Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

PlanetSpores.ca
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Money Matters
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Re: Resource Based Economy? [Re: Smackshadow]
    #12022865 -

zappaisgod said:
Any contract freely entered into by both parties with eyes wide open is 100% legitimate always.  And none of your business.


QFT
Smackshadow said:
Lending money on interest is usury.  I will agree in a free market system it is almost a necessity, but the notion that it is legitimate is not in my mind a certainty. 

I appreciate your point on barter, but on the same token having money allows for greater concentration of wealth for precisely the same reason.


What is illigitimate about me wanting to be paid for your use of my liquidity?  The interest rate is just that - an agreedupon payment for your use of my funds for the time being.

Seems pretty sensible & legit to me :shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Resource Based Economy? [Re: Smackshadow]
    #12023048 -

Quote:
Lending money on interest is usury.


According to what definition of usury? Certainly not a real one.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Resource Based Economy? [Re: Redstorm]
    #12023090 -

As I understand it, the classic definition of usury was to lend at interest when you took no part in the risk.  So charging interest on money created through fractional-reserve lending would seem to qualify.  If the person pays back the loan, the lender keeps the interest.  But if the borrower defaults on the loan, they get their property repossessed.  So the lender comes out ahead either way.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Resource Based Economy? [Re: Silversoul]
    #12024706 -

Silversoul said:
  So the lender comes out ahead either way.


As is his payment for forgoing consumption in T0 (a.k.a. now) as opposed to lending it out for a while and spending it (plus interest) in time T1 (a.k.a. later)


I just dont see how someone could be opposed to the idea of interest. (i'm not sure if anyone in here is arguing that point, i'm just rambling cuz i'm drunk and high)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Resource Based Economy? [Re: memes]
    #12025351 -

meams said:
And it's very obvious that you have any idea about how things in this world work, or can work.


Why can't it work?  Automation is something that is progressing, and could be progressing much more rapidly if not for public relations issues. If we automated every job that we have the technology to automate today, the economic system would be severely damaged.  That system is all that holds us back from doing so.  And it's quite irresponsible of us not to harness this technology, since production in this field almost always surpasses human potential several-fold.

And how is it "horribly inefficient"?  The entire idea is based around efficiency and sustainability, unlike the current system which clearly isn't.  Getting a survey on all the resources we have on the earth is the first step, which in itself is absolutely critical to efficiency.  I'm really not sure of any angle where one could say that the Resource Based Economy is inefficient compared to our current system.  That's the whole point of it.

And your cell phone company argument is irrelevant, because the market only has an indirect effect on producing better and cheaper services. The market is a middleman here, technology would progress regardless of a market. That argument does not justify the complete waste of resources and outrageous amount of pollution that particular field produces every year.

Keep it coming though.  I can pretty much address any rebuttals.  I'm surprised no one has mentioned the usual incentive issue, human nature, or a handful of other assumed problems that are easily swept away.


--------------------
Click to instantly make the shroomery a better place

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Resource Based Economy? [Re: Blend]
    #12025945 -

deadendeavor said:
And your cell phone company argument is irrelevant, because the market only has an indirect effect on producing better and cheaper services. The market is a middleman here, technology would progress regardless of a market. That argument does not justify the complete waste of resources and outrageous amount of pollution that particular field produces every year.

Keep it coming though.  I can pretty much address any rebuttals.  I'm surprised no one has mentioned the usual incentive issue, human nature, or a handful of other assumed problems that are easily swept away.


How convenient -- I was just about to use the incentive issue to address the bolded & underlined sentences.



Bolded:  Sure, technology may advance regardless of a market, but would it be the most socially efficient technologies?  The market is the force that tells entrepreneurs which sectors to pursue, which sectors to abandon, and those to continue operating in.  What force would dictate new technologies in your new 'automated' world?  Algorythms generated via machine that predict what goods people will want to consume & at what price?

Underlined:  I thought the market was the place where people went to make their purchasing decisions.  And I thought it was these purchasing decisions (choosing cheaper goodX over more expensive goodY) that drive the producers of GoodX to pursue technological innovations that allow them to compete with the producers of GoodY.


Also:  the ability to respond to an argument with a concrete thought  doesn't imply anything.  It's the quality of the underlying argument that is key.  Here, yours doesn't have much applicability -- which is why it's so easy for me to argue against it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Resource Based Economy? [Re: memes]
    #12029205 -

meams said:
Silversoul said:
  So the lender comes out ahead either way.


As is his payment for forgoing consumption in T0 (a.k.a. now) as opposed to lending it out for a while and spending it (plus interest) in time T1 (a.k.a. later)


Which is fine if the lender is lending out his own money.  But when you have banks creating the money they loan out through the fractional reserve system, the whole "forgoing consumption" argument doesn't really hold.  But I don't oppose interest because of that.  I think interest is fine within certain limits(I'm rather curious how your argument here plays out in the case of compound interest).  What bothers me is more to do with the fact that the power to create money is in the hands of private banks.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Resource Based Economy? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #12030696 -

Quote:
Any contract freely entered into by both parties with eyes wide open is 100% legitimate always.


unconscionable contract

contractual servitude

contracts against public policy

. . .


--------------------
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
     
~H. L. Mencken~

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Resource Based Economy? [Re: memes]
    #12038219 -

meams said:
deadendeavor said:
And your cell phone company argument is irrelevant, because the market only has an indirect effect on producing better and cheaper services. The market is a middleman here, technology would progress regardless of a market. That argument does not justify the complete waste of resources and outrageous amount of pollution that particular field produces every year.

Keep it coming though.  I can pretty much address any rebuttals.  I'm surprised no one has mentioned the usual incentive issue, human nature, or a handful of other assumed problems that are easily swept away.


How convenient -- I was just about to use the incentive issue to address the bolded & underlined sentences.



Bolded:  Sure, technology may advance regardless of a market, but would it be the most socially efficient technologies?  The market is the force that tells entrepreneurs which sectors to pursue, which sectors to abandon, and those to continue operating in.  What force would dictate new technologies in your new 'automated' world?  Algorythms generated via machine that predict what goods people will want to consume & at what price?

Underlined:  I thought the market was the place where people went to make their purchasing decisions.  And I thought it was these purchasing decisions (choosing cheaper goodX over more expensive goodY) that drive the producers of GoodX to pursue technological innovations that allow them to compete with the producers of GoodY.


Also:  the ability to respond to an argument with a concrete thought  doesn't imply anything.  It's the quality of the underlying argument that is key.  Here, yours doesn't have much applicability -- which is why it's so easy for me to argue against it.


So are you saying that tobacco is a socially efficient industry?  What about the pharmaceutical industry? 

Technology would progress the same way it does today, only faster without budgets being in the way.  You're confusing commerce and technology here (which is fair because money is intertwined into everything)... Technology progresses to outreach the limits of present technology, very simply.  Yes, people want certain apps and access to certain services on their cell phone, but why does there HAVE to be a market in place for this to exist?  People are creative regardless of monetary gain, and a quick surf across the internet will show you this.

The market system should have nothing to do with technology, because it only acts as a hinderance through budgets.  So the 'force' that dictates what new technologies are relevant would be the same force that does so now: Science.  The market system only paralyzes this relationship, because new technology is very expensive to harness.  For instance, nanotechnology is a field with vast potential, but it will progress in inches because of the cost involved.

And to your second paragraph, yes, this is the way it works today, but I don't see where it's writ in blood that this is as far as it goes, and we can never have another economic system.  Competition is necessary in a monetary system, but underneath the profits all you have is multiplicity, a waste of resource, more pollution, more advertising (which is a manipulation of values), and alot of wasted life. 

And I'm not saying this is the one and only answer.  All I'm saying is that the monetary system is nothing but pure corruption, and it has to go.  It will inevitably fail - it's failure by design.  This seems to me to be the most sensible solution put in front of me.  And if nothing else, it's infinitely more sensible than what we've got.


--------------------
Click to instantly make the shroomery a better place

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Resource Based Economy? [Re: Blend]
    #12038476 -

I'm sorry if this was explained in teh video I did not watch:  but how are you going to expand technological progress without the existance of a budget?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Resource Based Economy? [Re: Blend]
    #12038562 -

Social efficiency?  Now there's a scary concept.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Resource Based Economy? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #12039664 -

zappaisgod said:
Social efficiency?  Now there's a scary concept.


http://artofrevolution.co.uk/images/5%20year%20reduced.jpg

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Resource Based Economy? [Re: Blend]
    #12040338 -

I think it's a good idea.  Here is a few sentences from the website that I especially liked:

"A better understanding of natural law involves human's relationship to the environment, which supports all life. All of nature is subservient to natural law. Natural law cannot be violated without serious consequences to individuals or societies. Natural laws dominate all living systems. For example, without water, sun, or nutrients, plants and animals die.

An environment of scarcity, hunger, and poverty is a threat to everyone."

I wish I could get people to understand that the huge inequality that exists in the world today causes most of the social problems for all people, and not just for the poor.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Resource Based Economy? [Re: HippieChick8]
    #12040383 -

Inequality doesn't matter, basic needs matter.  If bill gates suddenly got 10 times richer that would skew the inequality big time, but my basic needs and luxuries would still remain the same.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Resource Based Economy? [Re: DieCommie]
    #12040505 -

I've read that appoximately 1 billion people are starving or malnourished right now.  Not because there is a shortage of food, but because they do not have the money to buy it and there are no jobs available for them.  I've also read the billionaires of the world have as much wealth as the poorest 3 billion people!  I think this is absurd. 

Judging from your post about taxes you are not rich, nor am I.  Yet you seem to defend the wealthy.  I've noticed this about a lot of people who are just scraping to get by but they will defend the grotesquely rich as if their life depended on it.  Could you tell me why that is?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Resource Based Economy? [Re: HippieChick8]
    #12040596 -

I don't believe he necessarily defends the wealthy, but more so their right to be wealthy.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Resource Based Economy? [Re: Redstorm]
    #12040755 -

HippieChick8 said:
I've read that appoximately 1 billion people are starving or malnourished right now.  Not because there is a shortage of food, but because they do not have the money to buy it and there are no jobs available for them.  I've also read the billionaires of the world have as much wealth as the poorest 3 billion people!  I think this is absurd. 

Judging from your post about taxes you are not rich, nor am I.  Yet you seem to defend the wealthy.  I've noticed this about a lot of people who are just scraping to get by but they will defend the grotesquely rich as if their life depended on it.  Could you tell me why that is?


1 billion people are starving or malnourished right now - and there are a number of reasons for that.  Among them:
-Cruel & incompetent governments
-Bad soil quality
-Lack of natural resources
-Millinea worth of war and social infighting
-Lack of education & proper medical care
-Complete absence of infrastructure, which is crucial for the regular delivery of basic necessities (bread food water) in areas taht cannot generate these on their own.

Notice how "income inequality" is not a cause of hunger.


Redstorm said:
I don't believe he necessarily defends the wealthy, but more so their right to be wealthy.


QFT.  Some people are wealthy through no efforts of their own.  Many more are wealthy as the result of decades of tough labor & tough risks.  How are we to distinguish one from the other?  Do they both not have equal right to their assets?

I agree, income inequality sucks -- but I don't believe in anybody's right to transfer wealth from one income class to the other on purely idealistic grounds.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Resource Based Economy? [Re: HippieChick8]
    #12041228 -

HippieChick8 said:
I've read that appoximately 1 billion people are starving or malnourished right now.  Not because there is a shortage of food, but because they do not have the money to buy it and there are no jobs available for them.  I've also read the billionaires of the world have as much wealth as the poorest 3 billion people!  I think this is absurd. 

Judging from your post about taxes you are not rich, nor am I.  Yet you seem to defend the wealthy.  I've noticed this about a lot of people who are just scraping to get by but they will defend the grotesquely rich as if their life depended on it.  Could you tell me why that is?


Im not scrapping to get by, I make plenty of money.  The govt. trys to tell me Im in poverty but they are full of shit.  I know what real poverty is and Im certainly not in it.  In fact, I am probably among the richest humans that has ever lived on the earth.

Wealth equality doenst matter - only basic needs matter.  If your needs are meet then why bitch about somebody being richer than you?  That's just jealousy.  If needs arnt meet then that is bad even if everybody's needs are not meet equally.  To put it another way - somebody else getting richer doesnt necessarily make you poorer, wealth can be and is created.  Also, somebody else getting poorer doesnt necessarily make you richer, wealth can be and is destroyed.  There is not a static amount of wealth to be distributed thus relative measures of wealth are just bullshit emotional jealousy.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Resource Based Economy? [Re: DieCommie]
    #12041244 -

DieCommie said:
shthd said:
Wouldn't having currency that's backed by something (gold, silver...) be more efficient?  If a paper note represented x-amount of gold, then the monetary system would be based on resources.


It doesn't need to be backed by gold to be based off of resources.  A paper note does represent x-amount of gold.  Right now roughly $1100 represents 1 oz of gold.



Where do you find this out?


--------------------



Everything I post is a lie

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Resource Based Economy? [Re: trishraymond]
    #12041944 -

Well, he has a point.  A dollar is alwyas tradeable for a given amount of gold, in this case, 1/1100th of an oz.  It varies, obviously.

hehe

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Money Matters
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Cryptocurrency: A Discussion on Bitcoin, Ethereum and Related Projects
( 1 2 3 4 ... 580 581 )		 geokillsA 294,753 11,612 11/02/26 07:56 PM
by geokills

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: geokills, automan
5,670 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 16 queries.