[IAchilleasI]

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.

[Squiggs]

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)

[IAchilleasI]

Originally Posted by Squiggs

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.

[AYBABTU]

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?

[Alien52]

Can this be moved to general discussions?

Could the OP be moved to another planet ?

[molly44]

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.

[IAchilleasI]

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?

[IAchilleasI]

Originally Posted by molly44

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

[Alien52]

[QUOTE=IAchilleasI;8673994]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?[/QUOTE]

If only,if only.

[Chris_Sleeps]

Originally Posted by skinner

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.

[Alien52]

Originally Posted by Chris_Sleeps

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

[tinfoilhat]

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.

[dosxuk]

Originally Posted by IAchilleasI

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".

[IAchilleasI]

Originally Posted by tinfoilhat

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. "

[IAchilleasI]

Originally Posted by dosxuk

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.

[dosxuk]

Originally Posted by IAchilleasI

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.

[Anna B]

Originally Posted by IAchilleasI

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....

[Anna B]

Originally Posted by dosxuk

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.

[Anna B]

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?

[dosxuk]

Originally Posted by Anna B

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?