Greetings everyone

This is going to be a rather long post (which I apologise for and have done my best to be as succinct as possible) so take your time with it. I would rather not indicate who I am or which organisations I advocate because it would immediately spark prejudicial judgements, but some of you already know so I'll just go ahead and do it. 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. I was invited by a member of this forum to post my ideas of what an alternative system to our current socioeconomic system would entail. As a precursor to that, I would like to highlight several inherent problems within our current system which you will have to acknowledge if you are to be open to a solution outside the box.

To clarify, the monetary system is an economic structure that facilitates the distribution of goods and services through the use of money. Money, whether in the form of paper, plastic or digital, is the primary medium of exchange. It is not to be confused with capitalism or the free market, since it describes economic functions rather than political ones, regardless of the effects one might have on the other.

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.



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. 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.


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.


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. 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.

Monetary systems can exist without consumerism

For instance many collectivised regions of Spain retained currency as a means of exchange with increased production efficiency (as opposed to cost effiency)

Monetary systems can exist without consumerism


You have confused consumerism with cyclical consumption. Consumerism means the ever increasing consumption of goods and services by a populace. Cyclical consumption denotes the constant migration of money from the hands of the employer to those of the employee and vice versa. When contrasted with technological unemployment for example, the circulation of money and hence consumption comes to a halt.

Sheffield Forum - the clue is in the name

Can this be moved to general discussions?

Also - my two penneth - your carbon fibre and nylon tents wouldn't exist if were not for the current "system" driving commercial development...

not to mention advances in medical science , labour saving devices which have freed generations of women from drudgery , transportation , entertainment, the aquaduct etc

and you would probably be in the process of having your head chopped off for treason were it not for our democratic advances....

inequality will always exist (sadly I fear it is human nature) but be thankful you are allowed to protest in safety...

would you prefer we went back to simpler times?

Can this be moved to general discussions?

Could the OP be moved to another planet ?

ohh, you may be making sense to me and i do think this corrupt system will eventually have to be replaced with something better. BUT posting on SF is going to cause you a bit of a headache, most people are just not open to any sort of out of the box discussion.
i am sure some of the posts so far have illustrated this. there are a few people who will be genuinely interested in what you say, and then i lot of people will just bring up the old theme of "why the cathedral?", "get a job you looser", " get a bath you filthy sod"..
its sad but true so i hope you can ignore those posts and stick with it. genuine people will respond.:):)

I apologise for posting this in the wrong place, I couldn't find anywhere more suitable.

Also - my two penneth - your carbon fibre and nylon tents wouldn't exist if were not for the current "system" driving commercial development...
not to mention advances in medical science , labour saving devices which have freed generations of women from drudgery , transportation , entertainment, the aquaduct etc
and you would probably be in the process of having your head chopped off for treason were it not for our democratic advances....

I never claimed otherwise. This system is just another transitional stage during the evolution of human history, but it certainly isn't an evolutionary apex. I never said we should have skipped it completely nor have I denied the wonderful advances that have been made during its time. Also, as I mentioned in my post, the monetary system has nothing to do with democratic advances as it is an economic, not a political process. So attributing the safety of my head from severance to the existence of monetary exchange is kind of a non sequitur.

I am only pointing out the problems that come with the system, not condemning every fiber of its being.

Could the OP be moved to another planet ?

Do the admins of this forum have the capability for interplanetary travel?

ohh, you may be making sense to me and i do think this corrupt system will eventually have to be replaced with something better. BUT posting on SF is going to cause you a bit of a headache, most people are just not open to any sort of out of the box discussion.
i am sure some of the posts so far have illustrated this. there are a few people who will be genuinely interested in what you say, and then i lot of people will just bring up the old theme of "why the cathedral?", "get a job you looser", " get a bath you filthy sod"..
its sad but true so i hope you can ignore those posts and stick with it. genuine people will respond.:):)

Faith in humanity restored :D

I apologise for posting this in the wrong place, I couldn't find anywhere more suitable.



I never claimed otherwise. This system is just another transitional stage during the evolution of human history, but it certainly isn't an evolutionary apex. I never said we should have skipped it completely nor have I denied the wonderful advances that have been made during its time. Also, as I mentioned in my post, the monetary system has nothing to do with democratic advances as it is an economic, not a political process. So attributing the safety of my head from severance to the existence of monetary exchange is kind of a non sequitur.

I am only pointing out the problems that come with the system, not condemning every fiber of its being.



Do the admins of this forum have the capability for interplanetary travel?

If only,if only.

your carbon fibre and nylon tents wouldn't exist if were not for the current "system" driving commercial development...
I forgot how bad the arguments were on the Occupy thread. Look at this now.

Tents wouldn't exist without "the current system". Yeah ... well known, that 'monetary system - tents' correlation.

I forgot how bad the arguments were on the Occupy thread. Look at this now.

Tents wouldn't exist without "the current system". Yeah ... well known, that 'monetary system - tents' correlation.

genuine people will respond

Can I just confirm that you said:

"Lay offs and redundancies are some of the ultimate forms of social and ethical irresponsabilty..."

So the small business owner who already has house in hock should pile on the debt to keep going for other people ? Theyre being unethical not in doing that, by laying people off ? Have I got that right ?

Everytime I read one if these "capitalism and business are the root of all evil" it makes my blood boil. It isn't easy and I don't want a pity party or pat on the head because, ultimately it was my choice. But if you think it's so bloody easy I'll fold mine and work for you.

I was invited by a member of this forum to post my ideas of what an alternative system to our current socioeconomic system would entail.

Can you get around to it then? This is, by far, more interesting than a long list of "things that are bad".

Can I just confirm that you said:

"Lay offs and redundancies are some of the ultimate forms of social and ethical irresponsabilty..."

So the small business owner who already has house in hock should pile on the debt to keep going for other people ? Theyre being unethical not in doing that, by laying people off ? Have I got that right ?


You have taken this completely out of context and ignored everything else that I said. When a corporation seeks to maximise its profit, it has to minimise its input costs, one of them being labour costs. When a corporation investigates and finds out that if it fires X employees, yet will be able to maintain or even increase its profit, it will naturally fire the employees without regard to the damage that is done to them as people, to their community and to society in general.

Everytime I read one if these "capitalism and business are the root of all evil" it makes my blood boil.

Fortunately for you then this isn't one of them because if you had read my post carefully it explicitly states "It is not to be confused with capitalism or the free market, since it describes economic functions rather than political ones, regardless of the effects one might have on the other. "

Can you get around to it then? This is, by far, more interesting than a long list of "things that are bad".

I first need people to acknowledge that the problems I describe are valid, otherwise any solutions I propose will fall on deaf ears. So far, only a couple have done so.

I first need people to acknowledge that the problems I describe are valid, otherwise any solutions I propose will fall on deaf ears. So far, only a couple have done so.

Right, so you're never going to tell us what your solutions are then, because you're never going to get consensus that what you listed are valid problems.

Take "Planned obsolescence" for example. It's virtually impossible to build something which never needs updating / maintaining / replacing. Take something as simple as the pencil. After a certain amount of time you will need to spend money on a new one. Or at the other end of the scale, an aircraft - everytime it is used, the structure is stressed, and after an amount of time, it will literally rip itself apart. And none of those options allow for when the original product itself becomes unuseful because of alternatives that have been developed.

Then there's "Technological unemployment". Sadly, human beings are unreliable, especially when it comes to doing mundane repetitive difficult actions, like soldering components on to a circuit board. Machines on the other hand are very very good at doing that. Humans are very good at doing things which need decisions making / or that aren't repetitive or predictable, something machines are bad at. And that's not to mention the equipment we have today, designed by humans, but that would be completely impossible for a human to build themselves or as part of a team.

Greetings everyone

This is going to be a rather long post (which I apologise for and have done my best to be as succinct as possible) so take your time with it. I would rather not indicate who I am or which organisations I advocate because it would immediately spark prejudicial judgements, but some of you already know so I'll just go ahead and do it. 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. I was invited by a member of this forum to post my ideas of what an alternative system to our current socioeconomic system would entail. As a precursor to that, I would like to highlight several inherent problems within our current system which you will have to acknowledge if you are to be open to a solution outside the box.

To clarify, the monetary system is an economic structure that facilitates the distribution of goods and services through the use of money. Money, whether in the form of paper, plastic or digital, is the primary medium of exchange. It is not to be confused with capitalism or the free market, since it describes economic functions rather than political ones, regardless of the effects one might have on the other.

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.



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. 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.


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.


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. 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.

Very well expressed and certainly interesting.

I do indeed see your point and have tried to express something like it myself but without your obvious eloquence. I hope people realise this is a longterm, global view, which needs a wide angled lense to appreciate, and not a dig at small businesses like the gentleman above. For once, the 'we're all in this together' slogan is appropriate.

I do hope you have something equally interesting to say about a way forward otherwise we're all doomed... doomed I say....

Right, so you're never going to tell us what your solutions are then, because you're never going to get consensus that what you listed are valid problems.

Take "Planned obsolescence" for example. It's virtually impossible to build something which never needs updating / maintaining / replacing. Take something as simple as the pencil. After a certain amount of time you will need to spend money on a new one. Or at the other end of the scale, an aircraft - everytime it is used, the structure is stressed, and after an amount of time, it will literally rip itself apart. And none of those options allow for when the original product itself becomes unuseful because of alternatives that have been developed.

Then there's "Technological unemployment". Sadly, human beings are unreliable, especially when it comes to doing mundane repetitive difficult actions, like soldering components on to a circuit board. Machines on the other hand are very very good at doing that. Humans are very good at doing things which need decisions making / or that aren't repetitive or predictable, something machines are bad at. And that's not to mention the equipment we have today, designed by humans, but that would be completely impossible for a human to build themselves or as part of a team.

Ever heard of the everlasting lightbulb? It had to be modified to fail so as to keep the industry going. Or washing machines deliberately made to last 4 years when it's quite possible to build one that can last 50?

This used to keep people in work and the money circulating, but was heavy on finite resources.
Now machines can make these things almost single handedly. So not only are they still heavy on finite resources, but the money cycle has stumbled too, putting all the profits in the hands of the tooled up manufacturer making him incredibly wealthy, while all those people who have lost their jobs have become much poorer.

Hence the growing divide between rich and poor, which is already a serious problem in many parts of the world and may well become one here.
And increasing technology means there will be fewer and fewer new jobs to take the place of the old ones. So society will split in two. The 99% with no work and no money, and the 1% with both.

Incidently, none of this is new. It's been well known about in economic circles for many years. It even has a name but I can't remember it.

It's just that for the first time it's starting to come home to roost with an ever inflating number of people. That's why attention is beginning to be paid by the lower orders who it will affect most. Hence the different groups who are trying to raise awareness.

There are ways round it, but you can see why the wealthiest 1% who are going to make a bomb before sealing themselves off from the rest of us, have a vested interest in favour of the current system continuing until it collapses in on itself (like the banks have done - but that's another story even tho it's connected.)

The 1% have all the money and all the power. So how is this situation to be resolved without anarchy?

Ever heard of the everlasting lightbulb? It had to be modified to fail so as to keep the industry going.

Ah, that long standing urban legend. Nonsense I'm afraid. It's impossible with old fashioned tungsten lamps (unless you make the filament so thick that it doesn't make much heat/light and uses a ridiculous amount of money, and even then a good mechanical shock will break it), as well as more modern ones. The closest we've got to everlasting lamps is LED, but even they will need replacing after a certain amount of time due to the effects of prolonged heat and wearing out of the phosphors used.

The idea was subsequently developed into that the scientist who invented the everlasting lightbulb used some unknown technology, and sold the patent to a company who kept it locked away. If that was true, it's never been reported in any scientific journal, nobody claims to have seen the product, and the patent would have expired by now (and the same theory of economics means that other manufacturers would have used the expired patent to improve their own products in order to gain a marketing benefit "our lamps will last 10% longer than anyone elses").

The idea that everything will last forever, if only it wasn't for some evil capitalists hiding the secrets is lovely, but it's unrealistic.

Given the choice between two washing machines, one which will probably need replacing in 4 years costing £800, or one which will last forever which costs £100,000 (because of the increased design, material and manufacturing costs), which one would you choose?

Right, so you're never going to tell us what your solutions are then, because you're never going to get consensus that what you listed are valid problems.

Basically, yes. If I don't see something as a problem, why on earth would I want a solution? . I was somewhat disheartened when you said this, but your following arguments are exactly what I intended to engage in; developing a train of thought.

Take "Planned obsolescence" for example. It's virtually impossible to build something which never needs updating / maintaining / replacing. Take something as simple as the pencil. After a certain amount of time you will need to spend money on a new one. Or at the other end of the scale, an aircraft - everytime it is used, the structure is stressed, and after an amount of time, it will literally rip itself apart. And none of those options allow for when the original product itself becomes unuseful because of alternatives that have been developed.

All of what you say is true, although the pencil is irrelevant to planned obsolescence because it is a depletable resource compared to, say, a mobile phone (unless there was a way to extract graphite from paper :P). There is no technological or evolutionary zenith. But let's take your example of a plane. During the production of its parts, the company that makes them will look for the cheapest possible materials to use in order to cut down on its costs. It will certainly maintain a standard (so I'm not saying that they'd make parts out of paper) but it will aim for the cheaper option nonetheless, in order to make it affordable for itself and potential buyers.

Nowadays, it is possible to facilitate interchangeable parts by creating a platform on which different components of a product can be replaced with improved versions or even by fixing and updating the existing ones, something like the motherboard of a computer. Under the current circumstances however, it is cheaper to completely replace a product with a new one, instead of paying to repair the old one. The reason for that is to maintain cyclical consumption. Nevermind the economic consequences, think of the amount of waste that is created as an outcome of this.

Then there's "Technological unemployment". Sadly, human beings are unreliable, especially when it comes to doing mundane repetitive difficult actions, like soldering components on to a circuit board. Machines on the other hand are very very good at doing that. Humans are very good at doing things which need decisions making / or that aren't repetitive or predictable, something machines are bad at. And that's not to mention the equipment we have today, designed by humans, but that would be completely impossible for a human to build themselves or as part of a team.

Again agreed 100%. You might have interpreted what I said as "Machine are bad, because they're stealing our jobs, so let's get back to farming the land", when in fact what I'm saying is that the obsolescence of repetitive, meaningless, counter productive and sometimes dangerous jobs is a milestone in the evolution of human civilisation and should be fully taken advantage of. A system however that necessitates you have a job if you wish to survive and then machines step in all of a sudden and you become redundant as a result, isn't a very sustainable system.

Given the choice between two washing machines, one which will probably need replacing in 4 years costing £800, or one which will last forever which costs £100,000 (because of the increased design, material and manufacturing costs), which one would you choose?

Thank you for going to such great lengths to prove my point. Technology is artificially held back as a result of the monetary system. We have the resources, the technological capacity, the scientific know-how, but we don't have enough pieces of paper to "buy" it! Doesn't that seem a tad insane to you? Not to mention how environmentally irresponsible it is to keep producing all this crap that ends in a landfill in some third world country.

Let's say hypothetically a technology is developed that renders fossil fuels obsolete and is so abundant that no company could charge for it, at least not as much as they charge for oil. Do you find it completely unfeasible that the oil industry would attempt to suppress it?

It's just that for the first time it's starting to come home to roost with an ever inflating number of people. That's why attention is beginning to be paid by the lower orders who it will affect most. Hence the different groups who are trying to raise awareness.

This is exactly why I don't like to tie myself down to an organisation or group because these are understandings that are shared by so many of them. I just can't think of a single name/adjective that would give people an accurate idea of what I associate myself with.

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.

I think it's easy to pick fault with a system that has developed over thousands of years and works reasonably well, as evidenced by the population growth continuing to be sustained?

What is not so easy is to identify a system that will work equally well and that, more importantly, can be implemented. The people who complain about the system tend to be the ones who are at the bottom end.

We can all be dissatisfied with the current system but have you actually got any ideas or is this just another albeit eloquent grumble about not being given enough of what other people have earned?

All of what you say is true, although the pencil is irrelevant to planned obsolescence because it is a depletable resource compared to, say, a mobile phone (unless there was a way to extract graphite from paper :P). There is no technological or evolutionary zenith. But let's take your example of a plane. During the production of its parts, the company that makes them will look for the cheapest possible materials to use in order to cut down on its costs. It will certainly maintain a standard (so I'm not saying that they'd make parts out of paper) but it will aim for the cheaper option nonetheless, in order to make it affordable for itself and potential buyers.

But in the example of a plane, if you use stonger, more wear resistant metals for the body, then you add weight. Add enough weight and the plane won't be able to take off.

Modern aircraft use aluminium and titanium. Steel is much stronger, but weighs so much more that it means the plane loses it's point of existence. It's not a plane if it doesn't fly.

We don't yet have a metal which is both strong, and light, and resistant to constant movement (such as caused by the repeated pressurisation of an aircraft), affordable, and doesn't need constant maintainence and eventual replacement. It's not companies choosing not to use those materials - they simply don't exist.

Nowadays, it is possible to facilitate interchangeable parts by creating a platform on which different components of a product can be replaced with improved versions or even by fixing and updating the existing ones, something like the motherboard of a computer.

The oldest computer in my room now is a 486 from 1994. It uses ISA 8-bit expansion ports, and can take a maximum of 16MB of memory. While I can still get upgrades for that computer (from ebay), even if I upgraded everything to it's design limits, my mobile phone will still be more powerful. It would be impossible to add, say, a TV Tuner card to this computer, because the design of it (modern for it's release) simply can't cope with the amount of data being passed.

Therefore, keeping equipment so that they can be repaired / updated by replacing small components and parts either requires us to abandon any future progress or development with that equipment, or to have a very very clever designer who can forecast exactly what that equipment may need to do in the future.

Under the current circumstances however, it is cheaper to completely replace a product with a new one, instead of paying to repair the old one. The reason for that is to maintain cyclical consumption. Nevermind the economic consequences, think of the amount of waste that is created as an outcome of this.

There are numerous reasons for having to replace the whole thing rather than a part. "cyclical consumerism" is only one small one of them. The most common reason is retailers wanting to push a replacement because it makes them more money and is easier than replacing / repairing an individual part.

Again agreed 100%. You might have interpreted what I said as "Machine are bad, because they're stealing our jobs, so let's get back to farming the land", when in fact what I'm saying is that the obsolescence of repetitive, meaningless, counter productive and sometimes dangerous jobs is a milestone in the evolution of human civilisation and should be fully taken advantage of. A system however that necessitates you have a job if you wish to survive and then machines step in all of a sudden and you become redundant as a result, isn't a very sustainable system.

I'm not following. You're not advocating we stop using machines to do jobs which humans can't do (or do badly), but using machines which replace humans to do jobs that they can't do (or do badly) is a bad idea and unsustainable. That sounds a lot like having your cake and eating it to me.

Thank you for going to such great lengths to prove my point. Technology is artificially held back as a result of the monetary system. We have the resources, the technological capacity, the scientific know-how, but we don't have enough pieces of paper to "buy" it! Doesn't that seem a tad insane to you? Not to mention how environmentally irresponsible it is to keep producing all this crap that ends in a landfill in some third world country.

No. Because somebody, somewhere is having to mine the ores needed to make the metals to build the products. Modern electronics contain some of the rarest metals found on the planet, which requires an immense amount of man power to get them out of the ground and into a usable state.

Then there's the design work, and test work, all done by people who will have spent years learning their trade. And the people who build the product, who will have to be at the top of their trades to build something with an infinite life.

Unless you scrap the whole idea of money (which you didn't list as one of your issues in your OP), then the more work involved in the design and production of a product, the more money it will cost to purchase. It's up to you as the consumer to decide whether the increased cost outweighs the fact that you or your decendants won't need to replace it.

Let's say hypothetically a technology is developed that renders fossil fuels obsolete and is so abundant that no company could charge for it, at least not as much as they charge for oil. Do you find it completely unfeasible that the oil industry would attempt to suppress it?

The oil industry may well try and supress it, but I'm sure there will be many more people who manage to market such a product in a way that they can make money. That's the thing about capitalism - big developments are very difficult to keep under wraps because there's always somebody wanting to steal even a fraction of your profits, and if there's something which competes and costs less, it will be produced.

I think it's easy to pick fault with a system that has developed over thousands of years and works reasonably well, as evidenced by the population growth continuing to be sustained?

Sure, but will it continue to sustain us indefinitely?

What is not so easy is to identify a system that will work equally well and that, more importantly, can be implemented. The people who complain about the system tend to be the ones who are at the bottom end.

Agreed, it is not easy and we should therefore invest more of our time in identifying this step forward, rather than applying patchwork in order to temporarily "repair" it.

When you say bottom end, you mean those with the least money? Well, since they're not benefitting from it of course they would be disaffected by it. There are others and have been others however, who belong to higher classes of society who have also realised these flaws.

We can all be dissatisfied with the current system but have you actually got any ideas or is this just another albeit eloquent grumble about not being given enough of what other people have earned?

Whenever I see a strawman argument on this forum, I bang my head against the wall. I am near to developing a concussion. I suppose that you and others are understandably highly suspicious that I do not have any solutions, but this isn't the purpose of this thread. I only created this thread as a precursor to that.

When an incentive is created to shorten the lifespan of products, this leads to the realisation that product efficiency, sustainability and preservation are in conflict with economic growth.

But in the example of a plane, if you use stonger, more wear resistant metals for the body, then you add weight. Add enough weight and the plane won't be able to take off. Modern aircraft use aluminium and titanium. Steel is much stronger, but weighs so much more that it means the plane loses it's point of existence. It's not a plane if it doesn't fly. We don't yet have a metal which is both strong, and light, and resistant to constant movement (such as caused by the repeated pressurisation of an aircraft), affordable, and doesn't need constant maintainence and eventual replacement

A highly technical point which, while interesting, is irrelevant to what I'm arguing. I did say that companies have to produce products to a certain standard and since making steel is against the laws of aeronautics it's out of the question. You can get mired in all sorts of examples of whether a superiour material exists but is never used. For example, titanium or aluminium could be used instead of plastic in electrical components for better protection and thermal conductivity with a negligible weight difference. Maybe instead of companies installing smart chips on ink cartridges to stop them from recognising third party ink, they could allow you to easily refill them without having to buy another one. Look at clothing, where we are enforced to change our appearance and buy new clothes because of the latest "fashion". Look at software, where you are forced to upgrade to the latest version because the developer stopped supporting the previous versions. Look at the automotive industry, where parts are discontinued from production after a few years. From the mobile phone industry, Apple is one of the most vulgarly obvious, with annual releases of the more or less same device, while dropping support for previous models. There are more examples if you're still unconvinced.

The oldest computer in my room now is a 486 from 1994. It uses ISA 8-bit expansion ports, and can take a maximum of 16MB of memory. While I can still get upgrades for that computer (from ebay), even if I upgraded everything to it's design limits, my mobile phone will still be more powerful. It would be impossible to add, say, a TV Tuner card to this computer, because the design of it (modern for it's release) simply can't cope with the amount of data being passed.

You are describing technological progress which is completely different.

There are numerous reasons for having to replace the whole thing rather than a part. "cyclical consumerism" is only one small one of them. The most common reason is retailers wanting to push a replacement because it makes them more money and is easier than replacing / repairing an individual part.

This made me laugh because you say cyclical consumption is only one small part of the reason and then you go on to describe the most common reason, which is pretty much a definition for cyclical consumption

I'm not following. You're not advocating we stop using machines to do jobs which humans can't do (or do badly), but using machines which replace humans to do jobs that they can't do (or do badly) is a bad idea and unsustainable. That sounds a lot like having your cake and eating it to me.

No, I'm advocating machines do all the jobs they do better than humans, and humans do the jobs they do better than machines.

You have confused consumerism with cyclical consumption. Consumerism means the ever increasing consumption of goods and services by a populace. Cyclical consumption denotes the constant migration of money from the hands of the employer to those of the employee and vice versa. When contrasted with technological unemployment for example, the circulation of money and hence consumption comes to a halt.

The big clue in my post was in my reference to collectivised areas of Spain rendering any further discussion about employers and employees redundant

During the production of its parts, the company that makes them will look for the cheapest possible materials to use in order to cut down on its costs. It will certainly maintain a standard (so I'm not saying that they'd make parts out of paper) but it will aim for the cheaper option nonetheless, in order to make it affordable for itself and potential buyers.

Nowadays, it is possible to facilitate interchangeable parts by creating a platform on which different components of a product can be replaced with improved versions or even by fixing and updating the existing ones, something like the motherboard of a computer. Under the current circumstances however, it is cheaper to completely replace a product with a new one, instead of paying to repair the old one. The reason for that is to maintain cyclical consumption. Nevermind the economic consequences, think of the amount of waste that is created as an outcome of this.


I think you are wrong on two counts there:

1. The company will use cheaper parts because the competition will be doing the same or to maximise profit. If there is no competition they can charge what the market will bear and making something affordable is not an issue. Where there is competition they have to charge the same or less to survive.

2. The cost of production is often less than the cost of repair. That's because production is mechanised but repair is manual and the cost of labour is usually the biggest cost in the developed world. It has nothing to do with any capitalist plot to keep people spending money. In the third world almost everything is recycled and repaired because the cost of labour is so low as to make it economical.

Whilst you make some good points I think you are overthinking the problems and coming up with some ludicrous conspiracy theories when the reality is much much simpler.

No. Because somebody, somewhere is having to mine the ores needed to make the metals to build the products. Modern electronics contain some of the rarest metals found on the planet, which requires an immense amount of man power to get them out of the ground and into a usable state.Then there's the design work, and test work, all done by people who will have spent years learning their trade. And the people who build the product, who will have to be at the top of their trades to build something with an infinite life.

The same process though takes place whether the material is rare or not, yet the price is vastly different. I can't imagine that a rarer metal is necessarily harder and more expensive to mine and refine. But imagine all the jobs that will vanish when the majority if not the whole process is automated.

Unless you scrap the whole idea of money (which you didn't list as one of your issues in your OP), then the more work involved in the design and production of a product, the more money it will cost to purchase.

Indeed, unless you scrap money, you remain with these problems.

The oil industry may well try and supress it, but I'm sure there will be many more people who manage to market such a product in a way that they can make money.

Do you see any government or corporate funded research for alternative energy sources? What happened to that electric car that GM developed in the 90s? Why is it that electric car related patents are owned by mega corporations like Chevron?

That's the thing about capitalism - big developments are very difficult to keep under wraps because there's always somebody wanting to steal even a fraction of your profits, and if there's something which competes and costs less, it will be produced.

Highly doubtful. There are always ways for the big players to supress dangerous competitors, whether its lobbying government or aggressively buying their stock or pricing them out of competition even if it results in temporary losses.

The big clue in my post was in my reference to collectivised areas of Spain rendering any further discussion about employers and employees redundant

Not really, the employer and the employee merely become the same person. They still need to sell their products to consumers and make a profit from them. Your point on collectivism also ignores my following arguments, namely technological unemployment, planned obsolescence and artificial scarcity.

Do you see any government or corporate funded research for alternative energy sources? What happened to that electric car that GM developed in the 90s?.

There are plenty of electric cars on the market

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/cartech/ten-best-electric-cars-rated-49306038/

and they will become increasingly popular (and more affordable) as oil supplies dwindle.

Let's say hypothetically a technology is developed that renders fossil fuels obsolete and is so abundant that no company could charge for it, at least not as much as they charge for oil. Do you find it completely unfeasible that the oil industry would attempt to suppress it?
Before you worry about it being suppressed, how do you propose getting your hands on this free gratis perpetual motion machine?

Ever heard of the everlasting lightbulb?

It doesn't exist. Your point isn't helped by fantasy.

1. The company will use cheaper parts because the competition will be doing the same or to maximise profit. If there is no competition they can charge what the market will bear and making something affordable is not an issue. Where there is competition they have to charge the same or less to survive.


If there is no competition they can indeed charge what the market will bear, but they still want to be minimising their costs throughout every stage of production to maximise their profits. That is all shareholders care about; increasing share value.

2. The cost of production is often less than the cost of repair. That's because production is mechanised but repair is manual and the cost of labour is usually the biggest cost in the developed world.

If I extrapolate what you're saying, when mechanisation eventually replaces human labour, repairing will then be cheaper than replacing. Do you not think that would be detrimental to business?

Whilst you make some good points I think you are overthinking the problems and coming up with some ludicrous conspiracy theories when the reality is much much simpler.

I was wondering how long it would take before someone called me a conspiracy theorist. It seems to be the standard emotional response when people are confronted on their traditional, long-ingrained beliefs.

Let us spare a look at the definition of "conspiracy theory".

From Wikipedia:
A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

Where in my original post have I blamed the monetary system's inherent flaws on the plotting and colluding of some covert organisation? I can't realistically classify the seven billion people that are alive and everyone else that was alive during the history of this system as being part of this covert group and attribute their interest in survival as their motivation for plotting.

If there is no competition they can indeed charge what the market will bear,
So you just appear to be an old fashioned capitalist at heart, albeit with some unusual ideas about implementation.

There are plenty of electric cars on the market

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/cartech/ten-best-electric-cars-rated-49306038/

and they will become increasingly popular (and more affordable) as oil supplies dwindle.

I am very much looking forward to the day. What angers me is that despite the fact that the technology was in the streets in 1996, it has taken 25 years for us to be able to contemplate driving an electric car.

Fifteen years (by your date).

Few people care much about the propulsion system, they purchase for other reasons. To date, electric cars have not really been viable on either a standard individual or mass market scale. How does changing the monetary system alter that?

This thread is becoming a little surreal.

So you just appear to be an old fashioned capitalist at heart, albeit with some unusual ideas about implementation.

Huh? The phrase you quoted from me describes a monopolised market. Hardly a capitalist ideal.

I was agreeing with Jim that since the company has the monopoly, they can charge as much as the market allows. As in it is possible for them to do so. It doesn't mean that I condone the practise.

Fifteen years (by your date).

Sorry, typo. I'm not mathematically illiterate, honest :p.

To date, electric cars have not really been viable on either a standard individual or mass market scale.

In what sense are they not viable?

This thread is becoming a little surreal.

If it seems to be becoming surreal, it is because people are nitpicking on every example I bring up, without looking at the whole picture.

Huh? The phrase you quoted from me describes a monopolised market. Hardly a capitalist ideal.

I was agreeing with Jim that since the company has the monopoly, they can charge as much as the market allows. As in it is possible for them to do so. It doesn't mean that I condone the practise.

But as soon as you introduce the idea of competition you introduce the principle (and principal) of capital attraction. It is inextricable. You have to be a capitalist. You are a capitalist.

I am very much looking forward to the day. What angers me is that despite the fact that the technology was in the streets in 1996, it has taken 25 years for us to be able to contemplate driving an electric car.

A few minutes ago you appeared to be saying it was being suppressed. It's just becoming more affordable, that's all.

But as soon as you introduce the idea of competition you introduce the principle (and principal) of capital attraction. It is inextricable. You have to be a capitalist. You are a capitalist.

For some reason, you are hoping against hope that I am a capitalist and are coming up with non sequiturs. I'm not going to fit into any of your boxes, so please stop trying to ram me into one.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. You're happily sitting in the box without any assistance.

I'll repeat what I said; as soon as you introduce the idea of competition you introduce the principle (and principal) of capital attraction. It is inextricable. You have to be a capitalist. You are a capitalist.

This is irrefutable, regardless of whether you like it or not.

A few minutes ago you appeared to be saying it was being suppressed.

That is why I mentioned that the fact it took 15 years to arrive angers me; because it was being suppresed during this time.

It's just becoming more affordable, that's all.

15 years ago, the EV1 cost 34.000 dollars. Hardly unaffordable, keeping in mind that GM had no competition at the time and probably could've charged more for it.

Besides, why should something as artificial as affordability stop us from progressing sooner rather than later.

If I extrapolate what you're saying, when mechanisation eventually replaces human labour, repairing will then be cheaper than replacing. Do you not think that would be detrimental to business?



I was wondering how long it would take before someone called me a conspiracy theorist. It seems to be the standard emotional response when people are confronted on their traditional, long-ingrained beliefs.

Let us spare a look at the definition of "conspiracy theory".

From Wikipedia:
A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

Where in my original post have I blamed the monetary system's inherent flaws on the plotting and colluding of some covert organisation? I can't realistically classify the seven billion people that are alive and everyone else that was alive during the history of this system as being part of this covert group and attribute their interest in survival as their motivation for plotting.


What I am saying is that mechanisation will render repair uneconomical thus increasing waste.

You gave an example of an energy product that is cheap and inexhaustible but would the oil companies keep it off the market. That is one of your conspiracy theories. I've heard those sorts of theories before. Here's a few more for you.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Economic_and_business_ conspiracy_theories

Your whole thesis is a conspiracy theory. The idea that obsolecence is deliberately planned into products. The idea that products are deliberately made scarce and the idea that automation will replace humans is just absurd nonsense. It suggests a worldwide sophistication of organisation that simply does not exist.

Obsolecence is natural. A product either wears out or becomes obsolete. Are you still using Betamax tapes and doing your washing by banging it on stones down at the River Don? Automation cannot replace thinking, invention, management, control and a whole host of other human functions. I work in construction and whilst mechanisation has made many tasks easier and reduced some unskilled labour elements there is still no way a machine can replace a skilled tradesman. As for deliberately keeping products scarce you'll have to give me an example because as someone else has already commented it makes no sense to create something and then keep it to yourself.

I'll repeat what I said; as soon as you introduce the idea of competition you introduce the principle (and principal) of capital attraction. It is inextricable. You have to be a capitalist. You are a capitalist.


I'm a bit confused. How do you interpret my acknowledgement of a process of capitalism as my advocacy for it? I don't even believe that competition is beneficial to society in the broad scheme of things.

I'm a bit confused. How do you interpret my acknowledgement of a process of capitalism as my advocacy for it? I don't even believe that competition is beneficial to society in the broad scheme of things.

Do you drive a trabant by any chance ?

What I am saying is that mechanisation will render repair uneconomical thus increasing waste.

You gave an example of an energy product that is cheap and inexhaustible but would the oil companies keep it off the market. That is one of your conspiracy theories. I've heard those sorts of theories before. Here's a few more for you.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Economic_and_business_ conspiracy_theories

Your whole thesis is a conspiracy theory. The idea that obsolecence is deliberately planned into products. The idea that products are deliberately made scarce and the idea that automation will replace humans is just absurd nonsense. It suggests a worldwide sophistication of organisation that simply does not exist.

Obsolecence is natural. A product either wears out or becomes obsolete. Are you still using Betamax tapes and doing your washing by banging it on stones down at the River Don? Automation cannot replace thinking, invention, management, control and a whole host of other human functions. I work in construction and whilst mechanisation has made many tasks easier and reduced some unskilled labour elements there is still no way a machine can replace a skilled tradesman. As for deliberately keeping products scarce you'll have to give me an example because as someone else has already commented it makes no sense to create something and then keep it to yourself.

You really ought to research your opinions before you espouse this nonsense Jim. The term 'planned obsolescence' is in common usage within all respected economic academic journals and refers to the ability of those with a monopoly in a market to reduce the quality of their goods to a standard below that which one would find in a competetive market. It can also mean incorporating a design feature into a product that prevents it from being upgraded and thus it must be entirely replaced when a fault occurs.

Here's some evidence of that for you, there's plenty more:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1830568?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=47698754578757

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2118504?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2134&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=47698754578757

'Perceived obsolescence' is a similar concept, but rather than reduce the quality they will market a new design aspect of a product thus ensuring that the 'old' style falls out of fashion and everybody must go out and buy the new styled product regardless of whether or not their old product has failed- for example, flat screen TV's replaced the old box shape of a TV and now you are considered old-fashioned or uncool if you own a box shape TV. It plays on our sense of the material object representing a status symbol, so in essence it's very manipulative- there's nothing particularly 'better' about a flat screen, it's just fashion.

Also, before you decide that automation can't replace humans please take a trip to your local Tesco store where their automated check out robo-till will be happy to scan your goods, add up your bill, accept your money and print you out a receipt whilst the few humans left running their tills are freed up to nostalgically remember all of the chatty colleagues that your check out machine replaced. Of course we're capable of mass automation, just take a look around you.

Also obsolescence is NOT natural. Please take a look at the actual history of humanity and one thing you'll notice is that human cultures pre-1900 are remarkably conservative with regard to their production of material culture, usually over periods of millenia. For example, the stone hand axe was made by humans in a broadly similar form for about 2.6 million years. The ancient Egyptians created their statues and wall paintings using a remarkably conservative and limiting set of 'artistic rules' over 2 thousand years. If obsolescence is so 'natural' to humans why didn't these early cultures subscribe to a rapid pace of material culture change?

What I am saying is that mechanisation will render repair uneconomical thus increasing waste.

How did you reach this conclusion?


You gave an example of an energy product that is cheap and inexhaustible but would the oil companies keep it off the market. That is one of your conspiracy theories.

Your whole thesis is a conspiracy theory. The idea that obsolecence is deliberately planned into products. The idea that products are deliberately made scarce and the idea that automation will replace humans is just absurd nonsense. It suggests a worldwide sophistication of organisation that simply does not exist.

May I first make a somewhat irrelevant point. Why does calling something a conspiracy theory automatically invalidate and make it worthy of scorn? Is it because a conspiracy theory cannot conceivably be true?

Back to your argument, a conspiracy theory implies a group of people coming together and consciously plotting to gain advantage over another group of people. What I am explaining on the other hand is different. Sometimes there is a confluence of interests, meaning people/groups share common interests. They don't actually cooperate or plot or work with one another to achieve them. A conspiracy theory also has the connotation of "evil" people scheming. I am not claiming that the oil industry is "evil".

As you say, there would have to be a worldwide sophistication of organisation that simply does not exist. But the effects are still felt, as if this organisation does exist, when it doesn't. I realise it is a very fine line between what I'm saying and what you think I'm saying, but its there.


Obsolecence is natural. A product either wears out or becomes obsolete. Are you still using Betamax tapes and doing your washing by banging it on stones down at the River Don?

Nope, but then again you are describing natural obsolescene rather than planned.

Automation cannot replace thinking, invention, management, control and a whole host of other human functions.

It cannot, at least not in the foreseeable future, but there are so many others it can and will replace. Look around you, even now jobs are disappearing due to automation. Today I went to the bank to withdraw some money from an ATM, went to the supermarket and used the automated till, paid some bills and bought some stuff online. Did you notice how I didn't interact with a single employee during all of this?

I work in construction and whilst mechanisation has made many tasks easier and reduced some unskilled labour elements there is still no way a machine can replace a skilled tradesman.

Why not? A machine would never make a mistake, it would never fall behind schedule, doesn't require a break and will never call in sick nor would be impeeded by bad weather.

I study graphic design, which is a profession that requires highly creative skills you would've though impossible to automate. I admit even I was surprised at how easier the work is because of it. Eventually, I'll just be narrating to the computer what colour or what shape or what texture I want and it'll do it for me.

As for deliberately keeping products scarce you'll have to give me an example because as someone else has already commented it makes no sense to create something and then keep it to yourself.

Artificial scarcity describes a scarcity that exists in spite of the technology and the capacity to create an abundance. Both products and resources are kept scarce to maintain profitability. For example, some digital media and software are a scarce product. Even though there are virtually unlimited copies of Windows 7, Microsoft restrains its abundance by charging for it. Open source software on the other hand is abundant.

Do you drive a trabant by any chance ?

I had no idea what a trabant is. I googled it and now I know. You learn something everyday.

That is why I mentioned that the fact it took 15 years to arrive angers me; because it was being suppresed during this time.



15 years ago, the EV1 cost 34.000 dollars. Hardly unaffordable, keeping in mind that GM had no competition at the time and probably could've charged more for it.



Suppressed?

Oh and the cost was $34k - far more than your average car 15 years ago. And how often did it have to be recharged? Where was the infrastructure of top up stations to support it?

It was uneconomical and impractical for most people - no "conspiracy".

'Perceived obsolescence' is a similar concept, but rather than reduce the quality they will market a new design aspect of a product thus ensuring that the 'old' style falls out of fashion and everybody must go out and buy the new styled product regardless of whether or not their old product has failed- for example, flat screen TV's replaced the old box shape of a TV and now you are considered old-fashioned or uncool if you own a box shape TV. It plays on our sense of the material object representing a status symbol, so in essence it's very manipulative- there's nothing particularly 'better' about a flat screen, it's just fashion.




Naturally we should have stuck with our old black and white TV's that had a tiny flickering screen and took up a quarter of the room.

No wait - we should have stuck to old valve radios - useless these transistors.

Why not? A machine would never make a mistake, it would never fall behind schedule, doesn't require a break and will never call in sick nor would be impeeded by bad weather.



A machine would never make a mistake? Or break down or require maintenance? "Machines" get impeded by bad weather every time it snows.

I think we're getting bogged down too much with specifics. Arguing what a machine can or can't do and making sarcastic remarks about sticking with old technology is irrelevant to the initial post.

I think we're getting bogged down too much with specifics. Arguing what a machine can or can't do and making sarcastic remarks about sticking with old technology is irrelevant to the initial post.

2 of your problems assume monopoly capitalism & don't really exist in most markets, the other one just doesn't really exist.

Artificial scarcity & Planned obsolescence would need either a monopoly or a very tight cartel to operate. In a competitive market at least one supplier should see that they can gain a competitive advantage by overcoming these problems.

Technological unemployment happens, entire industries can be wiped out by advances in technology, but those advances bring with them new economic activity & a net gain.

Technological unemployment happens, entire industries can be wiped out by advances in technology, but those advances bring with them new economic activity & a net gain.

Not always, pit towns still struggle after the decimation of the industry.

The fact is we can't compete in the exports markets against cheap foreign labour. Prices of finished goods and food are soaring because of corporate greed and the UK workforce has to ask for increased salaries from their employers to make ends meet, so the cost of labour is continually increasing. This coupled with the fact that a lot of UK-based industry is now foreigned own, so they can keep prices here high, means we're finished. Things won't pick up until the standard and cost of living abroad outstrips the UK and with extreme pverty in countries like China and India that's going to be a very long time, if ever. Only when it will be no longer a viable option to export to the UK, will our industry pick-up and I can't see them letting that happen.

Suppressed?

Oh and the cost was $34k - far more than your average car 15 years ago. And how often did it have to be recharged? Where was the infrastructure of top up stations to support it?

It was uneconomical and impractical for most people - no "conspiracy".

... and not even a mother could love this lumbering two seater with no boot space that cost twice the price of a Mondeo.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=EV1&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Nj9gT8CpGaKX1AXAq-ioBw&ved=0CFsQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=909&sei=QD9gT57zE-qn0QW_8LCcBw

There's no conspiracy or suppression here, just simple capitalism at work - nobody wanted one. However, because capitalism allows us to speculate and invest without answering to anyone but ourselves and the law, it served as a useful progressive test mule for General Motors while raising awareness among Joe Public who were quite at liberty to buy one if they needed their bumps feeling.

Capitalism is ruddy brilliant!

In the interests of keeping this interesting, but inevitably growing longer, discussion, civil and on subject, could I suggest anyone joining at a later stage such as Longcol and Anywebsite read it right from the beginning to understand the initial premise and the build up of the argument, then we won't descend into the nitpicking sidelines of stuff which isn't really important but cloggs up the thread.

I for one am finding it really good to hear different points of view well argued.

......refers to the ability of those with a monopoly in a market to reduce the quality of their goods to a standard below that which one would find in a competetive market.


..................you are considered old-fashioned or uncool if you own a box shape TV. It plays on our sense of the material object representing a status symbol, so in essence it's very manipulative- there's nothing particularly 'better' about a flat screen, it's just fashion.

Also, before you decide that automation can't replace humans...........

Also obsolescence is NOT natural. Please take a look at the actual history of humanity and one thing you'll notice is that human cultures pre-1900 are remarkably conservative with regard to their production of material culture, usually over periods of millenia. For example, the stone hand axe was made by humans in a broadly similar form for about 2.6 million years. The ancient Egyptians created their statues and wall paintings using a remarkably conservative and limiting set of 'artistic rules' over 2 thousand years. If obsolescence is so 'natural' to humans why didn't these early cultures subscribe to a rapid pace of material culture change?



1. How many companies have got a monopoly on their market? I would suggest not many. But, I will buy the idea that some companies make products that can't be upgraded

2. If very stupid people want to rush out and get the new iPad because it's a conversation piece I don't think that's a problem of global corporate greed. It's just exploiting stupidity. Nothing wrong with that. I will buy the idea that fashion in all things drives much of business and it is very wasteful of resources but that's not a problem of capitalism.

3. I'm still not buying your automation argument either. It may be creeping into some areas but I doubt they'll make a machine that can plaster a wall or run in electrical cables and water pipes. Mechanisation can only go so far. Have Tesco got a machine that can fill the shelves, change the price labels or collect the trolleys from the river?

4. I am not sure what your last point is about but perhaps a stone axe was just the best tool for the job until something better came along. I am guessing Ugg the Caveman didn't go to Harvard Business School


Personally I think you are looking at a chaos system and seeing patterns that simply aren't there.

Any suggestions for that product that has been invented but is kept off the market by a global conspiracy? Thought not.

UK workforce has to ask for increased salaries from their employers to make ends meet, so the cost of labour is continually increasing.

Things won't pick up until the standard and cost of living abroad outstrips the UK and with extreme pverty in countries like China and India that's going to be a very long time, if ever. Only when it will be no longer a viable option to export to the UK, will our industry pick-up and I can't see them letting that happen.


Surely one of the reasons wages have risen sharply in this country is the booming taxation system to fund public services. As more money is demanded in taxes so more money is required in wages. Half the money I earn already goes in tax. If I didn't have to pay tax I could offer my labour much more cheaply and my employer would be much more competitive.

Countries like India don't have expensive public services but if they did they would be less competitive. It seems to me we either cut the cost of the public sector to make us more competitive or we export the NHS to India and let them cope with that expensive burden.

Undoubtedly we need some public services but not at the expense of making the country uncompetitive in the world. The alternative is to stop trying to compete on cost and develop new products and services. That requires an education system fit for purpose.

1. How many companies have got a monopoly on their market? I would suggest not many. But, I will buy the idea that some companies make products that can't be upgraded

2. If very stupid people want to rush out and get the new iPad because it's a conversation piece I don't think that's a problem of global corporate greed. It's just exploiting stupidity. Nothing wrong with that. I will buy the idea that fashion in all things drives much of business and it is very wasteful of resources but that's not a problem of capitalism.

3. I'm still not buying your automation argument either. It may be creeping into some areas but I doubt they'll make a machine that can plaster a wall or run in electrical cables and water pipes. Mechanisation can only go so far. Have Tesco got a machine that can fill the shelves, change the price labels or collect the trolleys from the river?

4. I am not sure what your last point is about but perhaps a stone axe was just the best tool for the job until something better came along. I am guessing Ugg the Caveman didn't go to Harvard Business School


Personally I think you are looking at a chaos system and seeing patterns that simply aren't there.

Any suggestions for that product that has been invented but is kept off the market by a global conspiracy? Thought not.

As we rarely know who owns the large Corporations (or has the 51% of the shares,) or whose company has taken over what, it's hard to know who has the momopoly of a particular market. It's going back a long way but at one time Unilever used to own mearly all the major brands of washing powder. despite them coming in different branded boxes.

The whole of the fashion industry relies on 'stupid' people going out and buying stuff they don't need just because it is in fashion. There is a megabucks industry geared to creating this 'need.' It's called advertising.

As for craft industries, so many artisan's jobs have gone that I'm surprised you think this. Woodworking is highly automated and will become more so, as is pottery and cutlery making. As for house building, look at the Swedish model for prefabricated houses which can be put up from scratch in 4 days because all the services are built into the walls ready to be connected up. (yes it still needs some people but I think it's a team of 4 plus a crane driver.)
Yes, Tesco have got a fully automated store, it was on the news recently (because it was having trouble with its technology...)

I think the stone axe argument was about the rate of change. It's speeding up expo

2 of your problems assume monopoly capitalism & don't really exist in most markets, the other one just doesn't really exist.

Artificial scarcity & Planned obsolescence would need either a monopoly or a very tight cartel to operate. In a competitive market at least one supplier should see that they can gain a competitive advantage by overcoming these problems.

A product has to break down or technically expire within a set amount of time in order 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. Doesn't require a monopoly.

Consumption of bottled water quadrupled from 1995 to 2005. The estimate is placed at an average of 200 billion bottles of water every year. The pollution of the water table, combined with the image that bottled water is somehow “purer and cleaner” than tap water has allowed for the growth of this industry and the value of a gallon of bottled water often placed higher than oil! It is clear that the scarcity of an item or material raises its value and is therefore profitable. Hence, it is in a company’s highest interest that what it sells is scarce or at least perceived as such. The water bottling industry isn't a monopoly and there certainly isn't a conspiracy going on among them.

The designer of the EU currency system, Bernard Lietaer (1997), said:
“…greed and fear of scarcity are in fact being continuously created and amplified as a direct result of the kind of money we are using…We can produce more than enough food to feed everybody…but there is clearly not enough money to pay for it all. The scarcity is in our national currencies. In fact, the job of the central banks is to create and maintain that currency scarcity. The direct consequence is that we have to fight with each other in order to survive.”

But he's just a conspiracy theorist right?

Technological unemployment happens, entire industries can be wiped out by advances in technology, but those advances bring with them new economic activity & a net gain.

As an aside, I suggest you do a bit more research into what mechanisation and artificial intelligence is capable today.
Do you know of any sectors capable of replacing the service sector?

John Maynard Keynes (1935):
“We are being afflicted with a new disease of which some readers may not yet have heard the name, but of which they will hear a great deal in the years to come – namely, technological unemployment. This means unemployment due to our discovery of means of economising the use of labour, outrunning the pace at which we find new uses for labour.”

Wassily Leontief (1983):
”The role of humans as the most important factor of production is bound to diminish in the same way that the role of horses in agricultural production was first diminished and then eliminated by the introduction of tractors.”

Note that these quotes are from recognised economists who foresaw 30 and 70 years ago what we fail to see right in front of us.

Capitalism is ruddy brilliant!

Once again, I am not arguing capitalism, I am arguing the monetary system. A monetary system can exist in various political structures, whether its capitalism, communism, fascism, feudalism etc.

PS. 1 billion people living in chronic hunger would disagree.

In the interests of keeping this interesting, but inevitably growing longer, discussion, civil and on subject, could I suggest anyone joining at a later stage such as Longcol and Anywebsite read it right from the beginning to understand the initial premise and the build up of the argument, then we won't descend into the nitpicking sidelines of stuff which isn't really important but cloggs up the thread.

I for one am finding it really good to hear different points of view well argued.

I have read it from the begining you presumptious person. And I take it stuff you regard as "unimportant" is anything that shows some statements made by IAI are patently false.

Why don't you just get to the Zeitgeist stuff - I assume this is where the thread is heading.

And did these visionaries provide any resolutions ?

(Keynes and Leontief)

Im not over impressed with predictions of the blindingly obvious - of my time i have seen butter mountains and wine lakes manipulating the economy whilst those whose very survival could be assured by re distribution pay the ultimate price of being the wrong place in the wrong era.

We do however get the quirky live aid or philanthropist type Bill Gates circumventing governments etc but that only affects distribution by providing a different access to the capitalist markets anyway so i believe we are all in fact doomed and the machines will eventually rule.

Hemibr - 2012

A product has to break down or technically expire within a set amount of time in order 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. Doesn't require a monopoly.

.

Far too simplistic - you're ruling out technological improvement and appear to be assuming all spending is on consumer durables or similar.

Unsurprisingly most peoples outgoings are on housing, heat and light, food, transport and the like. I might by a new car, TV or PC something like once every 7 years.

As we rarely know who owns the large Corporations (or has the 51% of the shares,) or whose company has taken over what, it's hard to know who has the momopoly of a particular market. It's going back a long way but at one time Unilever used to own mearly all the major brands of washing powder. despite them coming in different branded boxes.

The whole of the fashion industry relies on 'stupid' people going out and buying stuff they don't need just because it is in fashion. There is a megabucks industry geared to creating this 'need.' It's called advertising.

As for craft industries, so many artisan's jobs have gone that I'm surprised you think this. Woodworking is highly automated and will become more so, as is pottery and cutlery making. As for house building, look at the Swedish model for prefabricated houses which can be put up from scratch in 4 days because all the services are built into the walls ready to be connected up. (yes it still needs some people but I think it's a team of 4 plus a crane driver.)
Yes, Tesco have got a fully automated store, it was on the news recently (because it was having trouble with its technology...)

I think the stone axe argument was about the rate of change. It's speeding up expo



You can only have a monopoly if you have the rights to the market. Many companies have proprietary products but there are always substitute products. Unilever may have dominated the market but they didn't have a monopoly on it. There were always competitors. Unilever probably bought some of them out but that's a failing of regulation not a global conspiracy. The people who regulate are the ones we vote for so are you taking a big leap in suggesting politicians are allowing big corporations to control markets?

If people are stupid enough to be sucked into the "fashion" cycle they deserve all they get. I see that as a sign of weakness and insecurity and exploiting it is a legitimate business practice. Perhaps they should learn to think for themselves. I consider myself to be reverse fashionable. If everyone is getting or doing something that's a good reason for me not to get it or do it. There's no mystery to it and definitely not part of a global conspiracy.

On your house example I think you'll find a lot of people involved in fabricating the houses and delivering to site, preparation of the site, provision of utilities etc etc. Perhaps if we didn't have a minefield of wretched bureaucracy in this country we could build cheap affordable houses that could be put up in 4 days and solve another crisis.....................housing.

The rate of change has accelerated and nothing is going to stop it. It may get a few setbacks but progress is inevitable unless a few Luddites decide to smash up Tesco's machines......................................not really going to stop progress though is it?

John Maynard Keynes (1935):
“We are being afflicted with a new disease of which some readers may not yet have heard the name, but of which they will hear a great deal in the years to come – namely, technological unemployment. This means unemployment due to our discovery of means of economising the use of labour, outrunning the pace at which we find new uses for labour.”


The obvious solution to that is to produce less humans.

I think Keynes was observing a natural consequence of a system. He wasn't suggesting it is deliberately designed into the system by a cabal of wealthy oligarchs which is what the OP is suggesting.

Far too simplistic - you're ruling out technological improvement and appear to be assuming all spending is on consumer durables or similar.

Unsurprisingly most peoples outgoings are on housing, heat and light, food, transport and the like. I might by a new car, TV or PC something like once every 7 years.

And you appear to be assuming that companies only sell new products because of "technological improvements".

Computer processor manufacturing is a market dominated by two companies: Intel and AMD, with Intel sharing 70% of the market (as of Q1 2011). Intel recently revealed a scheme to sell processors that would have a built in limit, with regards to their processing power. The purchaser would have to pay for this upgrade, at a later date, on top of his initial purchase, in order to harness it’s full potential. For example, a processor is capable of 3Ghz of processing power but has been limited to 2Ghz, requiring a fee to unlock it. Kind of flies into the face of technological improvement, doesn't it?

Apple released the iPhone, a smartphone device, in June 2007. It lacked many features, both basic and advanced, present in many other such devices released before and at the same time as the iPhone. Technologies such as 3G and GPS and video playback were omitted, until exactly a year later Apple release the iPhone 3G including 3G and GPS capability, but with the same performance and no video capability. Again, exactly a year later they release the iPhone 3GS, with video capability and increased performance. Meanwhile, Apple drops support for their older devices, making them susceptible to exploits and forcing their consumers to purchase the next version.

The obvious solution to that is to produce less humans.

I think Keynes was observing a natural consequence of a system. He wasn't suggesting it is deliberately designed into the system by a cabal of wealthy oligarchs which is what the OP is suggesting.

Wow, seriously, try paying more attention to what I'm saying rather than exercising your prejudices. That is what I have been saying all along. It is a natural consequence of the system, hence the title of this thread "IDENTIFYING THE INHERENT PROBLEMS OF A MONETARY SYSTEM".

A product has to break down or technically expire within a set amount of time in order 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. Doesn't require a monopoly.


That statement is utterly absurd. I think you'll find the people who made Tower Bridge, the Forth Road Bridge, the Hoover Dam and a gazillion other things didn't build in obsolecence to force the consumer to buy another one off them at a later date. As sure as eggs is eggs the bloke who "made" my house is dead. Your argument only applies to consumer products at best and not even to many of them.

I have an 8 year old car that is still going strong. Not that many years ago an 8 year old car would have been on it's last knockings. Your argument is that car makers are decreasing the life expectancy of their products when in reality they are extending them by making them better quality.

In reality your argument only applies to consumer electronics which is hardly a global conspiracy.

Thats exploitation use by Sky TV in multiple charging for the same medium fragmented or selling petrol by the litre -We are conditioned to that medium of exploitation - there will be no revolution against that particular brand of capitalism

. Unilever may have dominated the market but they didn't have a monopoly on it. There were always competitors. Unilever probably bought some of them out but that's a failing of regulation not a global conspiracy.

If you notice I have highlighted regulation because it is a political function, nothing to do with a monetary system. I'll keep pointing out this distinction until people realise that Monetary system=/= Capitalism.

If people are stupid enough to be sucked into the "fashion" cycle they deserve all they get. I see that as a sign of weakness and insecurity and exploiting it is a legitimate business practice. Perhaps they should learn to think for themselves. I consider myself to be reverse fashionable. If everyone is getting or doing something that's a good reason for me not to get it or do it.

But not everyone is as strong and secure as you. The majority of people succumb to peer pressure and advertising because it dominates and overwhelms their lives.

The rate of change has accelerated and nothing is going to stop it. It may get a few setbacks but progress is inevitable unless a few Luddites decide to smash up Tesco's machines......................................not really going to stop progress though is it?

I assume the Luddite comment is aimed at me? Is that what you think I'm saying? That we should get back to farming the land?

Wow, seriously, try paying more attention to what I'm saying rather than exercising your prejudices. That is what I have been saying all along. It is a natural consequence of the system, hence the title of this thread "IDENTIFYING THE INHERENT PROBLEMS OF A MONETARY SYSTEM".


Your argument is that large corporations are perpetuating a monetary system for their own gain.

You are not truly debating the point of your OP. You are looking for support, not critique.

And you appear to be assuming that companies only sell new products because of "technological improvements".

Computer processor manufacturing is a market dominated by two companies: Intel and AMD, with Intel sharing 70% of the market (as of Q1 2011). Intel recently revealed a scheme to sell processors that would have a built in limit, with regards to their processing power. The purchaser would have to pay for this upgrade, at a later date, on top of his initial purchase, in order to harness it’s full potential. For example, a processor is capable of 3Ghz of processing power but has been limited to 2Ghz, requiring a fee to unlock it. Kind of flies into the face of technological improvement, doesn't it?

Apple released the iPhone, a smartphone device, in June 2007. It lacked many features, both basic and advanced, present in many other such devices released before and at the same time as the iPhone. Technologies such as 3G and GPS and video playback were omitted, until exactly a year later Apple release the iPhone 3G including 3G and GPS capability, but with the same performance and no video capability. Again, exactly a year later they release the iPhone 3GS, with video capability and increased performance. Meanwhile, Apple drops support for their older devices, making them susceptible to exploits and forcing their consumers to purchase the next version.

So pick on two examples from an area where technology is changing rapidly - but forms only a small percentage of what most people spend their money on - like I said, housing, food, heat & light.

Like I said the analysis of the "cycle" is way too simplistic.

And you appear to be assuming that companies only sell new products because of "technological improvements".

Computer processor manufacturing is a market dominated by two companies: Intel and AMD, with Intel sharing 70% of the market (as of Q1 2011). Intel recently revealed a scheme to sell processors that would have a built in limit, with regards to their processing power. The purchaser would have to pay for this upgrade, at a later date, on top of his initial purchase, in order to harness it’s full potential. For example, a processor is capable of 3Ghz of processing power but has been limited to 2Ghz, requiring a fee to unlock it. Kind of flies into the face of technological improvement, doesn't it?

Apple released the iPhone, a smartphone device, in June 2007. It lacked many features, both basic and advanced, present in many other such devices released before and at the same time as the iPhone. Technologies such as 3G and GPS and video playback were omitted, until exactly a year later Apple release the iPhone 3G including 3G and GPS capability, but with the same performance and no video capability. Again, exactly a year later they release the iPhone 3GS, with video capability and increased performance. Meanwhile, Apple drops support for their older devices, making them susceptible to exploits and forcing their consumers to purchase the next version.


In that case people will buy AMD. If AMD go down the same route regulators should step in (unless they are part of the conspiracy too). New suppliers could step in but the high cost of entry would be a big barrier to the market.

Anyone stupid enough to buy any Apple product is ripe for exploitation. Apple's strategy only has a finite lifespan. Eventually even the thickest will suss they are being taken for a ride and someone else will come up with something more fashionable and desirable that they can rush out and waste their money on.

I think you are looking at a snapshot in time when these business practices are fashionable and successful. In a few years time things may be different as people change their buying habits.

Your argument is that large corporations are perpetuating a monetary system for their own gain.

You are not truly debating the point of your OP. You are looking for support, not critique.

I think you've nailed it Jim.

The OP appears to have recently mugged up on a theory that they think explains everything to everybody and is promoting in with the fervour of the newly converted.

Been there, done that myself when I was a lot younger - in those days the theory was Marxism.

As we rarely know who owns the large Corporations (or has the 51% of the shares,) or whose company has taken over what, it's hard to know who has the momopoly of a particular market. It's going back a long way but at one time Unilever used to own mearly all the major brands of washing powder. despite them coming in different branded boxes.
It's not hard at all, you just have to put in some effort. Nobody will spoon feed you this information, but if it's washing powder that you are worried about, you can simply read the label.

What exactly is your issue here? You seem to be tilting at the bogie man.

Once again, I am not arguing capitalism, I am arguing the monetary system. A monetary system can exist in various political structures, whether its capitalism, communism, fascism, feudalism etc.

PS. 1 billion people living in chronic hunger would disagree.

Prophylactics can solve that problem within a generation. No robots needed.

Surely one of the reasons wages have risen sharply in this country is the booming taxation system to fund public services. As more money is demanded in taxes so more money is required in wages. Half the money I earn already goes in tax. If I didn't have to pay tax I could offer my labour much more cheaply and my employer would be much more competitive.

Countries like India don't have expensive public services but if they did they would be less competitive. It seems to me we either cut the cost of the public sector to make us more competitive or we export the NHS to India and let them cope with that expensive burden.

Undoubtedly we need some public services but not at the expense of making the country uncompetitive in the world. The alternative is to stop trying to compete on cost and develop new products and services. That requires an education system fit for purpose.

No, it is down to pure corporate greed and to make profit for greedy shareholders. Right now, the Civil Service is being slashed, so we're going to see reduced prices in the shops? I think not.

No, it is down to pure corporate greed and to make profit for greedy shareholders. Right now, the Civil Service is being slashed, so we're going to see reduced prices in the shops? I think not.


So you're saying wages are going UP to make profits for greedy shareholders?

The civil service is being slashed because it costs more than we earn.

The flaws in the monetary system reflect the flaws in our characteristics as human beings. Good luck with changing that.

So you're saying wages are going UP to make profits for greedy shareholders?

The civil service is being slashed because it costs more than we earn.

No it doesn't and answer my question.

If very stupid people want to rush out and get the new iPad because it's a conversation piece I don't think that's a problem of global corporate greed. It's just exploiting stupidity. Nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with exploiting people, right.

I will buy the idea that fashion in all things drives much of business and it is very wasteful of resources but that's not a problem of capitalism.

Not arguing capitalism.

We are conditioned to that medium of exploitation - there will be no revolution against that particular brand of capitalism

Not arguing capitalism.

You are not truly debating the point of your OP.

If I'm not debating my OP, its because I've been led on all sorts of irrelevant tangents on conspiracy theories and capitalism.

You are looking for support, not critique.

I think we all appreciate a bit of support for our ideas, makes us feel less lonely, no?

Your argument is that large corporations are perpetuating a monetary system for their own gain.

Well, I'm either a terrible communicator or you're a terrible reader. Let me condense my argument as much as possible: the monetary system is a free-for-all. Individuals, NOT corporations, perpetuate their own survival in order to secure their place in a world of scarcity. Those Individuals don't necessarily conspire with one another, but sometimes they share common interests and will take similar actions to fulfill them. They don't get together and gather in a dark room and twiddle their fingers, in fact they could be living in opposite corners of the world and not even be aware of each other's existence. Sometimes their actions will result in benefiting the wider populace, other times they will be damaging. All I'm pointing out is how they are damaging.

Before monetary exchange, we had the barter system. In the barter system people would trade goods, rather than money. A limitation of that system is that if I have 300 tons of hay and someone tries to sell me more hay in exchange for milk, I will naturally deny. He might need it to feed his kids, but I need to trade the milk for clothes. See how I am perpetuating my own survival without having engaged in conspiracy? Since the monetary system is just an evolution of the barter system, you can extrapolate my example accordingly.

The OP appears to have recently mugged up on a theory that they think explains everything to everybody and is promoting in with the fervour of the newly converted.

I can spend a lifetime addressing every single point of anecdotal evidence you bring up, but I prefer to look at the bigger picture.

I think the fervour with which you are denying every single point I make is more of an indicator of who's trying to cling onto a decadent and obsolete system they are emotionally attached to. You won't even accede that technological unemployment will eventually decimate the concept of having to work for a living, when there is a mountain of evidence that points at exactly that direction. So, there is little point in trying to reason with the self-appointed guardians of what has effectively become the religion of money.

The flaws in the monetary system reflect the flaws in our characteristics as human beings. Good luck with changing that.

Modern psychological and sociological study has found that human actions are subject to environmental input. The behaviours that are rewarded by the culture also tend to be perpetuated. For example, it is commonly considered a "moral" issue when a corporation deliberately pollutes the environment to save money. Many claim that the corporation's people must be "corrupt" for allowing this. The flaw, however, exists in the assumption. If we exist in a system that allows us to save money and hence survive by being exploitative, abusive or indifferent to the world around us, why should we not expect it to be the norm, especially in a system based on competition where gaining advantage is the goal? Corruption is being reinforced. The solution cannot be more laws to try and stop this behavior but to create a social system that doesn't reward such behavior at all. Laws are patchwork that act against the internal logic of the system.


I would like some answers to these questions. Do you consider the monetary system to be an effective incentive for people to contribute towards improving mankind's living standards? Do you consider the monetary system to be the apex of our socioeconomic evolution? Do you see us using money until the end of time?

Nothing wrong with exploiting people, right.
How is giving people stuff that they choose to have any sort of exploitation?

Watched the Secret of Oz last night (can be found on youtube). Interesting documentary on the monetary system, but i struggled with the loose connections to Oz. Not sure it was necessary.

Greetings everyone

This is going to be a rather long post (which I apologise for and have done my best to be as succinct as possible) so take your time with it. I would rather not indicate who I am or which organisations I advocate because it would immediately spark prejudicial judgements, but some of you already know so I'll just go ahead and do it. 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. I was invited by a member of this forum to post my ideas of what an alternative system to our current socioeconomic system would entail. As a precursor to that, I would like to highlight several inherent problems within our current system which you will have to acknowledge if you are to be open to a solution outside the box.

To clarify, the monetary system is an economic structure that facilitates the distribution of goods and services through the use of money. Money, whether in the form of paper, plastic or digital, is the primary medium of exchange. It is not to be confused with capitalism or the free market, since it describes economic functions rather than political ones, regardless of the effects one might have on the other.

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.



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. 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.


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.


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. 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.



So to summarise:

Cyclical Consumption is a crock. It may apply to some electronic consumer goods but little else.

Planned Obsolecence is a crock. It may apply to consumer goods but little else.

Technological Unemployment is a crock. Mechanisation has it's limits but there will always be a need for people and the real way to stop unemployment is to stop making more people than jobs.

Artificial Scarcity is a crock. There is absolutely no evidence for it.


So it appears there are no serious inherent problems with the monetary system. Just as well as it's the only system there is.

So it appears there are no serious inherent problems with the monetary system. Just as well as it's the only system there is.

Do you really believe that Jim? There are no serious inherent problems with our monetary system?

If i go to the bank tomorrow, to get a business loan, i have to pay that bank a percentage of interest, most likely 5-10% over base rate.

Where does the bank get that money from?

Do you really believe that Jim? There are no serious inherent problems with our monetary system?

If i go to the bank tomorrow, to get a business loan, i have to pay that bank a percentage of interest, most likely 5-10% over base rate.

Where does the bank get that money from?

from either it's depositors or from money the bank itself has borrowed from someone else.

why, in general, is that bad?

from either it's depositors or from money the bank itself has borrowed from someone else.

why, in general, is that bad?

A bank only retains a small percentage from depositors. They leverage the rest.

Its well worth having a look at some of the Positive Money youtube videos or numerous other people who explain our present monetary DEBT system.

The current system is insolvent and will undoubtedly create many more issues for us, before it all comes crashing down.

Does anyone seriously believe any country in the EEC, Japan or USA are going to pay back these debts we have created in the last 10 years?

We are not even touching the interest payments. We are all borrowing more each and every day.

It bodes badly.

So it appears there are no serious inherent problems with the monetary system. Just as well as it's the only system there is.

You should have told me that from the beginning, instead of wasting my time trying to prove to you the faults of a system you zealously and religiously believe in.

Watched the Secret of Oz last night (can be found on youtube). Interesting documentary on the monetary system, but i struggled with the loose connections to Oz. Not sure it was necessary.

There are many documentaries out there that do a very good job of explaining problems, such as Money As Debt, but many of them end up proposing very superficial solutions.

A bank only retains a small percentage from depositors. They leverage the rest.

Its well worth having a look at some of the Positive Money youtube videos or numerous other people who explain our present monetary DEBT system.

The current system is insolvent and will undoubtedly create many more issues for us, before it all comes crashing down.

Does anyone seriously believe any country in the EEC, Japan or USA are going to pay back these debts we have created in the last 10 years?

We are not even touching the interest payments. We are all borrowing more each and every day.

It bodes badly.

Thank you for pointing this out Green. Although Fractional Reserve Banking isn't a necessary component for a monetary system to exist, it certainly exists in the current one. It's basically a big black hole that keeps sucking money and people suffer as a result.

A bank only retains a small percentage from depositors. They leverage the rest.


Indeed, but fractional reserve banking has worked for hundreds of years and has provided the resources for everything from the industrial revolution onwards.


The current system is insolvent and will undoubtedly create many more issues for us, before it all comes crashing down.

Does anyone seriously believe any country in the EEC, Japan or USA are going to pay back these debts we have created in the last 10 years?

We are not even touching the interest payments. We are all borrowing more each and every day.

It bodes badly.

Indeed, what is needed is a massive, coordinated write off of all this debt. The problem is that the globalised nature of banking means you need the agreement of pretty much every country which is pretty much impossible to achieve.

The other thing is that it means the end of the neolibconwotsit abomination we've suffered under for the last 30 years which would require the major political parties around the world to admit they have been wrong and the lack the courage to both do this and make the necessary changes to fix the system and keep it fixed.

If I'm not debating my OP, its because I've been led on all sorts of irrelevant tangents on conspiracy theories <snip>




Which you yourself introduced to the thread in post #22.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8674647&postcount=22

I would have to suggest IAchilleasI that the inherent problems within our modern capitalist economy are not the technical issues that you described in your OP rather that these are the symptoms that arise from having an economy that is based upon competition and which is prone to regular crises.

I really respect Peter Joseph/ Jaque Fresco's visionary ideas of a socialist resource-based economy.

I love the idea of technology and robotics replacing, on a much much broader scale than we currently have today, the menial mundane labour that too many humans are forced to perform for disgracefully low wages.

I love the idea that billions of human minds would be freed up from this unnecessary work in order to follow their real passions, whatever they may be. I'd love to live through the transition period, what a phenomenal cultural and technological explosion would occur! I'd love to see people being able to develop their research and creativity, in whatever field it may be, within a socially inspired culture rather than being hampered by the narrow focus of a profit driven culture.

I love the idea that people would be given the time to follow their passions by advancing their training and education without restraint throughout their lives rather than having such a big focus at the start and then being ushered into a particular industry.

I love the idea that sharing a pool of consumer items such as cars would reduce the ridiculous amount of waste that occurs when everybody has their own but keep it sat on the driveway 50% of the time. All of our 'stuff' that sits there unused most of the time, it's such a waste of precious finite resources.

Money is just an efficient tool for for transferring goods, if the monetary system is broken it's because the wielders of that tool, namely society, is broken due to the greed, power and corruption that inevitably emerge when a competetive economy keeps crashing. Capitalism can never be stabilised in the way that is needed to prevent these unpleasant human characteristics from developing and it is too efficient and wasteful of finite resources to be continued ad infinitum.

Those resources have already begun to run out, but too few of us even contemplate the wider or longer term consequences of this. We're in a population bubble, 6 billion more people are alive today than is our 'normal' level and that growth has occurred in just the past 150 years. See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.png

All animal species are prone to bubbles when resources are readily available, but in every single case that population bubble has burst once the integral resource has become depleted- we're no different. Capitalism needs growth, it can't be sustained through a declining population and resource base so I completely agree with you, it's time to start considering the alternatives more seriously. We need to manage our resources far more effectively.

The Venus Project may be far from perfect, but to me the underlying vision of how society might organise itself through advanced technology and a resource-based economy seems far more human and hopeful than the system we live with today.

Indeed, but fractional reserve banking has worked for hundreds of years and has provided the resources for everything from the industrial revolution onwards.



Indeed, what is needed is a massive, coordinated write off of all this debt. The problem is that the globalised nature of banking means you need the agreement of pretty much every country which is pretty much impossible to achieve.

The other thing is that it means the end of the neolibconwotsit abomination we've suffered under for the last 30 years which would require the major political parties around the world to admit they have been wrong and the lack the courage to both do this and make the necessary changes to fix the system and keep it fixed.

We often agree....and i very much like that.

You may enjoy The Secret of Oz. If you watch it, dm me what you think. Im curious to discuss it with like minded people. :)

3. I'm still not buying your automation argument either. It may be creeping into some areas but I doubt they'll make a machine that can plaster a wall or run in electrical cables and water pipes. Mechanisation can only go so far. Have Tesco got a machine that can fill the shelves, change the price labels or collect the trolleys from the river?


Are you sure Jim?

Take a look:

http://www.pathnet.org/sp.asp?id=7542

Which you yourself introduced to the thread in post #22.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8674647&postcount=22

If you had read a bit further down, you would have seen this:

Well, I'm either a terrible communicator or you're a terrible reader. Let me condense my argument as much as possible: the monetary system is a free-for-all. Individuals, NOT corporations, perpetuate their own survival in order to secure their place in a world of scarcity. Those Individuals don't necessarily conspire with one another, but sometimes they share common interests and will take similar actions to fulfill them. They don't get together and gather in a dark room and twiddle their fingers, in fact they could be living in opposite corners of the world and not even be aware of each other's existence. Sometimes their actions will result in benefiting the wider populace, other times they will be damaging. All I'm pointing out is how they are damaging.

Before monetary exchange, we had the barter system. In the barter system people would trade goods, rather than money. A limitation of that system is that if I have 300 tons of hay and someone tries to sell me more hay in exchange for milk, I will naturally deny. He might need it to feed his kids, but I need to trade the milk for clothes. See how I am perpetuating my own survival without having engaged in conspiracy? Since the monetary system is just an evolution of the barter system, you can extrapolate my example accordingly.

Indeed, what is needed is a massive, coordinated write off of all this debt.

Doesn't it seem a bit silly though? Building a massive amount of debt and every time we realise its too massive to pay back, we just write the debt off? Why create the debt in the first place?

Are you sure Jim?

Take a look:

http://www.pathnet.org/sp.asp?id=7542

Be fun to try getting one of them into my loft to look at the header tank or under the floorboards to check the waste pipe from the shower.

I'll stick with the plumber.

Be fun to try getting one of them into my loft to look at the header tank or under the floorboards to check the waste pipe from the shower.

I'll stick with the plumber.

How about these little fella's then? They'd be perfectly happy in your loft :)

http://www.gizmag.com/snake-like-robots-construction-work/10565/

I would have to suggest IAchilleasI that the inherent problems within our modern capitalist economy are not the technical issues that you described in your OP rather that these are the symptoms that arise from having an economy that is based upon competition and which is prone to regular crises.

Yes definitely, it is just that I am very particular and peculiar with my personal semantic definition of words but am not very good at explaining them. Thank you for the thoughtful post.

If you had read a bit further down, you would have seen this:

Which has nothing at all to do with you introducing conspiracy theories to the thread and then complaining about the thread being sidetracked.

Anyhow - you seem to have skipped answering anything that doesn't fit to this rigid system of "cyclical consumption" (housing, energy, food etc as I've mentioned a couple of times).

Cut to the quick - where are the solutions to give us a wonderful nirvana?

How about these little fella's then? They'd be perfectly happy in your loft :)

http://www.gizmag.com/snake-like-robots-construction-work/10565/

And drag it's laptop with it?

"Currently the robots are tethered to laptops"

diagnose the problem in my header tank and fix it in ten minutes.

Can it use a screwdriver or a wrench in a confined space?

Doesn't it seem a bit silly though? Building a massive amount of debt and every time we realise its too massive to pay back, we just write the debt off? Why create the debt in the first place?

there are all sorts of reasons why the debt appeared, the short termism which has bedevelled politicians and industry, the belief that it could be repaid, wanting something now rather than waiting until it could be afforded.

whatever the reason it's here now and the world cannot move forward until it's reduced, so silly or not a planned, coordinated write off is the only way out.

there are all sorts of reasons why the debt appeared, the short termism which has bedevelled politicians and industry, the belief that it could be repaid, wanting something now rather than waiting until it could be afforded.

whatever the reason it's here now and the world cannot move forward until it's reduced, so silly or not a planned, coordinated write off is the only way out.

Absolutely, but what I meant was, if the debt was indeed written off, what then? Do we carrry on as usual until the debt becomes massive and procceed to write it of again?

Writing off the debt is a problem in itself.

Is the debt written off at source? Do mortgage or credit card holders get to write off their debts? Or is it just Countries that can eradicate their debts?

I cant help thinking that the continual kicking the can down the road in the EEC / PIIGS debt problems, is so that eventually it is to change the monetary system, as politicians havent got the balls to do it now.

Absolutely, but what I meant was, if the debt was indeed written off, what then? Do we carrry on as usual until the debt becomes massive and procceed to write it of again?

hopefully not

at the end of the process there needs to be more intrusive regulation and also a change of attitude amongst consumers which would give the system more stability

Writing off the debt is a problem in itself.

Is the debt written off at source? Do mortgage or credit card holders get to write off their debts? Or is it just Countries that can eradicate their debts?

I cant help thinking that the continual kicking the can down the road in the EEC / PIIGS debt problems, is so that eventually it is to change the monetary system, as politicians havent got the balls to do it now.

ultimately the debt is either going to be repaid or written off. it can be done now in a controlled manner or in the future in a mad scramble.

ending fractional reserve banking isn't going to solve this, if anything it will make it worse since you're removing money from the economy which will cause massive deflation.

hopefully not

at the end of the process there needs to be more intrusive regulation and also a change of attitude amongst consumers which would give the system more stability

Regulation sounds a bit like patchwork to me, but a value shift is definitely required.

On another subject, here's an interesting article (http://owni.eu/2011/05/09/planned-obsolescence-how-companies-encourage-hyperconsumption/) I managed to dug up from some of my earlier research.

I really respect Peter Joseph/ Jaque Fresco's visionary ideas of a socialist resource-based economy.



Bingo!! So this has got nothing to do with monetary systems at all. It's just more Socialist loonacy. I might have known.

So now we know the alternative to a monetary system is robots doing all the work while the people sit around in Jacuzzis drinking champagne. Now I really have heard it all.

And drag it's laptop with it?

"Currently the robots are tethered to laptops"

diagnose the problem in my header tank and fix it in ten minutes.

Can it use a screwdriver or a wrench in a confined space?



Don't waste your time on these loons. They don't even know what a screwdriver is. They've read in an academic paper that robots will be able to take over the world freeing up the monetarist enslaved proles to pursue higher aims. Don't bring them down with minor details like getting a robot into your loft. I already tried that with electrical wiring but they dodged it.

Perhaps once they've got the system up and running on their planet they'll tell us how they did it.

“To all whom it may concern ! Sluggishly circulating money has provoked an unprecedented trade depression and plunged millions into utter misery. Economically considered, the destruction of the world has started. - It is time, through determined and intelligent action, to endeavour to arrest the downward plunge of the trade machine and thereby to save mankind from fratricidal wars, chaos, and dissolution. Human beings live by exchanging their services. Sluggish circulation has largely stopped this exchange and thrown millions of willing workers out of employment. - We must therefore revive this exchange of services and by its means bring the unemployed back to the ranks of the producers. Such is the object of the labour certificate issued by the market town of Wörgl : it softens sufferings dread; it offers work and bread.”

Was the inscription upon the labour certificates issued in the form of a complementary demurrage currency in the town of Worgl.

Full employment and prosperity resulted, before the currency was banned.

The Central Bank

The Central Bank panicked, and decided to assert its monopoly rights by banning complimentary currencies. The case was brought in front of the Austrian Supreme Court, which upheld the Central Banks monopoly over issuing currency. It then became a criminal offence to issue “emergency currency”. Worgl quickly returned to 30% unemployment. Social unrest spread rapidly across Austria. In 1938 Hitler annexed Austria and many people welcomed Hitler as their economic and political savior.

Germany was headed towards WWII and with the aftermath of the war much of what happened in pre war Germany just like what happened during the war was suppressed by the world. Germany was being rebuilt in the West’s image. The Worgl experiment was relegated to history.

Don't waste your time on these loons. They don't even know what a screwdriver is. They've read in an academic paper that robots will be able to take over the world freeing up the monetarist enslaved proles to pursue higher aims. Don't bring them down with minor details like getting a robot into your loft. I already tried that with electrical wiring but they dodged it.

Perhaps once they've got the system up and running on their planet they'll tell us how they did it.

I'm a trained tradesperson amongst other things lol, I specialised in electrics! You see how you never get anything right Jim?

Bingo!! So this has got nothing to do with monetary systems at all. It's just more Socialist loonacy. I might have known.

So now we know the alternative to a monetary system is robots doing all the work while the people sit around in Jacuzzis drinking champagne. Now I really have heard it all.

Socialism is an economic system you numbskull!

I'm a trained tradesperson amongst other things lol, I specialised in electrics! You see how you never get anything right Jim?

You can't seriously think a robot is going to build another robot that can do all the jobs you can do as a skilled tradesperson while you rake in the cash and sit in your jacuzzi drinking champagne.

Socialism may be an economic system but it doesn't work. It never has and it never will. It's a fantasy, an unachievable utopia that has been tried and tried and all but abandoned.

It's all very well dreaming of a world where robots build robots to do everything but there will always be people needed to create all sorts of things and provide services. If you crash your robot built car on the motorway in your world a robot police droid will come to your aid and a robot paramedic droid will take you to hospital where a robot surgeon droid will operate on you. But, back in the real world there will always be a need for people. All that will happen is the people who are working will keep all the wealth which is pretty much what happens now

Socialism does not work because people are NOT equal. End of story. Why would the working people give it away to all those loons lazing around in their jacuzzis drinking champagne and "developing" themselves. Today we call it the tax system where those who do work are legally robbed and have to give it to those who don't work. I agree that aspect of monetarism is inherently faulty because it creates an irresponsible underclass. That's divisive which is the opposite of socialism.

I don't know how old you are but I'm guessing if you are under 30 you have years of frustrating disappointment ahead of you. We had all this technology will break us free nonsense years ago and all it has done is divide between the haves and have nots. Take some good advice and make sure you are one of the haves. There are lots of people on this forum who think life owes them a living. They are the bitter, disappointed ones because they aren't sitting in jacuzzis drinking champagne while someone else does all the heavy lifting.

Modern psychological and sociological study has found that human actions are subject to environmental input. The behaviours that are rewarded by the culture also tend to be perpetuated. For example, it is commonly considered a "moral" issue when a corporation deliberately pollutes the environment to save money. Many claim that the corporation's people must be "corrupt" for allowing this. The flaw, however, exists in the assumption. If we exist in a system that allows us to save money and hence survive by being exploitative, abusive or indifferent to the world around us, why should we not expect it to be the norm, especially in a system based on competition where gaining advantage is the goal? Corruption is being reinforced. The solution cannot be more laws to try and stop this behavior but to create a social system that doesn't reward such behavior at all. Laws are patchwork that act against the internal logic of the system.

Greed, corruption and self-interest do not exist because 'the system' allows it but because humans have evolved in an unfair, survival of the fittest world. Humans need to inherently change before the system can.


I would like some answers to these questions. Do you consider the monetary system to be an effective incentive for people to contribute towards improving mankind's living standards? Do you consider the monetary system to be the apex of our socioeconomic evolution? Do you see us using money until the end of time?

No I don't. But that doesn't mean we are on the threshold of a new order either. Humans are simple too 'base' at this moment in time... maybe in a millennia or two?

You can't seriously think a robot is going to build another robot that can do all the jobs you can do as a skilled tradesperson while you rake in the cash and sit in your jacuzzi drinking champagne.

Socialism may be an economic system but it doesn't work. It never has and it never will. It's a fantasy, an unachievable utopia that has been tried and tried and all but abandoned.

It's all very well dreaming of a world where robots build robots to do everything but there will always be people needed to create all sorts of things and provide services. If you crash your robot built car on the motorway in your world a robot police droid will come to your aid and a robot paramedic droid will take you to hospital where a robot surgeon droid will operate on you. But, back in the real world there will always be a need for people. All that will happen is the people who are working will keep all the wealth which is pretty much what happens now

Socialism does not work because people are NOT equal. End of story. Why would the working people give it away to all those loons lazing around in their jacuzzis drinking champagne and "developing" themselves. Today we call it the tax system where those who do work are legally robbed and have to give it to those who don't work. I agree that aspect of monetarism is inherently faulty because it creates an irresponsible underclass. That's divisive which is the opposite of socialism.

I don't know how old you are but I'm guessing if you are under 30 you have years of frustrating disappointment ahead of you. We had all this technology will break us free nonsense years ago and all it has done is divide between the haves and have nots. Take some good advice and make sure you are one of the haves. There are lots of people on this forum who think life owes them a living. They are the bitter, disappointed ones because they aren't sitting in jacuzzis drinking champagne while someone else does all the heavy lifting.

You must have a fetish for champagne and jacuzzis.

but because humans have evolved in an unfair, survival of the fittest world.

That's basically what I said, you just put it into different words.

But that doesn't mean we are on the threshold of a new order either. Humans are simple too 'base' at this moment in time... maybe in a millennia or two?

What we need is a value shift and a change in consiousness on the scale of the Rennaisance. If it could happen hundreds of years ago, in the darkest times of history, amidst fervent religious opposition, why can it not happen now/in a few years/in a few decades?

What we need is a value shift and a change in consiousness on the scale of the Rennaisance. If it could happen hundreds of years ago, in the darkest times of history, amidst fervent religious opposition, why can it not happen now/in a few years/in a few decades?

Then you're talking to the wrong audience - you need to convince the likes of the USA, China etc - not a few people on SF.

You must have a fetish for champagne and jacuzzis.



What we need is a value shift and a change in consiousness on the scale of the Rennaisance. If it could happen hundreds of years ago, in the darkest times of history, amidst fervent religious opposition, why can it not happen now/in a few years/in a few decades?



I don't like champagne but I dislike champagne socialists even more.


I think we have already had a value shift but it's gone too far. We've now reached the point where everyone has rights but nobody has responsibilities. The work ethic has been lost only to be replaced with a right to something for nothing. In the rush to share the wealth around and protect the poor and needy we have forgotten how to create true wealth but we haven't lost the ability to spend.

Then you're talking to the wrong audience - you need to convince the likes of the USA, China etc - not a few people on SF.

There are other people around the world who share my train of thought and engage in activism. I play my part in the town I live, whether its online or IRL.

we have forgotten how to create true wealth

What does this true wealth consist of?

What we need is a value shift and a change in consiousness on the scale of the Rennaisance. If it could happen hundreds of years ago, in the darkest times of history, amidst fervent religious opposition, why can it not happen now/in a few years/in a few decades?

I am not convinced, as you seem to be, that the Renaissance resulted in any inherent human value shift or change in consciousness. You imply that the less than laudable traits of humanity only remain because they have been 'locked-in' and encouraged by the monetary system. I don't agree. The traits remain because they remain an inherent part of our genetic make-up and the monetary system is a product of 'us' and not the other way around.

However, if you think there is a system that can help humanity make an evolutionary quantum leap forward then we are are all ears.

The traits remain because they remain an inherent part of our genetic make-up and the monetary system is a product of 'us' and not the other way around. .

So you're saying people are born greedy and corrupt?

So you're saying people are born greedy and corrupt?

Have you got kids?

There are other people around the world who share my train of thought and engage in activism. I play my part in the town I live, whether its online or IRL.

yeah - it's the talk of all the forums in the world.

Interesting to see how "popular" for instance the Venus Project website is - 66,000th most popular website in the USA :cool:

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/thevenusproject.com

and that the main visitors are;

"males who are in the age range 18-24, have no children, received some college education and browse this site from home."

What does this true wealth consist of?


I'm guessing you aren't much of a wealth creator.

What constitutes a wealth creator to you Jim?

Have you got kids?

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

yeah - it's the talk of all the forums in the world.


I didn't say there are millions of people who advocate it, did I?


and that the main visitors are;

"males who are in the age range 18-24, have no children, received some college education and browse this site from home."

Well, if that's not worthy of scorn, I don't know what is.

In the interests of keeping this interesting, but inevitably growing longer, discussion, civil and on subject, could I suggest anyone joining at a later stage such as Longcol and Anywebsite read it right from the beginning to understand the initial premise and the build up of the argument, then we won't descend into the nitpicking sidelines of stuff which isn't really important but cloggs up the thread.

I for one am finding it really good to hear different points of view well argued.

I did Anna.

Thanks for your condescending reply anyway. I suppose that means you've got no real response & don't want to debate with anybody that disagrees with you.

Greed, corruption and self-interest do not exist because 'the system' allows it but because humans have evolved in an unfair, survival of the fittest world. Humans need to inherently change before the system can.

No I don't. But that doesn't mean we are on the threshold of a new order either. Humans are simple too 'base' at this moment in time... maybe in a millennia or two?

I realise I'm getting repetetive because I keep pulling people up when they make these types of statements BUT...humans evolved for the vast majority of our history with an egalitarian and cooperative system in which each individual member of the group was as politically powerful as any other member. People shared- they shared their food, they shared their ideas and they had incredibly rich social relationships that tied them together as a strong coherent unit, which is what enabled us to survive.

There is NO evidence of leadership in early human societies right up until the late Bronze Age when people began to covet precious metals and protect trade routes, there's no evidence of warlike behaviour (only of occasional individual cases of violence- and they're very rare!) and no evidence of hierarchical religious or economic systems, so why people like to perpetuate myths like we evolved in an 'unfair, survival of the fittest' society is completely beyond me!

It's not beyond us to work together, as IAchilleasI has stated, it's really just a matter of believing that we can.

I realise I'm getting repetetive because I keep pulling people up when they make these types of statements BUT...humans evolved for the vast majority of our history with an egalitarian and cooperative system in which each individual member of the group was as politically powerful as any other member. People shared- they shared their food, they shared their ideas and they had incredibly rich social relationships that tied them together as a strong coherent unit, which is what enabled us to survive.

There is NO evidence of leadership in early human societies right up until the late Bronze Age when people began to covet precious metals and protect trade routes, there's no evidence of warlike behaviour (only of occasional individual cases of violence- and they're very rare!) and no evidence of hierarchical religious or economic systems, so why people like to perpetuate myths like we evolved in an 'unfair, survival of the fittest' society is completely beyond me!

It's not beyond us to work together, as IAchilleasI has stated, it's really just a matter of believing that we can.

And then came over population and scare resources, welcome, to the matrix...

And then came over population and scare resources, welcome, to the matrix...

You wouldn't know about this Spooky3, they hide this type of information from you in books...

You can't seriously think a robot is going to build another robot that can do all the jobs you can do as a skilled tradesperson while you rake in the cash and sit in your jacuzzi drinking champagne.

Socialism may be an economic system but it doesn't work. It never has and it never will. It's a fantasy, an unachievable utopia that has been tried and tried and all but abandoned.

It's all very well dreaming of a world where robots build robots to do everything but there will always be people needed to create all sorts of things and provide services. If you crash your robot built car on the motorway in your world a robot police droid will come to your aid and a robot paramedic droid will take you to hospital where a robot surgeon droid will operate on you. But, back in the real world there will always be a need for people. All that will happen is the people who are working will keep all the wealth which is pretty much what happens now

Socialism does not work because people are NOT equal. End of story. Why would the working people give it away to all those loons lazing around in their jacuzzis drinking champagne and "developing" themselves. Today we call it the tax system where those who do work are legally robbed and have to give it to those who don't work. I agree that aspect of monetarism is inherently faulty because it creates an irresponsible underclass. That's divisive which is the opposite of socialism.

I don't know how old you are but I'm guessing if you are under 30 you have years of frustrating disappointment ahead of you. We had all this technology will break us free nonsense years ago and all it has done is divide between the haves and have nots. Take some good advice and make sure you are one of the haves. There are lots of people on this forum who think life owes them a living. They are the bitter, disappointed ones because they aren't sitting in jacuzzis drinking champagne while someone else does all the heavy lifting.

Sigh... Jim the truth is that your utopian fantasy that has never worked is in fact capitalism. Capitalism began as a utopian ideal- Adam Smith, for example, believed that a liberal mix of free markets and social equality would provide the best of all possible economies. We've never had either, rather we've had this ultra-hierarchical, poorly regulated version of corrupt crony capitalism that relies upon socialist bail-outs for all of its 'too big to fails'.

Now, you might despise the left wing, fine that's your perogative, but at the same time you really ought to despise this shoddy economic system that is essentially rigged to ensure that all of that productive wealth you and everyone else creates is shunted upwards, one way or another, into the pockets of the elites.

So you hate socialism and want to keep capitalism, great!- how are you going to go about convincing me that it can be rescued in a manner that will address the issues raised in the OP as well as the underlying problem of social dysfunction that arises from the unfair accumulation of wealth by the elite few?

I realise I'm getting repetetive because I keep pulling people up when they make these types of statements BUT...humans evolved for the vast majority of our history with an egalitarian and cooperative system in which each individual member of the group was as politically powerful as any other member. People shared- they shared their food, they shared their ideas and they had incredibly rich social relationships that tied them together as a strong coherent unit, which is what enabled us to survive.

There is NO evidence of leadership in early human societies right up until the late Bronze Age when people began to covet precious metals and protect trade routes, there's no evidence of warlike behaviour (only of occasional individual cases of violence- and they're very rare!) and no evidence of hierarchical religious or economic systems, so why people like to perpetuate myths like we evolved in an 'unfair, survival of the fittest' society is completely beyond me!



So they co-operated within their own group and had no leaders - and only fought when they came into contact with other tribes / villages - starting a good 12,000 years ago.

Remind me the population of the world then.

Capitalism began as a utopian ideal <snip>

No it didn't - it began effectively as soon as people started trading with each other.

You wouldn't know about this Spooky3, they hide this type of information from you in books...

mmm, I should go out there and study some organisms for wheel

Sigh... Jim the truth is that your utopian fantasy that has never worked is in fact capitalism. Capitalism began as a utopian ideal- Adam Smith, for example, believed that a liberal mix of free markets and social equality would provide the best of all possible economies. We've never had either, rather we've had this ultra-hierarchical, poorly regulated version of corrupt crony capitalism that relies upon socialist bail-outs for all of its 'too big to fails'.

Now, you might despise the left wing, fine that's your perogative, but at the same time you really ought to despise this shoddy economic system that is essentially rigged to ensure that all of that productive wealth you and everyone else creates is shunted upwards, one way or another, into the pockets of the elites.

So you hate socialism and want to keep capitalism, great!- how are you going to go about convincing me that it can be rescued in a manner that will address the issues raised in the OP as well as the underlying problem of social dysfunction that arises from the unfair accumulation of wealth by the elite few?

Every one of my ideas starts way out left, so in no way do I despise left whingers. The only problem is that the left needs reigning in to the centre a little, but in no way would I ever want to get rid of your corner.

No matter what country you go to there are the large companies and people on top, no it doesn't seem fair but it's the way it shakes down, there are divides between economic tiers and the difference varies in spats and starts (notice the technical jargon!), but they are relative to each other, and one feeds another.

As to saving something like a part of an international banking system, saying that the collapse would have had created something much worse and would have affected the mass majority of us in one way or another, then yes, the decision was taken.

I realise I'm getting repetetive because I keep pulling people up when they make these types of statements BUT...humans evolved for the vast majority of our history with an egalitarian and cooperative system in which each individual member of the group was as politically powerful as any other member. People shared- they shared their food, they shared their ideas and they had incredibly rich social relationships that tied them together as a strong coherent unit, which is what enabled us to survive.

There is NO evidence of leadership in early human societies right up until the late Bronze Age when people began to covet precious metals and protect trade routes, there's no evidence of warlike behaviour (only of occasional individual cases of violence- and they're very rare!) and no evidence of hierarchical religious or economic systems, so why people like to perpetuate myths like we evolved in an 'unfair, survival of the fittest' society is completely beyond me!

It's not beyond us to work together, as IAchilleasI has stated, it's really just a matter of believing that we can.

It's the last paragraph that it all falls down. With the exception of war, when in this country's history have we ever all worked together ? Its not like it's suddenly a new idea or difficult concept, human beings can't or won't work together for the common good on a large level, unless our lives depend on it, like wars. Even then there are dissenters who will cheat to get resources, refuse to fight and/or assist said war effort.

Humans aren't wired that way, and if they are how much blood are you willing to spill to get those with the power to relinquish it ?

Pretend I'm David Cameron. Convince me to give my power to the masses and put robot plumbers in every home.

So they co-operated within their own group and had no leaders - and only fought when they came into contact with other tribes / villages - starting a good 12,000 years ago.

Remind me the population of the world then.

The late Bronze Age began around 1000BC- only 3000 years ago by my reckoning compared to around 200,000 years of anatomically modern human development.

Anyhow, in many ways population numbers are irrelevent. Most people tend to have a relatively small number of people (20-50) that make up their social circle and therefore our individual social behaviour is governed no differently with a population of 7 billion than it was when there were less than a billion on the planet. Our relatively short, localised lives largely prevent us from seeing the impact that population growth has on us. Also, the change I'm talking about occurred in a period with a much smaller population.

What really changed was the introduction of scarce raw material resources into our technology base, namely copper and tin, that led to some people seeking to control their access to those resources. Stone and wood were never coverted because they were plentiful.

So it wasn't our intrinsic nature that changed, it was the introduction of a completely new concept of private ownership which led to greed, selfishness and eventually violently controlled hierarchical power.

The fact that we can establish this shows us that we can change this way of thinking and our social order back to our more innate state of cooperative egalitarianism. The only thing holding people back from this is the high value they now place, often subconsciously, on greed and selfishness and their fear of losing their ability to accumulate more 'stuff' (which is ridiculous because humans were technologically driven long before they began covetting private goods) which is constantly reaffirmed to them by others in their social circle as well as through entertainment and advertising.

I happen to believe that more would be gained than lost by changing our focus from private ownership back to human relationships though I'm sure you'll disagree.

...

Anyhow, in many ways population numbers are irrelevent. Most people tend to have a relatively small number of people (20-50) that make up their social circle and therefore our individual social behaviour is governed no differently with a population of 7 billion than it was when there were less than a billion on the planet. Our relatively short, localised lives largely prevent us from seeing the impact that population growth has on us. Also, the change I'm talking about occurred in a period with a much smaller population.

...


But how many of these groups co-exist in the same space?

Every one of my ideas starts way out left, so in no way do I despise left whingers. The only problem is that the left needs reigning in to the centre a little, but in no way would I ever want to get rid of your corner.

No matter what country you go to there are the large companies and people on top, no it doesn't seem fair but it's the way it shakes down, there are divides between economic tiers and the difference varies in spats and starts (notice the technical jargon!), but they are relative to each other, and one feeds another.

As to saving something like a part of an international banking system, saying that the collapse would have had created something much worse and would have affected the mass majority of us in one way or another, then yes, the decision was taken.

I didn't think it was allowed for a member to have more than one username on the forum. You're replying to a post I aimed at Jim Graham.

It's only because people 'believe' in this system that it holds. Once people change their beliefs, societies change it's really as simple as that. People in this country once believed completely and utterly in the church, they based their entire lives around the church, but eventually that belief changed and it didn't matter that the church was powerful, people's beliefs were far more powerful. I know the same will happen to capitalism and all of our other 'institutions' eventually.

The late Bronze Age began around 1000BC- only 3000 years ago by my reckoning compared to around 200,000 years of anatomically modern human development.

Anyhow, in many ways population numbers are irrelevent. Most people tend to have a relatively small number of people (20-50) that make up their social circle and therefore our individual social behaviour is governed no differently with a population of 7 billion than it was when there were less than a billion on the planet. Our relatively short, localised lives largely prevent us from seeing the impact that population growth has on us. Also, the change I'm talking about occurred in a period with a much smaller population.



You're measuring "human development" in far too simplictic a way. We didn't make huge progress in the first 200,000 years or so. We went from the first powered flight to the moon in just over 60 years and from massive mainframe computers to a PC in the majority of houses in 40 years. Change is happening much faster.

As for your population argument - please get serious. Although you may only have a social circle of 50 people at one time that would be all the people you ever really met - the entire population of your tribe / village. On a typical day I'll probably interact with 50 "strangers" never mind family and friends.

I didn't think it was allowed for a member to have more than one username on the forum. You're replying to a post I aimed at Jim Graham.

It's only because people 'believe' in this system that it holds. Once people change their beliefs, societies change it's really as simple as that. People in this country once believed completely and utterly in the church, they based their entire lives around the church, but eventually that belief changed and it didn't matter that the church was powerful, people's beliefs were far more powerful. I know the same will happen to capitalism and all of our other 'institutions' eventually.

Is that a rule? (not the name, but answering posts, we're not allowed to respond to other peoples post?)

But other systems have existed and also failed or been seriously abused. Even religion is soon to tip into decline due to change and progress.

The only feasible way to remove the capitalist reason is to provide enough for free and sadly technology and, er, money are lagging behind the need of the times.

It's the last paragraph that it all falls down. With the exception of war, when in this country's history have we ever all worked together ? Its not like it's suddenly a new idea or difficult concept, human beings can't or won't work together for the common good on a large level, unless our lives depend on it, like wars. Even then there are dissenters who will cheat to get resources, refuse to fight and/or assist said war effort.

Humans aren't wired that way, and if they are how much blood are you willing to spill to get those with the power to relinquish it ?

Pretend I'm David Cameron. Convince me to give my power to the masses and put robot plumbers in every home.

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 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.

;-)


Ah, the built environment, science, philosophy, maths, art, literature, sports, but have we ever really changed?

Is that a rule? (not the name, but answering posts, we're not allowed to respond to other peoples post?)

But other systems have existed and also failed or been seriously abused. Even religion is soon to tip into decline due to change and progress.

The only feasible way to remove the capitalist reason is to provide enough for free and sadly technology and, er, money are lagging behind the need of the times.

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.

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.

(Oops, watching Mary Portas too!)

So should I get paid for working, for selling things? How do we decide what I pay towards mine and others societies?

You're measuring "human development" in far too simplictic a way. We didn't make huge progress in the first 200,000 years or so. We went from the first powered flight to the moon in just over 60 years and from massive mainframe computers to a PC in the majority of houses in 40 years. Change is happening much faster.

As for your population argument - please get serious. Although you may only have a social circle of 50 people at one time that would be all the people you ever really met - the entire population of your tribe / village. On a typical day I'll probably interact with 50 "strangers" never mind family and friends.

There wasn't a large population when this change occurred in the late Bronze Age, it had nothing to do with population levels and a lot to do with other factors so whilst the large population we have today would certainly complicate the story of a social transition it really doesn't have any impact on whether the transition occurs.