that lead to this conclusion, I would appreciate it.
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby granpa on June 19th, 2011, 4:46 pm 

I can see a world where basic food clothing and very simple shelter are free for all and people work to be able to have niceties. We could probably do that now if we really wanted to.

but a world where everything is free and nobody works is still a long way off (but not impossible)
granpa
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby granpa on June 19th, 2011, 5:07 pm 

the reason we havent already made basic food clothing and simple shelter free is probably for military reasons.

the government wants everyone out working as hard as they can so it can tax them and build a big army.

once we have a one world government then maybe we will get around to letting people relax a little
Last edited by granpa on June 19th, 2011, 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
granpa
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby CanadysPeak on June 19th, 2011, 5:08 pm 

While I hate to agree so easily with the vice-president of the anti-barbeque league, he is absolutely right in saying that, if nobody works, we all die at old age at 26 years, leaving behind an estate of all the rocks you can eat. Work may change over the years, and may become more technologically sophisticated, and may not require as many "grunt" laborers, but it still has to be done. A D9 may be able to dig as much earth as what 70 men could manually, but the guy sitting in the seat of that Cat still gets the heck beat out of him in a twelve hour day.

Who will grow your food? Who will wash your dirty laundry? Who will macerate and sanitize your feces? Who will pick your broccoli in the broiling sun? There are a lot of jobs which are hard, unpleasant, and even dangerous, and people must be given incentives to do them. Thus, for the foreseeable future, people will want to be paid in money, with some people being paid more than others.
CanadysPeak
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Paul Anthony on June 19th, 2011, 6:09 pm 

Whut wrote:First of all, your notion seems to be based upon the premise that humans require competition to do anything productive.

Correct?

If you could elaborate on the premises and reasoning that lead to this conclusion, I would appreciate it.


Not competition, necessarily, but accomplishment. Challenging ourselves to create something, and succeeding at it, brings a feeling that is rewarding. Unfortunately (perhaps) we also want some material reward as well. Most places that have attempted a Communist or socialist utopia have realized a lack of innovation, mainly because there is no reward for creative efforts.

I find people who wish for a society where everything is provided for them are usually working at a job they don't like, and are dissatisfied with their lot in life. That is understandable. Whenever we feel as if we are not in control of our destiny, we become depressed and unwilling to continue working when it seems others are benefiting more from our labor than we are.

While I was checking out at the supermarket one Sunday, I noticed that the cashier looked bored and dejected. He was probably about 18 and obviously not thrilled that he had to work that day. But, as his training required, he asked me, “How are you today?”. I gave my standard reply, “I’m fine, how are you?” (That has become my standard reply because I want to be fine, so I always remind myself that I am). His answer was something along the lines of “Well, I could be better”.

How true! Too bad he didn’t know that!

There were other people waiting to check out, so I really couldn’t spend a lot of time explaining life to this young man. But his attitude definitely needed help, so I said, “Let’s see, you’re earning money and I’m spending money. Which would you rather be doing?” His answer sums up what most people think of as their ideal situation. He said, “I’d rather be earning money while staying in bed!”

Is that all you want out of life?

Here is an interesting fact: most people who own their own businesses work more hours than the average employee! Entrepreneurs don’t earn money while staying in bed, but they don’t feel as stressed as people who work for others! There are several reasons for this seemingly contradictory situation. Obviously, the self-employed person has chosen his occupation while many employees work at whatever job they can find.

Doing something that interests you makes work seem less like … work!

You might think that the earning potential makes the entrepreneur more willing to work harder, but you’d probably be wrong. A successful businessman can make a lot of money, but before becoming successful he probably made less than he could have earned working for someone else! All businesses don’t start out automatically as moneymakers. Whatever money comes in has to go to rent, utilities, products, supplies, and to the employees! The owner gets paid last, and only if there is anything left over. Sometimes he doesn’t get paid at all!

The biggest reward for becoming self-employed is the feeling of accomplishment that comes from creating something! Whether you are making a product or providing a service, you have created a business that didn’t exist before. Your business may be a brand new concept, or a new way of doing something others have done before. Either way, you did it your way! It is that sense of empowerment that drives entrepreneurs to invest their money and time into a dream, working longer hours than they might be willing to work for others. They work to realize the rewards of their own creation. They also - sometimes - make a lot of money, but...They don’t work just for money.

If you hate your job, it is probably something you only do for money. If you are working for money, which is a commodity that you won’t keep for very long, the rewards won’t last long, either. But if you work to create what you want, the rewards will be very satisfying and lasting.

Why do you have to work at all?

The answer is something called an “ego”. We are all either blessed or cursed with one, depending on how you look at it. We get our greatest satisfaction from our accomplishments. We take pride in what we can do. You may have been taught that pride is a bad thing, but you have also been told that it is important to instill a sense of self-esteem in your children! How’s that for contradictory instructions?

Self-esteem or self-worth is the feeling that we are valuable in some way. People without it tend to become victims of people who have it. And, contrary to the popular notion, you cannot give someone else self-esteem. It comes from accomplishing your own dreams – on your own. Creating brings success. Success brings self-esteem. True self-esteem brings happiness. When you have a dream, working to accomplish it will not seem like work.

If work meant doing what you really wanted to do, what would you rather be doing if you weren’t working?
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5706
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby granpa on June 19th, 2011, 6:14 pm 

look at how much people pay for windows yet linux is free and was created by volunteers.

does anyone have any statistics on how much volunteer work is done in the us each year?

I have volunteered myself at an animal shelter and once at a park rose garden
granpa
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 19th, 2011, 6:35 pm 

CanadysPeak wrote:While I hate to agree so easily with the vice-president of the anti-barbeque league, he is absolutely right in saying that, if nobody works, we all die at old age at 26 years, leaving behind an estate of all the rocks you can eat. Work may change over the years, and may become more technologically sophisticated, and may not require as many "grunt" laborers, but it still has to be done. A D9 may be able to dig as much earth as what 70 men could manually, but the guy sitting in the seat of that Cat still gets the heck beat out of him in a twelve hour day.

Who will grow your food? Who will wash your dirty laundry? Who will macerate and sanitize your feces? Who will pick your broccoli in the broiling sun? There are a lot of jobs which are hard, unpleasant, and even dangerous, and people must be given incentives to do them. Thus, for the foreseeable future, people will want to be paid in money, with some people being paid more than others.


Hey Canady,

This theory has absolutely nothing to do with not working per se, but instead about realising there is alot of work we do; that could be done better by automation, and if we was able to utilize this, we would all be able to contribute to more worthwhile things.

75% of all jobs done today can be done by automation.

Would people still be needed to oversee these operations in the event of a mailfunction or the like? Yes. But the number of people needed would decrease over time as improvements continued. However as of today, around 3% of the population would be needed for this job when you break it down.

I guarentee that people would volenteer left right and center to help maintain and improve an economic system that really is designed to take care of you and secure your bell being, without you having to submit to a private dictatorship on a daily basis; usualy to a job that is technically unnecessary or socially pointless, while often struggling with debt that doesn't even exist; just to make ends meet.

Along with this question of incentive, comes the commen assumption that: if there isn't some external pressure for one to work for a living; that people will sit around and do nothing and turn into fat lazy slobs. This is nonsense.

Infact the labour system we have today is the generator of lazyness: not a resolver of it.

If you look back to when you was a child: full of life, intrested in new things to understand, likely creating and exploring, but eventualy the system pushed you into the focus of figuring out how to make money; and from early education to studying at a university, you are narrowed, only to emerge as a creature that serves as a cog in a wheel of a model that sends all the fruits to the upper 1%.

Scientific studies have now shown that people are infact not motivated by monetary reward when it comes to ingenuity and creation: the creation itself is the reward. Money only serves an incentive for repetative mundane actions, roles that can be done by automation.



^"RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us"

This might explain why Nicola Tesla, the Wright brothers and other inventors who contributed massively to our current world never showed a monetary incentive to do so.

A resource based economy applies scientific method to social concern - and this isn't just limited to technical efficiancy. It also has the consideration of human and social well being directly and what comprises it.
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby CanadysPeak on June 19th, 2011, 7:44 pm 

Whut wrote:
CanadysPeak wrote:While I hate to agree so easily with the vice-president of the anti-barbeque league, he is absolutely right in saying that, if nobody works, we all die at old age at 26 years, leaving behind an estate of all the rocks you can eat. Work may change over the years, and may become more technologically sophisticated, and may not require as many "grunt" laborers, but it still has to be done. A D9 may be able to dig as much earth as what 70 men could manually, but the guy sitting in the seat of that Cat still gets the heck beat out of him in a twelve hour day.

Who will grow your food? Who will wash your dirty laundry? Who will macerate and sanitize your feces? Who will pick your broccoli in the broiling sun? There are a lot of jobs which are hard, unpleasant, and even dangerous, and people must be given incentives to do them. Thus, for the foreseeable future, people will want to be paid in money, with some people being paid more than others.


Hey Canady,

This theory has absolutely nothing to do with not working per se, but instead about realising there is alot of work we do; that could be done better by automation, and if we was able to utilize this, we would all be able to contribute to more worthwhile things.

75% of all jobs done today can be done by automation.

Would people still be needed to oversee these operations in the event of a mailfunction or the like? Yes. But the number of people needed would decrease over time as improvements continued. However as of today, around 3% of the population would be needed for this job when you break it down.

I guarentee that people would volenteer left right and center to help maintain and improve an economic system that really is designed to take care of you and secure your bell being, without you having to submit to a private dictatorship on a daily basis; usualy to a job that is technically unnecessary or socially pointless, while often struggling with debt that doesn't even exist; just to make ends meet.

Along with this question of incentive, comes the commen assumption that: if there isn't some external pressure for one to work for a living; that people will sit around and do nothing and turn into fat lazy slobs. This is nonsense.

Infact the labour system we have today is the generator of lazyness: not a resolver of it.

If you look back to when you was a child: full of life, intrested in new things to understand, likely creating and exploring, but eventualy the system pushed you into the focus of figuring out how to make money; and from early education to studying at a university, you are narrowed, only to emerge as a creature that serves as a cog in a wheel of a model that sends all the fruits to the upper 1%.

Scientific studies have now shown that people are infact not motivated by monetary reward when it comes to ingenuity and creation: the creation itself is the reward. Money only serves an incentive for repetative mundane actions, roles that can be done by automation.



^"RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us"

This might explain why Nicola Tesla, the Wright brothers and other inventors who contributed massively to our current world never showed a monetary incentive to do so.

A resource based economy applies scientific method to social concern - and this isn't just limited to technical efficiancy. It also has the consideration of human and social well being directly and what comprises it.


I'm always amazed when people make blatantly unsupported claims to me. Most know I fact check regularly.

The Wright brothers showed no interest in money? Who started Wright Aeronautical? Their mom? Who went to court and wrangled with Glenn Curtiss over the patents - the valuable patents - only to eventually merge into Curtiss-Wright?

Tesla showed so little interest in money that he started several companies to make some. Then he sued Marconi to try to get some that way. Then he pursued VC money.

And, 75 % of jobs cannot be presently automated. Where does that figure come from? Perhaps something more like 10 - 20 % is realistic. The greatest bar to automation is that robots cost more than humans. Are you willing to pay $4 for a Big Mac so that it can be made by a robot? I don't think so.
CanadysPeak
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Forest_Dump on June 19th, 2011, 7:58 pm 

CanadysPeak wrote:Are you willing to pay $4 for a Big Mac so that it can be made by a robot?


To me the bigger question is where you are going to get the $4 since there is a 90% chance you would be unemployed.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8714
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 19th, 2011, 8:06 pm 

Canady,

I never said they showed no intrest in money.

What im saying is, for example, the Wright brothers did not make a plane so they would become rich, it was not a monetary incentive, they done it because they wanted to fly!!

This thread is about the theory of a moneyless society and its benefits - yet you bring up how more automation would cost more money in the long run.

Duh?

We're talking about the advantages of automation if money wasn't a factor - and how the monetary system is holding that back.

To quote myself: Scientific studies have now shown that people are infact not motivated by monetary reward when it comes to ingenuity and creation: the creation itself is the reward. Money only serves an incentive for repetative mundane actions, roles that can be done by automation.

If money only serves an incentive to do repetative mundane actions (that can be automated instead of done by people) - why do we need money anymore?. Especialy when the money itself, is not only obsolete, but stifling human progress.
Last edited by Whut on June 19th, 2011, 8:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Whut on June 19th, 2011, 8:10 pm 

Forest_Dump wrote:
CanadysPeak wrote:Are you willing to pay $4 for a Big Mac so that it can be made by a robot?


To me the bigger question is where you are going to get the $4 since there is a 90% chance you would be unemployed.


Oh really...

C'mon, you are smart guys.

How can you bring up that automation is threatening to jobs - in a discussion about how the monetary system leads to automation being a threat, when it doesnt have to be, it can be very beneficial.

Your displaying your blatent mis-understanding of the topic.

All we need now is some anti communist or socialist comment.

/SIGH
Last edited by Whut on June 19th, 2011, 8:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Whut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: 10 Sep 2010


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby granpa on June 19th, 2011, 8:11 pm 

the whole idea of a hamburger was that its just a simple easily grilled bit of beef slapped between two pieces of bread.

it should be cheap. fast food restaurants have gotten greedy and now charge ridiculous prices for fancy burgers.

its the same with jeans. Denim was originally a cheap clothing material for farmers.
now they charge ridiculous prices for fancy jeans.

its really has become a joke.
they could make cheap jeans and cheap burgers if they wanted to.
(and cheap cars and cheap houses...)
they just dont want to.
They want to charge as much as they can extort from people.
granpa
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Paul Anthony on June 19th, 2011, 8:45 pm 

granpa wrote:the whole idea of a hamburger was that its just a simple easily grilled bit of beef slapped between two pieces of bread.

it should be cheap. fast food restaurants have gotten greedy and now charge ridiculous prices for fancy burgers.

its the same with jeans. Denim was originally a cheap clothing material for farmers.
now they charge ridiculous prices for fancy jeans.

its really has become a joke.
they could make cheap jeans and cheap burgers if they wanted to.
(and cheap cars and cheap houses...)
they just dont want to.
They want to charge as much as they can extort from people.


Really? You don't think part of the reason for the high cost of a burger is that the moron making it makes $7.35/hr ? And if it were mechanized, the burger might cost less to make, but...there would be no more jobs for people whose skills are limited to slapping a piece of grilled meat between two buns (a "skill" which really shouldn't be worth $7.35/hr in the first place, and wouldn't even pay that much were it not for Minimum Wage Laws).

This is the tired old argument that surfaces every now and then: "Why can't we all have high-paying jobs and low-priced goods?" (ANSWER: because that's patently absurd). With this thread, we are taking the absurd even further: "Why can't we get everything for free and never have to work at all?" (ANSWER: see last answer).
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5706
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Lomax on June 19th, 2011, 8:59 pm 

Paul Anthony wrote:Really? You don't think part of the reason for the high cost of a burger is that the moron making it makes $7.35/hr ?


Not to mention the fact that the beef lives its whole life in a shed, with a small closet's worth o' space, raised on steroids and antibiotics that make it a powerhouse for germ evolution.

However,

Paul Anthony wrote:And if it were mechanized, the burger might cost less to make, but...there would be no more jobs for people whose skills are limited to slapping a piece of grilled meat between two buns


One way or another, somebody still benefits from this. It means the cost of production drops (assuming Granpa's premise) so either the profit of the capitalist, or the price for the consumer, or the allowance of the comrade, or whatever, gets to go up.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3710
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby granpa on June 19th, 2011, 9:01 pm 

the government wants everything to be expensive so everyone will have to go out and work as hard as they can just to get by.

then the government can tax them and build its army and it wants as big an army as it can make.

that is the real reason everything is so expensive. not because of minimum wage.
granpa
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Paul Anthony on June 19th, 2011, 9:40 pm 

granpa wrote:the government wants everything to be expensive so everyone will have to go out and work as hard as they can just to get by.

then the government can tax them and build its army and it wants as big an army as it can make.

that is the real reason everything is so expensive. not because of minimum wage.


The government spends more money on "social programs" and "corporate welfare" than it does on the military.

And ~

The government doesn't set prices (yet).

Other than that, your theory sounds real good.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5706
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby CanadysPeak on June 19th, 2011, 9:44 pm 

Does anyone other than me notice that hamburgers (in fast food joints) are cheap? If you try replacing that protein with lentils (a healthier, presumably simpler and cheaper alternative), you pay more. The wages for the kid flipping the burgers is not the reason for the ridiculously low price. But, if you replace that kid with a robot, the price has to go up (Yes, it's been looked at).

Who are the "they" who could make cheap jeans and cheap burgers? Just once, sit down and calculate the cost of supplying water to the cotton-growing areas of the world so that you can get denim. Look at the LOM of a pair of jeans and then visit a typical sewing plant to see if you really think people would do that work out of good intentions.

And, yes, the Wright brothers were entepreneurs. They were businessmen before they were engineers. Please don't just say things and hope they pass for facts; I'm fairly familiar with both Curtiss-Wright and the history of aviation.

Robots are wonderful. I've worked around them a small bit. I often see the Robotics Institute at CMU. I have attended classes on robots. I bring a little knowledge to the table. The cost of building them, maintaining them, and operating them is substantial. Not all manual work is high enough value to be automated. And, not all manual work can be automated.
CanadysPeak
 


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Lomax on June 19th, 2011, 10:40 pm 

Paul Anthony wrote:The government doesn't set prices (yet).


Over here, it sets 20% of the price for the consumer, and varying amounts to the producer. It certainly plays a role.

I'd also add that a certain amount of the money invested in social programs pays itself off - alot of future employees would starve to death already without a welfare net. The same goes for a minimum wage - one of my best friends is in his fourth year of a seven-year architecture course, and has worked many an hour in McDonald's to pay his way through university. Another friend studies medicine at Cambridge - a course which is partly state-funded and he probably couldn't have undertaken without that. Between university years, I've worked several warehouse skivvy jobs, aswell as getting shouted at over the phone all day in a customer service department. Don't you tell me these guys are morons who don't deserve their minimum wage.
User avatar
Lomax
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 3710
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Location: Nuneaton, UK


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby Paul Anthony on June 19th, 2011, 11:31 pm 

Lomax wrote:The same goes for a minimum wage - one of my best friends is in his fourth year of a seven-year architecture course, and has worked many an hour in McDonald's to pay his way through university. Another friend studies medicine at Cambridge - a course which is partly state-funded and he probably couldn't have undertaken without that. Between university years, I've worked several warehouse skivvy jobs, aswell as getting shouted at over the phone all day in a customer service department. Don't you tell me these guys are morons who don't deserve their minimum wage.


I'd venture a guess that you and your friends didn't take those jobs because of the intellectual stimulation they provide. You take that sort of work precisely because it takes very little mental effort - freeing your brain cells for more important activity, like getting through your university studies.

I stand by my statement. You don't have to be a moron to flip burgers, but you don't have to be any smarter than one, either.

(BTW, I am the Quality Assurance mgr for a customer service call center. We pay much more than minimum wage because we actually expect our reps to think.)
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5706
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby mtbturtle on June 20th, 2011, 6:58 am 

yah not like morons deserve to be able to earn a living no matter how hard they work.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 9742
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: Moneyless Society: Resource-based Economy

Postby newyear on June 20th, 2011, 7:03 am 

CanadysPeak wrote:Who are the "they" who could make cheap jeans and cheap burgers? Just once, sit down and calculate the cost of supplying water to the cotton-growing areas of the world so that you can get denim. Look at the LOM of a pair of jeans and then visit a typical sewing plant to see if you really think people would do that work out of good intentions.


I'm in the fashion industry, and cheap jeans are made. Not many people want to buy them though. Denim is one of the cheapest fabrics, so the fabric is not why jeans are fairly expensive. Manufacturing jeans is not expensive either, when more than 500 pairs are made at the same time. The finishing process is also not expensive. The price is high because kids want it that way. For no other reason. The mark up is fantastic. You may ask, if it's such a good business why try making jeans. Many people do just this, and end up with a lot of unsellable merchandise.

If I gave clothes away from other seasons in my shops, no one would take them, let alone wear them!

Mossling, automation helps but never to the point that an article is free. Exchanging cameras for carrots is fine, but you don't need to eat cameras, but you do need to eat carrots. If money was done away with, then the means of putting a value on something to be exchanged would be food, as its consumption is final. The product disappears.

And, if everything was free, wouldn't some want more than others? Some people do eat more than others. Some would like a bigger yacht and a bigger house. Who would do the sharing? Even getting the energy thing sorted out, and raw materials (I mean, it wouldn't be impossible to actually take them from source, as has been done in the past), and the robotised manufacturing process. However, the 'psychological needs' that each individual attaches to certain products has a 'value'.
newyear
 


Next

Return to Political Theory

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests

cron