Identifying the inherent problems of a monetary system [Archive] - Page 2

Jim Graham

16-03-2012, 08:03

You said you didn't have a problem with the left wing. I never said you did, I said Jim did- that's what I was referring to. The only feasible way to remove the capitalist system is for most people to stop believing in it, only then will the overall system change.

I don't have a problem with the people only their ideals. Socialism doesn't work. Never has. Never will. The issue I have is that despite all the evidence, all the history and all the rhetoric people of the left still think they have something to offer. They don't.

Socialism is an ideal that looks great written down on paper in endless books and debated ad nauseam by people with no practical skills. Everyone is equal, share, community etc etc. We've heard it all a zillion times. But, when it comes down to it George Orwell was right.

But, what really gets me going is that despite all the evidence of failure of socialism socially, economically and politically the good people of the left persist with this ludicrous ideal. What's worse is because there is no evidence of success they have to resort to lies, twisting history and abusing anyone who doesn't agree with them. I always I know when I've made a good point on SF because I get abused. The left, in general, are a bunch of mindless thugs wedded to a philosophy that doesn't work so they resort to bullying, intimidation and violence to force their views on others.

Mecky

16-03-2012, 08:27

Zamo

16-03-2012, 08:51

Any anecdotal evidence you might garner from my having kids or not isn't really proof that corruption and greed are genetically predetermined.

There are countless studies to support my own anecdotal experience. Go Google and you'll see for yourself. Here's one I picked at random from the first page of my Google search...

http://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/biology.html

Greed is covered. Corruption is a tactic used by the greedy.

You will no doubt argue that nurture (the right 'system') can suppress the animal inside. To an extent you are right but only given the right conditions and conditions change. And when conditions change for the worse the animal is quick to reappear... the evidence is overwhelming.

IAchilleasI

16-03-2012, 11:32

I have yet to see any evidence that proponents of this and similar "theories" do any serious lobbying (I don't class you tube as serious lobbying).

I don't think that bribing a bunch of politicians is really going to get us anywhere. Regular people have a much bigger influence. Remember that change has never come from the establishment, because change is against its interests.

Of the 1500 views you have no evidence how many agree with your views.

Nope, none. But then again, I wan't claiming support from 1500 people, only their exposure to the issues I raise.

IAchilleasI

16-03-2012, 11:41

I don't have a problem with the people only their ideals. Socialism doesn't work. Never has. Never will. The issue I have is that despite all the evidence, all the history and all the rhetoric people of the left still think they have something to offer. They don't.

Socialism is an ideal that looks great written down on paper in endless books and debated ad nauseam by people with no practical skills. Everyone is equal, share, community etc etc. We've heard it all a zillion times. But, when it comes down to it George Orwell was right.

But, what really gets me going is that despite all the evidence of failure of socialism socially, economically and politically the good people of the left persist with this ludicrous ideal. What's worse is because there is no evidence of success they have to resort to lies, twisting history and abusing anyone who doesn't agree with them. I always I know when I've made a good point on SF because I get abused. The left, in general, are a bunch of mindless thugs wedded to a philosophy that doesn't work so they resort to bullying, intimidation and violence to force their views on others.

Just for clarification, I'm not arguing socialism is the way forward. Cavegirl only used it as a reference point in that a resource based economy shares some attributes of socialism. But they differ in several major aspects. Socialism does not focus it's efforts on eliminating scarcity. Instead it kind of assumes that there is enough for everyone. Socialism fights for the rights of the working class, when we want to eliminate social stratification. Socialism doesn't address the fact that people will not be inclined to work nasty jobs and therefore does not recognize the importance of automation. Socialism still uses money and this can and does get used as a tool to make sure that some people have more then others. Socialism does not utilize the scientific method. Decisions are still made by unqualified statesmen with half-assed opinions on any given subject rather then well educated experts.

IAchilleasI

16-03-2012, 11:46

There are countless studies to support my own anecdotal experience. Go Google and you'll see for yourself. Here's one I picked at random from the first page of my Google search...

http://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/biology.html

Greed is covered. Corruption is a tactic used by the greedy.

You will no doubt argue that nurture (the right 'system') can suppress the animal inside. To an extent you are right but only given the right conditions and conditions change. And when conditions change for the worse the animal is quick to reappear... the evidence is overwhelming.

Self preservation is innate. Greed isn't. If an animal lived in a world of abundance, meaning there were enough resources to go around for everyone, what would be the purpose of hoarding everything for itself? Your link brings up the following examples:

For example, in the Amazonian rain forest, an occasional tree dies and falls. This leaves an opening to the sun in the continuous canopy of foliage. Plants and trees race each other to grow into that opening. The winners in the race fill the hole; the losers die through lack of sunlight. (Attenborough, 1990) The greed for sunlight means life.
Again, as for self-preservation and sex, greed is an instinctive reaction. When presented with resources, the instinct is to grab them, use them, take advantage of them. This isn't a conscious decision. An animal, when starving, wants more food; when thirsty, more water. If it means taking it from another animal, that's what it does if it can.

But if I were to cast enough artificial light at the forest, the plants and trees would have no reason to race to fill the hole. If I were to provide enough food and drink to an animal to sustain it from the beginning of its life, it wouldn't even know what starvation is. When presented with resources, the instinct is to grab them because in your whole life you have lived in scarcity. In other words, behavioural patterns are encouraged in an environment of scarcity.

My point is that if we utilized science and technology to their fullest extent, we could create an abundance that would eliminate these patterns of behaviour.

Longcol

16-03-2012, 11:47

I don't think that bribing a bunch of politicians is really going to get us anywhere. Regular people have a much bigger influence. Remember that change has never come from the establishment, because change is against its interests.

Then lobby the Trade Unions, the Green Party, Friends of the Earth, other campaigning groups.

IAchilleasI

16-03-2012, 11:55

Then lobby the Trade Unions, the Green Party, Friends of the Earth, other campaigning groups.

Like I said, we can and do both at the same time.

On a side note, I've noticed some of my posts have disappeared and it makes the conversation look very disjointed. For example, in post #153 Spooky3 is quoting me, but the actual post of mine that contains that quote has vanished. Is it a glitch or?

Longcol

16-03-2012, 11:56

Nope, none. But then again, I wan't claiming support from 1500 people, only their exposure to the issues I raise.

Way to go!

Only another 500 or so views and you attract as much attentions as other world changing subjects such as "Home Brew Guinness", "Training Hamsters" and "Are You Prepared For The Zombie Apocalypse".

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=11&sort=views&order=desc&daysprune=-1&page=85

IAchilleasI

16-03-2012, 12:00

Way to go!

Only another 500 or so views and you attract as much attentions as other world changing subjects such as "Home Brew Guinness", "Training Hamsters" and "Are You Prepared For The Zombie Apocalypse".

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=11&sort=views&order=desc&daysprune=-1&page=85

Well that says more about society than it does about my ideas. The fact that the internet contains more or less the breadth of human knowledge and yet people would rather watch cat and baby videos on youtube is no fault of mine.

Zamo

16-03-2012, 12:08

Self preservation is innate. Greed isn't. If an animal lived in a world of abundance, meaning there were enough resources to go around for everyone, what would be the purpose of hoarding everything for itself? Your link brings up the following examples:

But if I were to cast enough artificial light at the forest, the plants and trees would have no reason to race to fill the hole. If I were to provide enough food and drink to an animal to sustain it from the beginning of its life, it wouldn't even know what starvation is. When presented with resources, the instinct is to grab them because in your whole life you have lived in scarcity. In other words, behavioural patterns are encouraged in an environment of scarcity.

My point is that if we utilized science and technology to their fullest extent, we could create an abundance that would eliminate these patterns of behaviour.

But what comes first the chicken or the egg?

spooky3

16-03-2012, 12:34

So the constraint is the amount of energy needed ( as well as the plant / buildings needed to do this on a commercial scale and all the safety factors needed etc)?

And the opportunity cost is producing something more needed with the same amount of energy.

My way, no, virtually no energy is required, it's like picking apples from trees.

Which technoligical advances would these be - are they anywhere near production or are we just talking theoretical?

Have a look at the properties of graphene, already available, you can even make some yourself with a pencil and some sticky tape...

One of the main issues is weight, everything will be too light, because of it's atomic structure materials can be the most efficient possible, therefore no wastage is actually required, we'll just add that for ballast.

http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/index.cfm?postid=5131444734972913988

A 1m2 hammock weighing 1 microgram.

Also see 6m to 7m (ish)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shicxAWp7MA&feature=related

P.S. I'll move this that way --> (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=956316)

spooky3

16-03-2012, 12:35

IAchilleasI

16-03-2012, 12:38

But what comes first the chicken or the egg?

That metaphor doesn't apply here, because greed requires scarcity, but scarcity doesn't require greed.

spooky3

16-03-2012, 12:38

Way to go!

Only another 500 or so views and you attract as much attentions as other world changing subjects such as "Home Brew Guinness", "Training Hamsters" and "Are You Prepared For The Zombie Apocalypse".

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=11&sort=views&order=desc&daysprune=-1&page=85

Do you or any of your friends buy the sun?
Are celebrities more important than politicians, business people, teachers, doctors, scientists... seems so in this world I live in...

spooky3

16-03-2012, 12:39

But what comes first the chicken or the egg?

The egg! During procreation the first chicken egg was formed and hatched, from then on we had chickens.

Jim Graham

16-03-2012, 14:33

Socialism does not utilize the scientific method. Decisions are still made by unqualified statesmen with half-assed opinions on any given subject rather then well educated experts.

Finally, something we can agree on.

The problem with experts seems to be that they rarely agree on anything

Jim Graham

16-03-2012, 14:35

Are you still here? I think you really need to look-up Socialism before you start detracting from it. Why are you scared of Socialism anyway?

I suggest you ask the people of North Korea.

spooky3

16-03-2012, 15:07

I suggest you ask the people of North Korea.

:thumbsup:

Or because I acknowledge that there is an element of survival of the fittest in all living genes, whilst socialism tries to remove that natural inherent trait which in essence goes against the grain of evolution. Good foundation for ideals and policies, but it's unsustainable as a working model even just because we are all individuals.

Mecky

16-03-2012, 15:31

I suggest you ask the people of North Korea.

North Korea is a communist country, do you understand the difference between Communism and Socialism?

IAchilleasI

16-03-2012, 18:39

Finally, something we can agree on.

The problem with experts seems to be that they rarely agree on anything

The scientific method does not care for opinions. It looks at the evidence, creates a hypothesis based on it and then experiments to verify the hypothesis' validity. If experts disagree on a subject, it is either because the evidence is conflictiing with their bias or there simply isn't enough evidence to back their hypothesis.

Zamo

16-03-2012, 18:59

That metaphor doesn't apply here, because greed requires scarcity, but scarcity doesn't require greed.

You say that changing the system will eradicate scarcity, which will in turn eradicate greed (debatable but we'll go with it). But greed is what gave us the system and you are not going to be able to change it whilst the greed exists, fuelled by scarcity. Your theory has a chicken and egg dilemma to overcome.

IAchilleasI

16-03-2012, 19:17

You say that changing the system will eradicate scarcity, which will in turn eradicate greed (debatable but we'll go with it). But greed is what gave us the system and you are not going to be able to change it whilst the greed exists, fuelled by scarcity. Your theory has a chicken and egg dilemma to overcome.

Greed isn't what gave us the system, scarcity did that. Greed is the outcome and had nothing to do with the making of this system. The monetary system itself survives on the circulation of money rather than the hoarding of it, despite the fact it's failing to do so.

Jim Graham

16-03-2012, 21:08

North Korea is a communist country, do you understand the difference between Communism and Socialism?

Have I missed something?

Communism is a form of Socialism that promotes state ownership of the means of production (nationalisation). Which is pretty much what the lefties on SF are in favour of.

Jim Graham

16-03-2012, 21:10

The scientific method does not care for opinions. It looks at the evidence, creates a hypothesis based on it and then experiments to verify the hypothesis' validity. If experts disagree on a subject, it is either because the evidence is conflictiing with their bias or there simply isn't enough evidence to back their hypothesis.

Again, you are falling back onto the problem of a rational system being organised by irrational beings.

Jim Graham

16-03-2012, 21:18

:thumbsup:

Or because I acknowledge that there is an element of survival of the fittest in all living genes, whilst socialism tries to remove that natural inherent trait which in essence goes against the grain of evolution. Good foundation for ideals and policies, but it's unsustainable as a working model even just because we are all individuals.

It's so frustrating that the socialist creed is so busted but this country and this city are constantly held back by a suicidal commitment to try and make it work in spite of facts and experience. Every attempt ends in economic disaster but the "never say die, never think things through" attitude of the left just keeps on going.

Tony

16-03-2012, 22:30

I'm not willing to shed any blood. Forcing people to freedom doesn't set them free, only philosophy and their own agency can do that.

I don't believe this reversion to our former way of life (socially speaking) will happen in my lifetime, I don't believe I can even envisage it well, but the best thing about humans is our adaptability and our willingness to change and alter our societies over the long run and to forever continue changing, so I know that one day it will happen.

I hope that perhaps some people will gain the same sense of hope I have for our society by learning a bit more about our past, that's all.

I don't think that bribing a bunch of politicians is really going to get us anywhere. Regular people have a much bigger influence. Remember that change has never come from the establishment, because change is against its interests.

Nope, none. But then again, I wan't claiming support from 1500 people, only their exposure to the issues I raise.

Who do you mean?

Cavegirl

16-03-2012, 22:42

Who do you mean?

Why do you ask?

IAchilleasI

16-03-2012, 23:58

Again, you are falling back onto the problem of a rational system being organised by irrational beings.

It always falls back onto the human nature argument, but as we know by now human nature is malleable.

spooky3

17-03-2012, 02:26

It always falls back onto the human nature argument, but as we know by now human nature is malleable.

Yes SIR!

Cavegirl

18-03-2012, 10:23

Have I missed something?

Communism is a form of Socialism that promotes state ownership of the means of production (nationalisation). Which is pretty much what the lefties on SF are in favour of.

What you need to understand Jim is that there isn't just a left wing to right wing component to political thinking, there's also an authoritarian to libertarian approach.

Here is a tool that might help you to understand this:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

So whilst communism and nazism oppose each other on the left/ right wing scale they both sit at the authoritarian end of the graph (hence they're both described as fascist regimes. Socialism and Conservatism occupy the middle ground of the authoritarian/ libertarian scale, but oppose each other on the left/ right wing scale. Anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism sit at the libertarian end of the spectrum on opposing sides of the left/ right wing scale.

So it's wrong to describe the left wing as being all 'champagne socialists' or all communists because some are more authoritarian left wingers whilst others have a much more liberal approach. Just as it's wrong to describe a true Conservative as a Nazi.

IAchilleasI

18-03-2012, 11:23

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary."
- Adam Smith

Well, would you look at that. The revered Adam Smith, a nutjob conspiracy theorist, who’d a thunk it?

Zamo

18-03-2012, 11:47

Greed isn't what gave us the system, scarcity did that. Greed is the outcome and had nothing to do with the making of this system. The monetary system itself survives on the circulation of money rather than the hoarding of it, despite the fact it's failing to do so.

You said early in this debate that the system caused greed. Either way, you still haven't given an answer to the chicken and egg dilemma.

How do you change a system that encourages greedy behaviour, without first eliminating scarcity, when you have already acknowledged that to eliminate scarcity we need to change the system?

IAchilleasI

18-03-2012, 12:21

You said early in this debate that the system caused greed. Either way, you still haven't given an answer to the chicken and egg dilemma.

Yes, the system caused greed, but greed wasn't required for its conception. You represented greed as the egg and the chicken as the system, when in fact it's scarcity that is the egg. A testament to this is that, as I said in my previous post, the monetary system attempts to alleviate scarcity via the circulation of money, but it eventually fails to do so.

How do you change a system that encourages greedy behaviour, without first eliminating scarcity, when you have already acknowledged that to eliminate scarcity we need to change the system?

There needs to be a tremendous value shift that will come from the understanding that the monetary system is not indefinitely sustainable. When people realise that their survivability hangs in the balance, I'd like to think that they would want to do something about it. We either build a system that supersedes what we currently have or we perish. Simple as that.

spooky3

18-03-2012, 12:23

...
There needs to be a tremendous value shift that will come from the understanding that the monetary system is not indefinitely sustainable. When people realise that their survivability hangs in the balance, I'd like to think that they would want to do something about it. We either build a system that supersedes what we currently have or we perish. Simple as that.

That sounds like an idea, not fact!

IAchilleasI

18-03-2012, 13:30

That sounds like an idea, not fact!

The unsustainability of the monetary system is a fact. How we come about transitioning it, since we have no definitive evidence, can only come from speculation. We can always narrow down the possibilites though

spooky3

18-03-2012, 13:32

The unsustainability of the monetary system is a fact. How we come about transitioning it, since we have no definitive evidence, can only come from speculation. We can always narrow down the possibilites though

And any evidence of a non monetary type system working on a grand enough scale to be adoptable worldwide, or have all attempts failed or turned into dictated oppression?

IAchilleasI

18-03-2012, 13:41

And any evidence of a non monetary type system working on a grand enough scale to be adoptable worldwide, or have all attempts failed or turned into dictated oppression?

No non-monetary system has ever been attempted in the first place, so you're jumping the gun a little bit.

spooky3

18-03-2012, 13:45

No non-monetary system has ever been attempted in the first place, so you're jumping the gun a little bit.

So how are you so sure that it is the only way to avoid perishing?
BTW, i've lived in a few communes...

Ok, so which socialist sates haven't gone the same way?

IAchilleasI

18-03-2012, 14:00

So how are you so sure that it is the only way to avoid perishing?
BTW, i've lived in a few communes...

Since the monetary system is unsustainable, the only solution lies with an alternative. If there is no viable alternative, then we are pretty much ****ed, rendering any of our efforts to solve problems equal to kicking the can down the road.

Ok, so which socialist sates haven't gone the same way?

Socialism still uses money, no? It still makes arbitrary decisions based on opinions rather than scientific evidence and it has little relevance to natural laws and the carrying capacity of the earth. So it definitely isn't an alternative.

spooky3

18-03-2012, 14:04

Since the monetary system is unsustainable, the only solution lies with an alternative. If there is no viable alternative, then we are pretty much ****ed, rendering any of our efforts to solve problems equal to kicking the can down the road.

Socialism still uses money, no? It still makes arbitrary decisions based on opinions rather than scientific evidence and it has little relevance to natural laws and the carrying capacity of the earth. So it definitely isn't an alternative.

Your logic is flawed...

There are issues with the current monetary system, but we are an evolving world and it can be tweaked, this won't be the last time. But as to you stating it's unsustainable is a comment, not fact!

IAchilleasI

18-03-2012, 14:27

There are issues with the current monetary system, but we are an evolving world and it can be tweaked, this won't be the last time.
But as to you stating it's unsustainable is a comment, not fact!

If you read my OP you will realise why it's a fact and not a comment. A system that survives on infinite growth in an environment with finite resources, on the circulation of money whilst encouraging its hoarding and on providing labour for income in increasingly automated industries, proves a pretty accurate description for the definition of unsustainable.

spooky3

18-03-2012, 14:31

If you read my OP you will realise why it's a fact and not a comment. A system that survives on infinite growth in an environment with finite resources, on the circulation of money whilst encouraging its hoarding and on providing labour for income in increasingly automated industries, proves a pretty accurate description for the definition of unsustainable.

Provide sources for your OP, at the moment it's just your point of view! NOT fact!

BTW, it doesn't, that opinion is rather shallowly worked out, especially due to your conclusions about the solution, or lack thereof.

IAchilleasI

18-03-2012, 15:25

Provide sources for your OP, at the moment it's just your point of view! NOT fact!

You are seriously doubting that technological unemployment is going the wipe out labour as we know it? You need a source to tell you that this system survives on infinite growth to realise it?

Well, let me indulge you. First of all, take a look around you. When you turn your TV on, politicians and economists will tell you "The economy grew by X% this quarter, we are recovering from recession". So there's your first hint that growth and GDP is the sole measure of progress.

http://www.businessinsider.com/commodities-boom-2011-11

http://www.businessinsider.com/we-cant-keep-growing-like-this-2012-2

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/getting-ready-for-the-end-of-growth-on-earth.ars

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQqDS9wGsxQ&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQqDS9wGsxQ&feature=player_embedded)

On technological unemployment:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/technology/economists-see-more-jobs-for-machines-not-people.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-10/robots-are-stealing-american-jobs-economists-say

http://www.good.is/post/automation-insurance-robots-are-replacing-middle-class-jobs/

spooky3

18-03-2012, 15:43

You are seriously doubting that technological unemployment is going the wipe out labour as we know it? You need a source to tell you that this system survives on infinite growth to realise it?

Well, let me indulge you. First of all, take a look around you. When you turn your TV on, politicians and economists will tell you "The economy grew by X% this quarter, we are recovering from recession". So there's your first hint that growth and GDP is the sole measure of progress.

http://www.businessinsider.com/commodities-boom-2011-11

http://www.businessinsider.com/we-cant-keep-growing-like-this-2012-2

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/02/getting-ready-for-the-end-of-growth-on-earth.ars

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQqDS9wGsxQ&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQqDS9wGsxQ&feature=player_embedded)

On technological unemployment:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/technology/economists-see-more-jobs-for-machines-not-people.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/science/05legal.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-10/robots-are-stealing-american-jobs-economists-say

http://www.good.is/post/automation-insurance-robots-are-replacing-middle-class-jobs/

So everything is getting worse?
What about medicine, education, technology, food production, etc, etc... Yes a recession is most easily studied by looking at the GDP.
In the end, yes technology is and will remove the need for humans to do the same tasks, but by that point the concept of work will be moot, as so will money.

Going back to the bullet points in the OP, if you were to remove money from that equation, but instead replace it with human ingenuity and passion, then there would still be cyclical consumption and the rest.

Artificial Scarcity would also still need to exist to maintain order and balance, to avoid over consumption generally or to be used by a single entity to form a monopoly. i.e. if you remove your rule it will allow the rule to be 'sold' / 'given' to another party (whom you hopefully trust is as benevolent as the original owner (even if that is an international single state))

P.S. We need a solution to use inside the box, if you play outside the box then their just ideas.

spooky3

18-03-2012, 15:49

Greetings everyone

...
I am a member of the Occupy Movement and the Zeitgeist Movement. Before you start calling me names, please read what I have to say.
...

These are but some of the identifiable problems that exist today. I could add more, but this post is long enough. I look forward to your feedback.

Having a number of friends in SF I have been sent a fair bit on the Zeitgeist Movement, but really wasn't sold on the film, thought it was detrimental in fact!

Could you please supply a single reference here which may sway my personal internal debate on the subject? (I promise not to ask questions, in this thread anyway)

IAchilleasI

18-03-2012, 17:29

So everything is getting worse?
What about medicine, education, technology, food production, etc, etc... Yes a recession is most easily studied by looking at the GDP.

No, everything isn't getting worse. On a scientific and technological level we are evolving exponentially whilst on a social level we have stagnated. That is the crux of the issue.

In the end, yes technology is and will remove the need for humans to do the same tasks, but by that point the concept of work will be moot, as so will money.

Hopefully, it will and that is what my whole argument revolves around. "But by that point", which point is that I wonder. How does a system that necessitates monetary exchange for products and labour transition into something that doesn't, whilst not collapsing in the process or at least not rendering itself obsolete?

Going back to the bullet points in the OP, if you were to remove money from that equation, but instead replace it with human ingenuity and passion, then there would still be cyclical consumption and the rest.

Money wouldn't replace anything because it is not required. Money today is an unnecessary middle man. I don't think you understand what cyclical consumption is. If you remove the exchange of goods and the need to work, then cyclical consumption doesn't exist any more since no one profits from their labour or the goods they produce.

Artificial Scarcity would also still need to exist to maintain order and balance, to avoid over consumption generally or to be used by a single entity to form a monopoly. i.e. if you remove your rule it will allow the rule to be 'sold' / 'given' to another party (whom you hopefully trust is as benevolent as the original owner (even if that is an international single state))

Artificial scarcity has nothing to do with dynamic equilibrium (order and balance as you put it). Artificial scarcity aims to restrain abundance to increase profitability. Nothing to do with preservation.

P.S. We need a solution to use inside the box, if you play outside the box then their just ideas.

I, on the other hand, believe that we cannot solve problems with the same thinking that created them.

IAchilleasI

18-03-2012, 17:44

Having a number of friends in SF I have been sent a fair bit on the Zeitgeist Movement, but really wasn't sold on the film, thought it was detrimental in fact!

I assume you're referring to Zeitgeist: Moving Forward?

Could you please supply a single reference here which may sway my personal internal debate on the subject? (I promise not to ask questions, in this thread anyway)

You could begin with this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O67AZfUMXw&feature=plcp&context=C468df33VPvjVQa1PpcFPFB98yghm-SstDFM_yJ7U557hhR0vIDhM=. I doubt any one source would convince you. If you're interested though, there are follow-up lectures to this one that explore solutions, amongst other things.

spooky3

18-03-2012, 17:44

No, everything isn't getting worse. On a scientific and technological level we are evolving exponentially whilst on a social level we have stagnated. That is the crux of the issue.

Other than your soon to run out Moores law, what else is proven to be evolving exponentially? And how fast does this next gen technology seep down to the rest of the world?

Hopefully, it will and that is what my whole argument revolves around. "But by that point", which point is that I wonder. How does a system that necessitates monetary exchange for products and labour transition into something that doesn't, whilst not collapsing in the process or at least not rendering itself obsolete?

Because everything has value, even if it isn't matter.

Money wouldn't replace anything because it is not required. Money today is an unnecessary middle man. I don't think you understand what cyclical consumption is. If you remove the exchange of goods and the need to work, then cyclical consumption doesn't exist any more since no one profits from their labour or the goods they produce.

So everyone does absolutely everything for themselves? Can't I pop into that family bakers down t' road, their expertise in buns goes back for centuries... mmm
I think you are being to idealist, to the point of ridiculous.

Artificial scarcity has nothing to do with dynamic equilibrium (order and balance as you put it). Artificial scarcity aims to restrain abundance to increase profitability. Nothing to do with preservation.

So it's ok if it's not for a direct monetary gain, any other reason is al-right though?
Is anything to have a difference in value, surely a little dampening is required for such a vast system.

I, on the other hand, believe that we cannot solve problems with the same thinking that created them.

Being a programmer I like to solve things with rational logic, from a mathematical standpoint.

spooky3

18-03-2012, 17:47

I assume you're referring to Zeitgeist: Moving Forward?

You could begin with this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O67AZfUMXw&feature=plcp&context=C468df33VPvjVQa1PpcFPFB98yghm-SstDFM_yJ7U557hhR0vIDhM=. I doubt any one source would convince you. If you're interested though, there are follow-up lectures to this one that explore solutions, amongst other things.

I was referring to the movement YOU wrote of, not the definition of the word (i.e. it also applies to those who could assign themselves to such a title, but not the movement you wrote of!)

Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy is on, so i'll have to watch that later, but it sounds familiar!

IAchilleasI

18-03-2012, 18:36

Other than your soon to run out Moores law, what else is proven to be evolving exponentially? And how fast does this next gen technology seep down to the rest of the world?

Exponential or not, it is evolving and that's all that counts. Doesn't really matter how fast it seeps down, eventually it does.

Because everything has value, even if it isn't matter.

I don't see how that answers the question.

So everyone does absolutely everything for themselves?

I thought you'd researched the movement. I was arguing from the assumption that you are aware of a Resource Based Economy which is far from what you're talking about.

So it's ok if it's not for a direct monetary gain, any other reason is al-right though?

Preservation does not restrain abundance and it operates under the limits of the carrying capacity of the environment. Try not to jump on everything I say and twist it to suit your argument.

Is anything to have a difference in value, surely a little dampening is required for such a vast system.

What does this completely arbitrary notion have anything to do with the natural world? What is this value you speak of? Monetary value?

Being a programmer I like to solve things with rational logic, from a mathematical standpoint.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Rational logic is useless without the sufficient knowledge and evidence. I've provided you with sources and arguments of how the current system cannot carry on indefinitely. Where is your evidence to suggest that it can?

IAchilleasI

18-03-2012, 18:38

I was referring to the movement YOU wrote of, not the definition of the word (i.e. it also applies to those who could assign themselves to such a title, but not the movement you wrote of!)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Zeitgeist: Moving Forward is the title of the third film. I was asking if this is the film you watched.

spooky3

18-03-2012, 19:39

Exponential or not, it is evolving and that's all that counts. Doesn't really matter how fast it seeps down, eventually it does.

So you are using the word willy nilly and not as actual fact, thanks for answering that one clearly!

I don't see how that answers the question.

LOL, for example, a teacher has value and is worth something due to their particular skill. To survive they will require more than what they get just from teaching, hence dependence on others and some form of trade. But that teacher has value in exchange for these goods.

I thought you'd researched the movement. I was arguing from the assumption that you are aware of a Resource Based Economy which is far from what you're talking about.

Nay lad!

Preservation does not restrain abundance and it operates under the limits of the carrying capacity of the environment. Try not to jump on everything I say and twist it to suit your argument.

Unlike you, BTW, that's not jumping LOL!

What does this completely arbitrary notion have anything to do with the natural world? What is this value you speak of? Monetary value?

Arbitrary, you want to remove it and think it's as simple as that.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Rational logic is useless without the sufficient knowledge and evidence. I've provided you with sources and arguments of how the current system cannot carry on indefinitely. Where is your evidence to suggest that it can?

That we are here and that no moneyless socialist states don't exist.

Q. Are you American? You certainly have a lot of blind faith in your notion!

spooky3

18-03-2012, 19:40

I have no idea what you're talking about. Zeitgeist: Moving Forward is the title of the third film. I was asking if this is the film you watched.

You obviously didn't make yourself clear enough in the first place!

IAchilleasI

18-03-2012, 20:48

I'd like to address all of your points one by one, but I think there's been a breakdown in communication here, which is entirely my fault. You said that you had seen some movies sent to you from the Zeitgeist movement and made some comments that alluded to a Resource Based Economy, so I assumed you had knowledge of an RBE. I centred my following arguments around an RBE and they naturally appear non-sensical to someone who has never heard of it. I will be making a post in the following days with the relevant information, where you can ask your questions. For now, I'd like to focus on the OP, which is getting a bit derailed from various tangents that have been raised (myself included).

Now, let me get back to the points that are relevant.

So you are using the word willy nilly and not as actual fact, thanks for answering that one clearly!

Nope, I simply don't find it worthwhile having to justify every single word I use. In this case, I saved myself some time and decided it doesn't matter whether it's exponential or not.

Arbitrary, you want to remove it and think it's as simple as that.

Arbitrary indeed, but never simple to remove since it's been long ingrained into our culture. Not impossible though. But that's a different topic.

That we are here and that no moneyless socialist states don't exist.

All that proves is that it can exist in the now, not in the future.

Cavegirl

20-03-2012, 08:56

Your logic is flawed...

There are issues with the current monetary system, but we are an evolving world and it can be tweaked, this won't be the last time. But as to you stating it's unsustainable is a comment, not fact!

I wonder whether you might find this lecture interesting Spooky3. Dr Joseph Tainter is a Professor in Environment and Society at Utah Uni. His lecture is titled 'The Collapse of Complex Societies'. In the early part of the lecture he considers the factors that led to the collapse of the Roman Empire and looks for similarities in our own society.

But it's the later part that particularly interests me. He looks at the data from the US patent office and shows that the records present a decline over time in the number of patents applied for in every technological sector including, quite surprisingly, in new areas such as biotechnology and nanotechnology.

This is the 15 minutes that covers patent data:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vLQekiVsB8&feature=related

The whole lecture begins here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddmQhIiVM48&feature=related

He argues that during the 19th century we easily discovered the 'low hanging fruit' of technology- electricity, radiowaves, radioactivity etc- they were all discovered essentially by lone wolf scientists working in the equivalent of their garages at home. In order to progress our understanding however, we've had to create more complexity- larger research teams and far more money are now needed to make new discoveries and for this to continue progressing we've had to start transferring productive wealth and resources from other sectors of society such as health, transport etc into technological development.

The economic system of infinite growth is unsustainable, but what's becoming ever clearer is that technological progress (the silver bullet in most economists argument of how we'll solve issues of resource and energy scarcity) is also unsustainable within a monetary society. We need a system that doesn't need to leach from other important sectors in order to provide technological answers to the energy and resource problem. We also need more intelligent minds freed up from devising complex and socially harmful financial derivatives and poured into the sustainable provision of energy, water and mineral resources before it's too late.

One of Tainter's paper's discussing this issue is available here:
http://www.goldonomic.com/tainter.htm

IAchilleasI

20-03-2012, 10:31

We also need more intelligent minds freed up from devising complex and socially harmful financial derivatives and poured into the sustainable provision of energy, water and mineral resources before it's too late.

A supreme waste of human intellect indeed.
This reminded me of a Bill Hicks quote:
“Does anyone here work in advertising or marketing? Well if you do, when you get home take a gun shoot yourself. No bull****, I'm not joking just do it. I'm just sowing seeds, one day they may take root.”

spooky3

20-03-2012, 11:24

I wonder whether you might find this lecture interesting Spooky3. Dr Joseph Tainter is a Professor in Environment and Society at Utah Uni. His lecture is titled 'The Collapse of Complex Societies'. In the early part of the lecture he considers the factors that led to the collapse of the Roman Empire and looks for similarities in our own society.

But it's the later part that particularly interests me. He looks at the data from the US patent office and shows that the records present a decline over time in the number of patents applied for in every technological sector including, quite surprisingly, in new areas such as biotechnology and nanotechnology.

This is the 15 minutes that covers patent data:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vLQekiVsB8&feature=related

The whole lecture begins here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddmQhIiVM48&feature=related

He argues that during the 19th century we easily discovered the 'low hanging fruit' of technology- electricity, radiowaves, radioactivity etc- they were all discovered essentially by lone wolf scientists working in the equivalent of their garages at home. In order to progress our understanding however, we've had to create more complexity- larger research teams and far more money are now needed to make new discoveries and for this to continue progressing we've had to start transferring productive wealth and resources from other sectors of society such as health, transport etc into technological development.

The economic system of infinite growth is unsustainable, but what's becoming ever clearer is that technological progress (the silver bullet in most economists argument of how we'll solve issues of resource and energy scarcity) is also unsustainable within a monetary society. We need a system that doesn't need to leach from other important sectors in order to provide technological answers to the energy and resource problem. We also need more intelligent minds freed up from devising complex and socially harmful financial derivatives and poured into the sustainable provision of energy, water and mineral resources before it's too late.

One of Tainter's paper's discussing this issue is available here:
http://www.goldonomic.com/tainter.htm

Thanks, i'll watch n read when I get home.

I had a somewhat related discussion a while back about what would happen if you had a 'nice' (non-complex) society, say continent sized, closed off it's borders and became rather recluse, but was definitely a free society where people could come and go as they pleased. This society had no armies, there was no arguing, no bullying or competition based activities. It was a very nice society of people caring and understanding, dedicated to science and arts.

Then, after a millennia or so after all old wars and ways were long forgotten, a neighbouring continent who had gone any other way in social development had decided that it wanted to take the continent for it's own (for whatever reason). The 'nice' society wouldn't have the skill or where with all to defend itself from biased arguments (say monetary or just plain self interest), no militia trained well enough to be useful, etc... in essence it'd be a sitting duck waiting for some rouge element or foreign body to do with as they wanted.

Too much innocence or anything is not good for you. You need all types of people to make a well balanced society. Many years ago I remember reading an Archigram book and Ron Arad was discussing the necessity (inevitability) of a red light district in every city. Take any city in history from any culture or place and it is made up of the same odds and sods of people, all ancient and religious text describe it as the same. Technology changes, the way (not how) we interact doesn't.

Ramble over!

I'll title that, "we need competitive spirit"...

spooky3

20-03-2012, 11:26

A supreme waste of human intellect indeed.
This reminded me of a Bill Hicks quote:
“Does anyone here work in advertising or marketing? Well if you do, when you get home take a gun shoot yourself. No bull****, I'm not joking just do it. I'm just sowing seeds, one day they may take root.”

Are you also a Mormon?

IAchilleasI

20-03-2012, 11:51

I had a somewhat related discussion a while back about what would happen if you had a 'nice' (non-complex) society, say continent sized, closed off it's borders and became rather recluse, but was definitely a free society where people could come and go as they pleased. This society had no armies, there was no arguing, no bullying or competition based activities. It was a very nice society of people caring and understanding, dedicated to science and arts.

Then, after a millennia or so after all old wars and ways were long forgotten, a neighbouring continent who had gone any other way in social development had decided that it wanted to take the continent for it's own (for whatever reason). The 'nice' society wouldn't have the skill or where with all to defend itself from biased arguments (say monetary or just plain self interest), no militia trained well enough to be useful, etc... in essence it'd be a sitting duck waiting for some rouge element or foreign body to do with as they wanted.

Now take that example and instead of applying it to a single continent, do it globally. There'd be no one to instigate a war. Such a "nice" society, as you describe it, could not exist isolated from the rest of the world. You cannot have one community living in abundance and another in scarcity, because it creates envy, enmity and results in war.

I was also somewhat puzzled by your claim that Moore's Law is expiring hence technological progress is no longer exponential. Moore's Law only actually describes the number of transistors that can exist on a circuit and transistors don't account for all of technology.

Here's a talk on the exponentiality of technology and the abundance it provides http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BltRufe5kkI&feature=relmfu.

And another talk on the unsustainability of the current system http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZT6YpCsapg&feature=relmfu.

spooky3

20-03-2012, 12:39

Now take that example and instead of applying it to a single continent, do it globally. There'd be no one to instigate a war. Such a "nice" society, as you describe it, could not exist isolated from the rest of the world. You cannot have one community living in abundance and another in scarcity, because it creates envy, enmity and results in war.
...

How would you prevent certain groups / subcultures within from rebelling because they want something different?

IAchilleasI

20-03-2012, 13:13

How would you prevent certain groups / subcultures within from rebelling because they want something different?

For them to want that something different, I would expect it would have to be better than what already exists. If that were so, then everyone would adopt it. If not, why would the "rebels" want it in the first place?

spooky3

20-03-2012, 13:13

For them to want that something different, I would expect it would have to be better than what already exists. If that were so, then everyone would adopt it. If not, why would the "rebels" want it in the first place?

Because everybody is / needs to be different.

Cavegirl

20-03-2012, 13:50

Because everybody is / needs to be different.

I think you're getting waylaid by an irrelevent matter. Of course any future society will reinvent itself in various ways, that's just a fact of projecting the historical process into the future. Societies always change eventually whether we put any real effort into thinking about that change or not.

This discourse isn't about the discontents of future societies, it's about facing up to our own discontents and considering what might be done about them, how we might find a better way.

spooky3

20-03-2012, 13:53

...
how we might find a better way.

So the debate is about how and what it would be like without a monetary system, as said earlier, it can't work.

Cavegirl

20-03-2012, 13:58

Thanks, i'll watch n read when I get home.

I had a somewhat related discussion a while back about what would happen if you had a 'nice' (non-complex) society, say continent sized, closed off it's borders and became rather recluse, but was definitely a free society where people could come and go as they pleased. This society had no armies, there was no arguing, no bullying or competition based activities. It was a very nice society of people caring and understanding, dedicated to science and arts.

Then, after a millennia or so after all old wars and ways were long forgotten, a neighbouring continent who had gone any other way in social development had decided that it wanted to take the continent for it's own (for whatever reason). The 'nice' society wouldn't have the skill or where with all to defend itself from biased arguments (say monetary or just plain self interest), no militia trained well enough to be useful, etc... in essence it'd be a sitting duck waiting for some rouge element or foreign body to do with as they wanted.

Too much innocence or anything is not good for you. You need all types of people to make a well balanced society. Many years ago I remember reading an Archigram book and Ron Arad was discussing the necessity (inevitability) of a red light district in every city. Take any city in history from any culture or place and it is made up of the same odds and sods of people, all ancient and religious text describe it as the same. Technology changes, the way (not how) we interact doesn't.

Ramble over!

I'll title that, "we need competitive spirit"...

Erm...isn't it the competetive spirit that encourages these 'outsiders' to treat said fantasy country as a 'sitting duck'. A bit of cooperative spirit and they might have benefitted from the advanced technologies and arts instead of taking the short term loot and pillage approach...

Cavegirl

20-03-2012, 13:59

So the debate is about how and what it would be like without a monetary system, as said earlier, it can't work.

Outline your reasons why it can't work for me- I promise I'll try and be gentle with you :)

spooky3

20-03-2012, 14:03

Outline your reasons why it can't work for me- I promise I'll try and be gentle with you :)

What by ignoring them... :P

spooky3

20-03-2012, 14:04

Outline your reasons why it can't work for me- I promise I'll try and be gentle with you :)

Too many people and the myriad of tings dey do!

Cyclone

20-03-2012, 14:21

I will list these problems below:

First of all the monetary system survives on the basis of cyclical consumption. The cycle consists of the employer, the employee and the consumer. The employee exchanges his labour for a wage with the employer, while the employer sells the good or service produced by that labour to the consumer for a profit. Both the employer and employee also operate as consumers, using the profit or wages they respectively acquired to purchase their every day necessities. This relates to the following issues.Why is this listed as a problem?

Planned obsolescence in design is the practise of, deliberately or not designing and manufacturing a product with out-dated methods and materials for the purpose of maximising profit.I don't think the description is very good. The design and manufacturing could be state of the art without conflicting with planned obsolescence.

Nothing physically produced can ever maintain a lifespan longer than what can be endured in order to maintain the need for cyclical consumption. In other words, a product has to break down or technically expire within a set amount of time to force the consumer to buy a new one, supporting the circulation of purchasing power and sustaining the economy, in spite of the excess waste created as a result. Therefore, Cost efficiency = Technological inefficiency.
There's nothing to say that when the item is upgraded it can't be sold onto to a market with lower expectations or purchasing power. Planned failure is more pernicious, but competition between companies should help to reduce that (you buy a car with a reputation for reliability, not for high maintenance costs).

Technological unemployment is a term used to describe the replacement of human workers by machines or artificial intelligence. One of the major objectives of companies, and often a target for high ranking employees, is to minimise input costs, such as the cost of human labour. The inclination to replace human labour with mechanised labour is an innate attribute of industry. Human labour is expensive, inconvenient (for the organisation) and less productive than automation. A machine does not sign a labour contract, is not paid a wage or pension, does not require health insurance or claim benefits, does not take breaks or vacations and is not a member of a trade union, making certain that it will not be making any demands in the future. Who can blame a business for aspiring towards maximising profit whilst perceivably advancing technological progress? The majority of the workforce in developed countries exists in the service sector. It is only a matter of time before the service sector becomes automated. Currently, no other sector exists that is capable of absorbing such a massive workforce.
Automation is a good thing, it might cause short term disruption as jobs are replaced, but in the long term everyone benefits, it's not a problem of a monetary economy.

Artificial scarcity is the result of a practice of intentionally maintaining or increasing the scarcity of a product or service. in simpler terms, it is when the technological capability and productive capacity exist, but are deliberately limited in order for it’s value to remain profitable, either by keeping the value stable or bloating it. The opposition to the concept of artificial scarcity as an inevitability in industry claims that social and ethical responsibilities will restrain business from pursuing such practices.
Far more important than any ethical restraint to this is the competitive restraint. If company A is artificially limiting the production of widgets, then company B can get in there and grab some market share. The patent system and/or monopolies limit the competitive angle sometimes, but generally not for very long, look at the iPad or the iPhone for example. However, as history has shown, businesses are never willing to sacrifice themselves or put their survival at risk in favour of preserving their integrity. Layoffs and redundancies are some of the ultimate forms of social and ethical irresponsibility, yet they are rampant today in an economic recession that threatens bankruptcy for those willing to maintain a clean conscience.

These are but some of the identifiable problems that exist today. I could add more, but this post is long enough. I look forward to your feedback.

Designed failure is the only real problem I think you've identified there.

spooky3

20-03-2012, 14:27

...

:thumbsup:

Cavegirl

20-03-2012, 14:40

Too many people and the myriad of tings dey do!

There were many people about, all doing different things when capitalism replaced feudalism as the main economic basis of society....

spooky3

20-03-2012, 14:48

There were many people about, all doing different things when capitalism replaced feudalism as the main economic basis of society....

There was still value based trade even though there wasn't money, but there was...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manorialism
Manorialism was characterized by the vesting of legal and economic power in a Lord of the Manor, supported economically from his own direct landholding in a manor (sometimes called a fief), and from the obligatory contributions of a legally subject part of the peasant population under the jurisdiction of himself and his manorial court. These obligations could be payable in several ways, in labor (the French term corvée is conventionally applied), in kind, or, on rare occasions, in coin.

My bold and underline... ;)

Cavegirl

20-03-2012, 14:55

There was still value based trade even though there wasn't money, but there was...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manorialism

My bold and underline... ;)

Lol...that highlights the fact that societies can exist without coinage...wasn't your argument to do with the fact societies couldn't possibly exist without money?

You fight your own arguments, you obviously don't need me to point these things out :)

spooky3

20-03-2012, 14:59

Lol...that highlights the fact that societies can exist without coinage...wasn't your argument to do with the fact societies couldn't possibly exist without money?

You fight your own arguments, you obviously don't need me to point these things out :)

No, never did, I see trade as the same as coinage, an incentive, possibly even the initialiser to hoarding behaviour.

Cavegirl

20-03-2012, 15:12

See here:

So the debate is about how and what it would be like without a monetary system, as said earlier, it can't work.

Manorialism was characterized by the vesting of legal and economic power in a Lord of the Manor, supported economically from his own direct landholding in a manor (sometimes called a fief), and from the obligatory contributions of a legally subject part of the peasant population under the jurisdiction of himself and his manorial court. These obligations could be payable in several ways, in labor (the French term corvée is conventionally applied), in kind, or, on rare occasions, in coin.

Your own choice of quotes indicates that an essentially non-monetary system can and has worked in the not too distant past. I can offer you plenty more examples if you'd like?

dosxuk

20-03-2012, 15:14

Is a cheque a form of coinage?

spooky3

20-03-2012, 15:14

See here:

Your own choice of quotes indicates that an essentially non-monetary system can and has worked in the not too distant past. I can offer you plenty more examples if you'd like?

I believe you are purposefully missing the point, come out the and touch the big shiny black object (ref 2001, the book)

spooky3

20-03-2012, 15:16

Is a cheque a form of coinage?

It's definitely a marker of wealth...
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/money

spooky3

20-03-2012, 15:20

Surely the bad must exist for the good to become of it and most will live somewhere in the middle of the cycle of the big wheel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8JcM_FPfRo)

Cavegirl

20-03-2012, 15:38

Why is this listed as a problem?

Cyclical consumption promotes addictive patterns of behaviour and does not lead to happiness, rather to status anxiety and, in extreme cases, depression. See here:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2117508?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=47698781860217

I don't think the description is very good. The design and manufacturing could be state of the art without conflicting with planned obsolescence.

You're right it wasn't the best description. Planned obsolescence is a significant problem however, because it wastes resources and generates excess rubbish that must be dealt with. It only really benefits the producer.

There's nothing to say that when the item is upgraded it can't be sold onto to a market with lower expectations or purchasing power. Planned failure is more pernicious, but competition between companies should help to reduce that (you buy a car with a reputation for reliability, not for high maintenance costs).

It's funny that you use the car as an example of reliability here because it was the car manufacturers that started planning obsolescence into their products first:

Emerging from the 1920’s slugfest between Henry Ford and Chevrolet’s Alfred Sloan, “planned obsolescence” manifested itself as the “annual model change.” Its success in America’s flagship industry set the manufacturing standard still operating today—with disastrous environmental results. from G.Slade's 'Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America'

Automation is a good thing, it might cause short term disruption as jobs are replaced, but in the long term everyone benefits, it's not a problem of a monetary economy.

Automation brings as many problems as it does solutions particularly in a world that is suffering from resource depletion and where corporations are not forced to clean up their mess once their companies go bust or out-source. A world where you end up with scenes like this:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=baku+oil+fields&num=10&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=lLi&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=np&biw=1280&bih=801&tbm=isch&tbnid=v9xUcZ56ZIkQXM:&imgrefurl=http://www.huismarseille.nl/en/collection/3&docid=-8_FLi-9W-pLtM&imgurl=http://www.huismarseille.nl/uploads/collection/9731f4497dc86f2cad9f6356c01721008dcfaaa6.jpg&w=964&h=768&ei=pa9oT--LGsry8QPGqPWGCQ&zoom=1
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=large+car+scrapyard&start=104&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=N32&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=np&biw=1280&bih=801&tbm=isch&tbnid=s1FEfHGVM7S0DM:&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/aqualite/favorites/%3Fview%3Dlg&docid=Ua0TRG8fYBJM5M&imgurl=http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3457/4563763223_7bcaf53b2e_z.jpg&w=640&h=436&ei=NLBoT7H3GIeC8gP0lNn9CA&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=499&sig=116433732969088314240&page=5&tbnh=144&tbnw=199&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:104&tx=143&ty=75
In the short term it definately benefits the producers more than the workers it displaces though in the long term, they do tend to readjust.

Far more important than any ethical restraint to this is the competitive restraint. If company A is artificially limiting the production of widgets, then company B can get in there and grab some market share. The patent system and/or monopolies limit the competitive angle sometimes, but generally not for very long, look at the iPad or the iPhone for example.

Designed failure is the only real problem I think you've identified there.

I agree that competition provides more restraint today than any ethical consideration- but to be honest, that's the main problem because where competitive restraint doesn't exist (due to the presence of a monopoly or other similar situation), there's usually still no ethical restraint and these tend to be the situations that cause the most damage to people's lives. People committed suicide en masse at an Apple factory recently...

Cavegirl

20-03-2012, 15:45

I believe you are purposefully missing the point, come out the and touch the big shiny black object (ref 2001, the book)

I think you've quickly run out of things to say on this thread, haven't you? :)

spooky3

20-03-2012, 16:08

I think you've quickly run out of things to say on this thread, haven't you? :)

So are you saying a system based on physical money is different to one based on trade, that was your debacle!

spooky3

20-03-2012, 16:15

...
People committed suicide en masse at an Apple factory recently...

LOL, recently! He was always a slave driver since way back when, just watch any documentaries. But those events have been rife for years, they have virtual towns based around these factories, providing and controlling everything. Only would they fall for that in a purposefully naively educated socialist society (and not not the whole of China, etc)

Cavegirl

20-03-2012, 16:19

So are you saying a system based on physical money is different to one based on trade, that was your debacle!

I never said anything of the sort, I said a resource based economy was preferable to a monetary economy. It's you who's waffled nonsense about trade and money.

Your quote suggests that the manorial system relied upon taxation (obligations) being paid to the lord through labour rather than money. In return the peasants were allotted land from which they could make a living. Your wiki page also says it "was slowly replaced by the advent of a money-based market economy and new forms of agrarian contract". So it was essentially a money-less society.

spooky3

20-03-2012, 16:22

Cyclical consumption promotes addictive patterns of behaviour and does not lead to happiness, rather to status anxiety and, in extreme cases, depression. See here:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2117508?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=47698781860217

You're right it wasn't the best description. Planned obsolescence is a significant problem however, because it wastes resources and generates excess rubbish that must be dealt with. It only really benefits the producer.

It's funny that you use the car as an example of reliability here because it was the car manufacturers that started planning obsolescence into their products first:

from G.Slade's 'Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America'

Automation brings as many problems as it does solutions particularly in a world that is suffering from resource depletion and where corporations are not forced to clean up their mess once their companies go bust or out-source. A world where you end up with scenes like this:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=baku+oil+fields&num=10&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=lLi&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=np&biw=1280&bih=801&tbm=isch&tbnid=v9xUcZ56ZIkQXM:&imgrefurl=http://www.huismarseille.nl/en/collection/3&docid=-8_FLi-9W-pLtM&imgurl=http://www.huismarseille.nl/uploads/collection/9731f4497dc86f2cad9f6356c01721008dcfaaa6.jpg&w=964&h=768&ei=pa9oT--LGsry8QPGqPWGCQ&zoom=1
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=large+car+scrapyard&start=104&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=N32&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=np&biw=1280&bih=801&tbm=isch&tbnid=s1FEfHGVM7S0DM:&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/aqualite/favorites/%3Fview%3Dlg&docid=Ua0TRG8fYBJM5M&imgurl=http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3457/4563763223_7bcaf53b2e_z.jpg&w=640&h=436&ei=NLBoT7H3GIeC8gP0lNn9CA&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=499&sig=116433732969088314240&page=5&tbnh=144&tbnw=199&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:104&tx=143&ty=75
In the short term it definately benefits the producers more than the workers it displaces though in the long term, they do tend to readjust.

I agree that competition provides more restraint today than any ethical consideration- but to be honest, that's the main problem because where competitive restraint doesn't exist (due to the presence of a monopoly or other similar situation), there's usually still no ethical restraint and these tend to be the situations that cause the most damage to people's lives. People committed suicide en masse at an Apple factory recently...

Your list of problems there form a list of why it works (when running smoothly), things are created, used, disposed, and now that we recognise the facts of what is wrong with the existing state of the world, the use of more recycled materials or newly produced materials, etc.

Cavegirl

20-03-2012, 16:46

Your list of problems there form a list of why it works (when running smoothly), things are created, used, disposed, and now that we recognise the facts of what is wrong with the existing state of the world, the use of more recycled materials or newly produced materials, etc.

We're talking about ethically corrupt practices here Spooky3- the purposeful production of goods to become obsolete after just a few months/ years when we have the technology to build things that last a lifetime. Is it really better for you to have to keep throwing out your old computers rather than upgrading them or fixing them?

And where exactly do you propose we find the extra energy that it would take to recycle all of this waste on a global scale when prices are already at record highs because supply isn't meeting demand? Who will pay for it to be done? It's certainly not commercially viable at the moment in the UK- a lot of our technological waste (TV's, computers etc) ends up in landfills in Africa picked over by children with terribly infected hands and feet. Many items can't even be recycled because of the mix of materials in them.

IAchilleasI

20-03-2012, 18:22

Why is this listed as a problem?

Cyclical consumption isn't a problem in and of itself. It becomes a problem when coupled with, say, technological unemployment. In the current system, people have to consume at a rate that can maintain enough employment. If the consumer stops being an employee, having been replaced by a machine, he cannot continue consuming and the money stops circulating.

I don't think the description is very good. The design and manufacturing could be state of the art without conflicting with planned obsolescence.

If design and manufacturing are state of the art, which I assume means the application of the best methods and materials possible, then planned obsolescence cannot exist. The best methods and materials need to adhere to the principles of preservation and long lasting, low maintenance strategies, regardless of cost. If they fail to do this, they are not the best.

There's nothing to say that when the item is upgraded it can't be sold onto to a market with lower expectations or purchasing power. Planned failure is more pernicious, but competition between companies should help to reduce that (you buy a car with a reputation for reliability, not for high maintenance costs).

What competition also does is enforce the cost efficiency mechanism which dictates the minimisation of cost throughout all stages of production and distribution. To do this, they need to keep limiting resources in order to remain competitive, regardless of their intent. If a company was to build an item that lasted as long as possible, that was strategically planned for upgradeability and was completely recyclable, it simply wouldn't be able to make a profit from it whilst remaining competitive. Since the methods and materials required for this are too expensive to maintain profitability, cost efficiency is inversely proportional to technological inefficiency. There is no way that a system based on cost efficiency is ever going to produce the best of anything.

Automation is a good thing, it might cause short term disruption as jobs are replaced, but in the long term everyone benefits, it's not a problem of a monetary economy.

Throughout the history of human labour, new sectors have been invented due to the displacement of humans by technology, the service sector being the current one. However, there is virtually no labourer in the service sector that could not be replaced by automation, now or in the future. Can you name a sector capable of absorbing such a massive workforce? Can you or anyone else foresee the emergence of any sector in the future that could fill the gap created by the loss of millions upon millions of jobs?

Far more important than any ethical restraint to this is the competitive restraint. If company A is artificially limiting the production of widgets, then company B can get in there and grab some market share. The patent system and/or monopolies limit the competitive angle sometimes, but generally not for very long, look at the iPad or the iPhone for example.

I'm glad you brought up Apple's products. Here's the market share for the iOS: http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/09/ios-marketshare-up-from-26-in-q3-to-43-in-octnov-2011/. Currently, iOS holds 43% of the market share against its main competitor, Android, at 47%. The iOS rose 17% during a single financial quarter. The crucial detail here is that iOS is exclusively limited to Apple products and charges a fee for every upgrade, unlike Android which can exist in a myriad of devices produced by many different companies and is open-source, hence free. iOS also requires a fee paid for anyone that wishes to produce applications for it, unlike Android which is, again, free . Bearing in mind that the technical specifications and capabilities of these operating systems are nearly identical, how is it that Android isn't trouncing the iOS? How is this even possible, if what you're saying is true? May I also remind you that Apple is one of the most blatant practicers of planned obsolescence and has been recognised as such. If the public is aware of this, why aren't they all flocking to alternative products?

Perceived scarcity probably plays the biggest role in this. If an item is made to look obsolete, even when it technically isn't, by advertising and other manipulating tactics, the general public will be convinced to replace what they already have. For those who say "It's stupid people's fault for falling into this trap and companies have a right to exploit them", then thinl again. The resource depletion and environmental waste that is created as a result of this harms everyone, not just the stupid people.

IAchilleasI

20-03-2012, 18:29

Only would they fall for that in a purposefully naively educated socialist society (and not not the whole of China, etc)

And of course, the wise, well educated capitalist society went ahead and fully exploited their cheap labour, superiour beings that they are. Meanwhile, the wise, well educated capitalist society is gasping for jobs, the same jobs it saw fit to export to naive, socialist countries.

spooky3

20-03-2012, 18:49

...
Is it really better for you to have to keep throwing out your old computers rather than upgrading them or fixing them?

To be quite honest, yes! The differences are too great. But my old computer that I sell eventually the parts could end up either being your next dvd recorder or recycled and used much more efficiently.[/quote]

...
And where exactly do you propose we find the extra energy that it would take to recycle all of this waste on a global scale when prices are already at record highs because supply isn't meeting demand? Who will pay for it to be done? It's certainly not commercially viable at the moment in the UK- a lot of our technological waste (TV's, computers etc) ends up in landfills in Africa picked over by children with terribly infected hands and feet. Many items can't even be recycled because of the mix of materials in them.

Very true and knowing a bit about it, it is awful! Especially when you can watch videos on YouTube on how to recycle the gold and such. Here though you do have regulations in force which require extra building foundations to ensure incidents are contained, then there is hazardous material handling safety gear, storage, extra on the transport, etc... it all adds up, but I still think it's worth it all round.

Isn't this something Remploy was involved in? Sorting and redistributing parts, if you go to the rrfc.co.uk computer fair (1st Sun every month in Sheff, Don Valley) you can pick up bits at next to nothing, what was new a few years ago and costing £500+, you can now build for £50 or less... then start buying in bulk and ...

oh, as to the energy, change to more sustainable forms of fuel, say, maybe not totally green, but sustainable bio fuels we can grow?

spooky3

20-03-2012, 19:01

And of course, the wise, well educated capitalist society went ahead and fully exploited their cheap labour, superiour beings that they are. Meanwhile, the wise, well educated capitalist society is gasping for jobs, the same jobs it saw fit to export to naive, socialist countries.

Thought someone would take such a track... but fairs fair in a way in a developing world but China was never really naive or ill educated, quite the contrary, superior in fact, but it's gap between rich and poor was / is immense as is / was it's methods of enforcing discipline.

More likely that a few higher up the evolutionary ladder (lol, debatable :P) and so inclined from one side worked with similar on the other side and they all got on great doing whatever it is they were doing to other people before they joined forces and went international. Socialists, Capitalists, whoever, there will always be some going one way and others going another, there will always be some form of trade of values.