Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Discussion Of "the Concept Of Jobs And Money"


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#18 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 105 posts

Posted 20 November 2016 - 05:10 PM

Of course it can.  It is the Humans who are to blame for the violence, not the method of economic organization.

 

War is not a recent invention of humanity either.  We are tribal in our origins.

Why isn't it the method of economic organisation?

 


Edited by Mariel33, 20 November 2016 - 05:11 PM.


#19 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 349 posts

Posted 20 November 2016 - 05:59 PM

Why isn't it the method of economic organisation?

If you are in the business of producing and selling a product, or service, the value is set largely by supply and demand.  If you are a rational person, you sell your product or service at the current market price, or if you think it is too low a value, you might hold out for more favorable conditions, and you either make a profit, break even, or take a loss.  Violence would be counter productive, because you may injure or kill your customer, and make no sale.



#20 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 105 posts

Posted 20 November 2016 - 06:06 PM

If you are in the business of producing and selling a product, or service, the value is set largely by supply and demand.  If you are a rational person, you sell your product or service at the current market price, or if you think it is too low a value, you might hold out for more favorable conditions, and you either make a profit, break even, or take a loss.  Violence would be counter productive, because you may injure or kill your customer, and make no sale.

If capitalism can exist without violence, why do people have governments and politics?



#21 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 21 November 2016 - 01:07 AM

Can capitalism exist without any human-to-human violence?

 

A better question might be "Can Humans exist without Human-to-Human violence?"



#22 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 21 November 2016 - 01:15 AM

If capitalism can exist without violence, why do people have governments and politics?

 

Some of the worst violence ever seen was done by these two guys, Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot, and neither one of them was a capitalist.



#23 exchemist

exchemist

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 409 posts

Posted 21 November 2016 - 01:26 AM

If capitalism can exist without violence, why do people have governments and politics?

I think that is possibly one of the stupidest questions I have seen on any forum. 



#24 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 201 posts

Posted 21 November 2016 - 03:46 AM

I think that is possibly one of the stupidest questions I have seen on any forum. 

 

Oh, I don't know. I think there are a couple others right here on this forum that are in the running for that title. :yes:

 

Give me enough time and I will probably come up with one myself!



#25 exchemist

exchemist

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 409 posts

Posted 21 November 2016 - 05:32 AM

Oh, I don't know. I think there are a couple others right here on this forum that are in the running for that title. :yes:

 

Give me enough time and I will probably come up with one myself!

Yeah I wrote that before seeing jcc's (=333's) latest. Actually that's not fair, Jcc;s question is not per se stupid. It is his unwillingness to take in any of the responses that makes him such a terrible timewaster on forums. 



#26 billvon

billvon

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 132 posts

Posted 21 November 2016 - 01:15 PM

If you are in the business of producing and selling a product, or service, the value is set largely by supply and demand.  If you are a rational person, you sell your product or service at the current market price, or if you think it is too low a value, you might hold out for more favorable conditions, and you either make a profit, break even, or take a loss.  Violence would be counter productive, because you may injure or kill your customer, and make no sale.

Violence can be quite profitable if you kill only your competitors.



#27 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 349 posts

Posted 22 November 2016 - 05:43 PM

Violence can be quite profitable if you kill only your competitors.

Violence carries a high risk as a business strategy, and the input costs can be quite high as well.

 

 

 

If capitalism can exist without violence, why do people have governments and politics?

Governments and politics don't exist because of capitalism, they exist because groups of people form alliances, and as the groups grow and merge, the increased need for organizational management leads to the formation of governments and politics.



#28 billvon

billvon

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 132 posts

Posted 22 November 2016 - 06:34 PM

Violence carries a high risk as a business strategy, and the input costs can be quite high as well.

 

Definitely.  It, like many other investments, is high risk - and high reward. Which is why, throughout history, it has been employed.



#29 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 105 posts

Posted 22 November 2016 - 07:31 PM

Violence carries a high risk as a business strategy, and the input costs can be quite high as well.

 

 

 

Governments and politics don't exist because of capitalism, they exist because groups of people form alliances, and as the groups grow and merge, the increased need for organizational management leads to the formation of governments and politics.

Why do people form alliances?

I think that alliances are wrong because all people are made of protons and neutrons.


Edited by Mariel33, 22 November 2016 - 07:35 PM.


#30 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 3944 posts

Posted 23 November 2016 - 03:48 AM

Interesting points here!

Recently there was a votation in Switzerland  about giving minimal income to everyone (no questions asked), it did not pass (20% in favor including me :-)). To put it in betterr context this income was little, enough to have food and a lace to live but not enough for going to eat out or the cinema, so people would still have worked. Financing would have been very simple, all unemployment-bureucracy abolished money going instead to the fund for minimal income.
There were 2 things I loved most about the idea:

1) Income of given job inversely proportional to number of people wanting to do it; critics were saying "who will clean toilets then?", the reply was "this would be a job which is MOST payed". The cool thing resulting then is people no more study for a well-payed job, if yhou went to study you would only do it because you are really interested!

2) Innovation (I comletely disagree with the time machine thing someone here said), just think how often you had a cool idea and thought "some1 should make a company doing that, since I can't take the risk"? With minimal income you COULD take the risk.



The other reason why job and money should divorce is simply because it is gonna happen anyway, so better do it controlled as opposed to when the crisis hits. Reason that they will divorce is simply because we have a silent revolution going on (just like with the internet in the early 90ies, some people noticed it but the majority had no idea of the impact it will have), the revolution on silently atm is AI; example the AI beating the GO-master (more combinations than atoms in the known universe, so just computing it is not possible). There is more and more AI stuff we hear every day but we don't notice the effect on big scale yet. But it will come and one of the results will be huge unemployment. Then if the divorce already happened there is no big problem, while if not just look at the problems of countries now with "only" 20% unemployment rate...



#31 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 105 posts

Posted 23 November 2016 - 07:30 AM

Interesting points here!

Recently there was a votation in Switzerland  about giving minimal income to everyone (no questions asked), it did not pass (20% in favor including me :-)). To put it in betterr context this income was little, enough to have food and a lace to live but not enough for going to eat out or the cinema, so people would still have worked. Financing would have been very simple, all unemployment-bureucracy abolished money going instead to the fund for minimal income.
There were 2 things I loved most about the idea:

1) Income of given job inversely proportional to number of people wanting to do it; critics were saying "who will clean toilets then?", the reply was "this would be a job which is MOST payed". The cool thing resulting then is people no more study for a well-payed job, if yhou went to study you would only do it because you are really interested!

2) Innovation (I comletely disagree with the time machine thing someone here said), just think how often you had a cool idea and thought "some1 should make a company doing that, since I can't take the risk"? With minimal income you COULD take the risk.



The other reason why job and money should divorce is simply because it is gonna happen anyway, so better do it controlled as opposed to when the crisis hits. Reason that they will divorce is simply because we have a silent revolution going on (just like with the internet in the early 90ies, some people noticed it but the majority had no idea of the impact it will have), the revolution on silently atm is AI; example the AI beating the GO-master (more combinations than atoms in the known universe, so just computing it is not possible). There is more and more AI stuff we hear every day but we don't notice the effect on big scale yet. But it will come and one of the results will be huge unemployment. Then if the divorce already happened there is no big problem, while if not just look at the problems of countries now with "only" 20% unemployment rate...

 

Jobs and money will cease, because of the internet. People are communicating all across the world, meaning news media and governments won't be able to define people anymore. I'm simply opposed to roles in the first place: people should be able to experience anything freely, but this would require complete consensus.

 

Obviously, many on the planet would probably not physically co-operate - which is why jobs and money exist.

 

Assuming all people are willing to co-operate, terms such as unemployment, poor, middle-class, foreigner and immigrant would have to cease.  



#32 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 7985 posts

Posted 24 November 2016 - 08:28 AM

Reality is activity, but change as well. Society (including the US administration, Wall Street, Republicans and Democrats) is about ignoring people's right to sensible degrees of change, which is why violence is a regular part of life.

I disagree with the idea that society is inherently about ignoring our rights, or the root cause of violence among us. I think the root cause of violence is competition.

Competition, which implies violence, territorialism, and eventually, cooperation, tribalism, and war, are, I think, features of biological evolution, which emerge from the nature of biology and environment. Population with traits that produce these phenomena grow, while those that don’t shrink. We humans, with our amazing ability to create growing systems of knowledge and ideas, are more complicated biological competitors, but despite some of those ideas being pacifism and service to others, on the whole, we are, like all biological organisms, competitive.

Systems arising from increased human intelligence and the civilization that grew along with it, such as governments, money, capitalism, democracy and totalitarianism, are, I think, caused by the innate competitiveness of biology, not the cause of it in humans.

Notice that I assert the competition arises not just from the nature of biochemistry, but from environment. To elaborate, I think one feature of environment is critical in giving rise to competition: scarcity of resources.

Environments where resources are abundant – that is, not scarce – favor the evolution of organisms with traits increasing their metabolic and reproductive efficiency. Where resources are scarce, the evolution of traits giving rise to attacking and defending against attack from competitors is favored. This applies to the simplest behaving organisms, like bacteria, and the most complex, like humans.

I believe that bettering our lives and the lives of our descendants is best accomplished by making the resources we need abundant. Among futurists, this idea is part of a collection usually called a post scarcity economy. In a post scarcity economy, jobs and money are unnecessary.

#33 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 105 posts

Posted 24 November 2016 - 10:50 AM

I disagree with the idea that society is inherently about ignoring our rights, or the root cause of violence among us. I think the root cause of violence is competition.

Competition, which implies violence, territorialism, and eventually, cooperation, tribalism, and war, are, I think, features of biological evolution, which emerge from the nature of biology and environment. Population with traits that produce these phenomena grow, while those that don’t shrink. We humans, with our amazing ability to create growing systems of knowledge and ideas, are more complicated biological competitors, but despite some of those ideas being pacifism and service to others, on the whole, we are, like all biological organisms, competitive.

Systems arising from increased human intelligence and the civilization that grew along with it, such as governments, money, capitalism, democracy and totalitarianism, are, I think, caused by the innate competitiveness of biology, not the cause of it in humans.

Notice that I assert the competition arises not just from the nature of biochemistry, but from environment. To elaborate, I think one feature of environment is critical in giving rise to competition: scarcity of resources.

Environments where resources are abundant – that is, not scarce – favor the evolution of organisms with traits increasing their metabolic and reproductive efficiency. Where resources are scarce, the evolution of traits giving rise to attacking and defending against attack from competitors is favored. This applies to the simplest behaving organisms, like bacteria, and the most complex, like humans.

I believe that bettering our lives and the lives of our descendants is best accomplished by making the resources we need abundant. Among futurists, this idea is part of a collection usually called a post scarcity economy. In a post scarcity economy, jobs and money are unnecessary.

 

There's also the equally basic problem of life's void: the practical purpose of jobs is preoccupation, helping to give people a routine. If jobs are technically made purposeless, because all people have decided to be united and co-operative, that won't change the fact that reality's a repeating 24 hour cycle of nothing..  without contrast, how can people have routine?

 

Contrast gives routine, but if all people are no longer are divided, is that ability of routine then destroyed?


Edited by Mariel33, 24 November 2016 - 10:52 AM.


#34 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 7985 posts

Posted 24 November 2016 - 01:31 PM

There's also the equally basic problem of life's void: the practical purpose of jobs is preoccupation, helping to give people a routine. If jobs are technically made purposeless, because all people have decided to be united and co-operative, that won't change the fact that reality's a repeating 24 hour cycle of nothing.. without contrast, how can people have routine?

People deciding to be united and cooperative doesn’t eliminate the need for them to do jobs, because performing any task, or “piece of work” is by definition doing a job. Although we are often paid to do jobs or a job (which has a slightly different definition), even if we are not, what we do remains a job.

Most people, I think, have already decided to be united and cooperative. We have, many without being familiar with the phrase, entered into the social contract, by which we agree to give up some kinds of freedom, such as the freedom to attack one another, with the understanding that we all give up these freedoms. Not only do we agree to give up freedoms, and thus not do some things, we agree to do things we and our families don’t directly benefit from, with the understanding that others will do likewise. We agree to not be self-sufficient, and to over-produce.

As for “filling life’s void”, I think most people can do this whether employed or not, as evidenced by people too young, too old, or too disabled to be employed finding ways to occupy their time. In every country at every time, about 1/3rd of the population falls in this category.

Most of us are employed, I think, not for the “void-filling” routine it provides, but for the money, and for the good feeling that we are being of service to others.