Michael Hardner Posted October 12, 2016 Report Posted October 12, 2016 There are a lot of good points being made here. The ones I have noted: - The current system is better than you (?) or a lot of people think it is - The result from any changes likely won't change the results, ie. you will still have inequality, and therefore relative poverty I do think that the 'system' as it's described IS changing under our feet. Economics deals with scarcity and when scarcity goes away then economics is no longer needed. The main question I would have are: what are you trying to achieve and why ? How would you implement it ? Who would be the arbiter for this new system's rules ? Maybe it's better to think about ways to improve the current system. Guaranteed income is one of those tweaks that makes a change without throwing the whole system out the door: do you see the value in incremental change ? Interesting topic. I urge you to listen to the last part of this podcast, linked below, wherein they talk about the ways that money itself could come to an end. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
?Impact Posted October 12, 2016 Report Posted October 12, 2016 3 hours ago, AsksWhy said: The idea of personal property would become a thing of the past (unlearned over time), and material items would be accessible to all. There is a certain comfort with personal property that I don't see how can be unlearned. I want to come back to the same bed to sleep in at night, I got that turkey and trimmings so I could have a meal but if someone takes it from me all my planning and work is lost. I think there needs to be some boundaries around personal property, but yes they can be far smaller than they are today. Quote
AsksWhy Posted October 13, 2016 Author Report Posted October 13, 2016 17 hours ago, Argus said: Why call it greed? The desire to improve ones life, ones comfort, to improve on the status quo, has been the driving force behind all human accomplishment, expansion and achievement for tens of thousands of years. But when you're blind to what is happening around you, that is selfish! <Drops the mic!> Quote
Argus Posted October 13, 2016 Report Posted October 13, 2016 1 hour ago, AsksWhy said: But when you're blind to what is happening around you, that is selfish! <Drops the mic!> Who is blind to what's happening around us? Are people starving in Canada? Do we not feed, clothe and shelter the poor and provide health care for the sick, regardless of their own wealth, or lack thereof? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
AsksWhy Posted January 9, 2017 Author Report Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) I wanted to respond to some of the comments I passed over previously: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/11/2016 at 4:09 PM, @Argus said:Well, to begin with, that isn't how we or any other western country operate. I and other taxpayers sacrifice a good deal of our earned money to pay for the heat - and hydro, and food and clothing and shelter and whiskey of those who don't make enough, for whatever reason, to buy these things themselves. Wouldn't the act of paying taxes only be sacrificial if it was something you believed you shouldn't have (or want) to do? Isn't it a tad selfish not to want help those in need? Or did you mean: taxpayers sacrifice a good deal of money, in trust that our "business as usual" government will address the problems that we (as taxpayers) shouldn't have to deal with? Either way, doesn't this approach towards solving problems seem a bit apathetic? Could you imagine if this style of problem solving infected the mind of Albert Einstein? - We might not be having this conversation today now would we? And if this is the attitude that we exude as taxpayers - which makes up the overwhelming majority of us I presume - isn't this problematic on its own? It gives the impression that we just don't care, and is sad really. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/11/2016 at 4:09 PM, Argus said:Also, it is human nature to work for self-improvement, and pretty much always has been. I always thought it was human nature to try and survive! And that everything else is a byproduct of that process. No? And lets not forget that survival of the species includes the process of reproduction. So essentially, hind sight should tell us that there is no room for gender inequality or selfishness - since it takes two to tango - if you catch my drift. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/11/2016 at 4:09 PM, Argus said:If working harder doesn't help you then you won't work harder. Isn't the idea to work smarter as opposed to harder? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/11/2016 at 4:09 PM, Argus said:As the Russians and other Communists learned decades ago, farmers will dutifully grow their crops as ordered on farms they don't own, but if you allow them a small patch which they can use and sell for their own profit, well, wow, watch the food supply explode. So are you telling me that we need a surplus of goods? Why? Wouldn't we only need a surplus if we were fearful of not having enough? And where does this fear come from? - A population concern maybe? Perceived scarcity? Poor infrastructure, distribution or transportation? Perhaps we should take these problems more seriously then. And doesn't fear negatively impact our well being (https://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/enhance-your-wellbeing/security/facing-fear/impact-fear)? My point is: we have been living in fear since the stone ages. My bet is: we have made some poor decisions while under the influence of this emotional state (including the choice of systems we have chosen to implement throughout). My belief is: we can either choose to recognize this and move forward, or deny it and continue down the path we're on. Heck, fear of the latter is probably what compelled me to head back to this site and respond as I have (not that this is the proper forum to have this discussion). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/11/2016 at 4:09 PM, Argus said:If there is no reward for risk, then no one takes risks. If there is no personal reward for investing, then no one will invest. If there is no personal reward for gaining higher levels of skill and education, then most will not bother. What if we don't understand the risk: of inaction for example? When does investment take place then? How would it ever take place under the current business model? I am convinced that it is the long term practice of "business as usual" economics that will thrust us into the next World War; and personally, that is something I don't wish to see. :| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/11/2016 at 5:52 PM, @bush_cheney2004 said:Well, it's not really a "system" at all, but yes, I like individual freedom over collectivist socialism. As per the following definitions: sys·tem / sistəm / noun: a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole It sounds like a system to me. No? col·lec·tiv·ist / kəˈlektivəst / adjective: relating to the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it. Kind of coincides with the idea of: "the greater good". No? so·cial·ism / sōSHəˌlizəm / noun: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Have you experienced life in a socialist setting, or is it just the idea of it you don't like? - Because I don't like the idea of getting poked by a needle, but I understand that vaccines - thanks to "herd immunity" (http://www.publichealth.org/public-awareness/understanding-vaccines/vaccine-myths-debunked/) - save lives. So it might be for the greater good that I go get that shot. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/11/2016 at 9:04 PM, @Bonam said:Hmm, based on this paragraph it seems like your main beef is with free market economics. However, no one has come up with a better system. Is it even possible to devise a better system under the current business model? And who would finance such a project on the chance that one is discovered? - Because I'm thinking, if a better system was discovered, it may not include a financial return on investment at all; which is "bad business" according to the current model. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/11/2016 at 9:04 PM, Bonam said:Collectivism does not work, and it is a horror for those that must live in a society that attempts to implement collectivism. Says who? - Hutterites have been practicing collectivism since the 16th century (http://www.hutterites.org/); just saying. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/11/2016 at 9:04 PM, Bonam said:In fact, an unbiased examination of actual data clearly illustrates that the system that we do have is responsible for and is continuing to produce the greatest prosperity for the greatest number of people that has ever existed in human history. Where is this "unbiased examination of actual data" that you speak of as "fact", or should we just take your word for it? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/11/2016 at 9:04 PM, Bonam said:As a percentage of the world population, fewer and fewer people lack for the basic necessities of life with each passing year, life expectancies are rising around the world, diseases are being eliminated or reduced in their impact, poverty is being reduced, fewer people are dying in wars, etc etc etc. Almost any metric that can be quantified shows that we live in the best time in human history. Comparing the information I have seen for myself online, and the information you have listed above, there is evidence that supports these statistics; but, should the inner workings of Capitalist Economics get the glory for these successes, or the capacity by which humans can adapt to their environment? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/11/2016 at 9:04 PM, Bonam said:The system we have is working, and it's not just working a little bit but it's working spectacularly. The only serious medium term concern that we have facing us is human impact on the climate and resulting reductions in the abundance of resources, but we are well on the way to finding the resolution to this concern through technological innovation. I love your optimism, and I agree that technology will play a significant role moving forward; and it is nice to hear a pro-capitalist bring up the concern climate change might play in terms of increased scarcity ... it shows (maybe) that even capitalists have doubts about current economic theories and their effectiveness (or lack thereof) in dealing with environmental issues. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/12/2016 at 3:06 PM, @Michael Hardner said:I do think that the 'system' as it's described IS changing under our feet. Economics deals with scarcity and when scarcity goes away then economics is no longer needed. Scarcity is simply the relation between supply and demand. Too much demand, not enough supply, and an item falls into the realm of scarcity. But the opposite effect of this same relationship is often ignored, because humans are tuned to fear. The question then becomes: Is scarcity real or perceived? If real, then economics will always be needed; if perceived, why do we bother with economics at all? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/12/2016 at 3:06 PM, Michael Hardner said:The main question I would have are: what are you trying to achieve and why ? How would you implement it ? Who would be the arbiter for this new system's rules ? I guess I feel like the current establishment has no mechanism to even start a discussion about an alternate path: For example: To become a member of parliament in Canada (and begin your conversation with those in charge), it is implied that you must be a capitalist: owner of X amount of land and property. - This doesn't sit well with me, as it builds an empire of capitalists for capitalists! If you get over this hump and decide to run anyway, now you are a lone duck in a sea of wolves, and lowest on the food chain - unless you fill the top spot - like Trump, which not all of us have the financial capacity to do! Not to mention, this would probably not be the best environment for ones personal well being. Additionally, you begin dealing with the intricacies of money and budgets ... even though money (and the system created around it) seems to be the mechanism that allows people to put their personal wants ahead of other peoples needs! Creating and preserving inequality, poverty, and corruption! There are many examples that support my claims (i.e. political campaigns, housing bubbles, banking institutions, wall street, etc.) so why not take a look at this system in its entirety and propose a system that might be its replacement? Obviously, I am looking for a channel into the conversation and implementation would be a long way away. As for the arbiter and system rules: again, that would part of the discussion that (at this point) cannot be had! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/12/2016 at 3:06 PM, Michael Hardner said:Maybe it's better to think about ways to improve the current system. Guaranteed income is one of those tweaks that makes a change without throwing the whole system out the door: do you see the value in incremental change ? I get what your saying, and I understand that things take time - yes. But your example (guaranteed income) assumes that the current system is working in our favor and is the best we can do. What if our assumption is wrong? Why do we not have plans to transition to a new system if time proves that the current system is fallible? Think of it like life insurance: a plan that kicks in when necessary, and at the right time. Currently, martial law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law) is our insurance plan; and I'm pretty sure we can come up with a better system than that! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/12/2016 at 3:55 PM, @?Impact said:There is a certain comfort with personal property that I don't see how can be unlearned. I want to come back to the same bed to sleep in at night, I got that turkey and trimmings so I could have a meal but if someone takes it from me all my planning and work is lost. I think there needs to be some boundaries around personal property, but yes they can be far smaller than they are today. Personal space is a basic human need, so obviously people would have shelter and the technological advancements within this structure to provide comfort (like a bed, or a fridge where you can store and preserve that turkey and those trimmings); but if we have no plans to make this happen (for everyone) then it may never come to fruition. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 10/13/2016 at 9:48 AM, Argus said:Who is blind to what's happening around us? Are people starving in Canada? Do we not feed, clothe and shelter the poor and provide health care for the sick, regardless of their own wealth, or lack thereof? We can do better! And this is not about a single country; but we have to start somewhere - so why not let Canadians take the lead on this? Edited January 11, 2017 by AsksWhy Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 9, 2017 Report Posted January 9, 2017 45 minutes ago, AsksWhy said: ... response in progress ... The original response credited only a single member with a like minded world view. This does not speak well for an "inclusive" dialog and development of effective change by all shareholders and stakeholders. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
AsksWhy Posted January 10, 2017 Author Report Posted January 10, 2017 On 1/9/2017 at 1:53 AM, bush_cheney2004 said: The original response credited only a single member with a like minded world view. This does not speak well for an "inclusive" dialog and development of effective change by all shareholders and stakeholders. the original edit was incomplete and posted in error (there was much editing that needed to be done) - I apologize for having fat fingers. Quote
TrumpCard Posted January 24, 2017 Report Posted January 24, 2017 haha, interesting thread. i especially like all the comments a few posts up. example: On 1/9/2017 at 1:06 AM, AsksWhy said: I always thought it was human nature to try and survive! And that everything else is a byproduct of that process. No? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.