IAchilleasI Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squiggs Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAchilleasI Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AYBABTU Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien52 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Can this be moved to general discussions? Could the OP be moved to another planet ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molly44 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 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.:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAchilleasI Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAchilleasI Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien52 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now