HOME | DD

creampuffluvr In reply to creampuffluvr [2013-03-25 19:31:48 +0000 UTC]

bombarded*

I apologize

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Rangertamer In reply to YumeYukimenokoTsuki [2013-03-23 22:01:40 +0000 UTC]

The concept is called artificial scarcity. There are plenty of resources, the problem is that there are very few owners that manipulate the perception of availability through the media.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Rangertamer In reply to RealRemainder [2013-03-23 21:55:32 +0000 UTC]

The most corrupt and greediest bankers have already created trillions in paper currency and have bought up land, water ways, mineral wealth and real assets. The only thing they need to do to control humanity completely is eliminate any means for people to fight back and get wealth back. Eliminating money is the next step. They own all the resources now and they leave you with no means of retrieving any ownership of anything; ever.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Rangertamer In reply to MorbiusMonster [2013-03-23 21:57:05 +0000 UTC]

It's made up speculative debt. The solution is not to eliminate money. The solution is for people to demand governments to enforce the laws and jail the bankers as they did in Iceland. (Watch the Oscar winning documentary Inside Job)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Orion--13 In reply to MorbiusMonster [2012-04-09 18:40:07 +0000 UTC]

So if you lend me $5,000 you're OK if I just show up a week later and demand you write it off?

'Cuz you know, requiring me to pay you back is holding me to ransom and destroying my well-being. Pretty much makes you a terrorist, doesn't it?

Oh and now that that unpleasantness is behind us, can you spot me another five grand? I'm a little short this month...

Orion

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Rangertamer In reply to NordicLynx [2013-03-23 22:06:19 +0000 UTC]

For most people is absurd because in the present most of the food is obtained from chain super markets so people see no need in owning land. Owning private property is actually one of the tenants of progress of civilization. This is what made the 1st world, the first world.
A super corporation owns a lot of land and decide not to use it if there is no competition for their products. But, if you own land and produce something, those companies will have competition. The owners of those companies despise that. John D Rockefeller was known to have said: "Competition is a sin"

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MattShadowwing In reply to Orion--13 [2012-04-09 13:26:08 +0000 UTC]

Why does it sound like you think agriculture is being done the same way as 3000 years ago, you know, with cows pluming the ground and many slaves walking behind it throwing seeds and stuff? XD

I hate to burst your bubble but it doesn't work that way, not even close, today all that's needed is 1 guy with a tractor and he just drives nonchalantly through the field while the big badass machine behind him does all the work, oh wait..., great news, we don't even need that 1 guy to drive the thing, now it can drive all by itself, isn't technology amazing?

and again about the waste! there isn't some guy at the end of your sewage pipe collecting your piss and shit to send it into the middle of nowhere and then bury it... no, that's complete absurd, hahahaha.

what currently is happening now is there's pipe with water that pushes your waste to a waste processing facilities (that is almost 100% automated by the way) which is run by a handful of people sitting behind their fancy control panel barely doing anything except reading what control panel tells them and act upon it, like you know, if there is not enough water in the facility, the guy just presses 1 button to fill it up with more water and so on and so forth. and yea... that also can be automated, but the companies try to keep unemployment low, so they sacrifice the good decisions software. how nice of them.


oh, and there something that you don't own but use freely, without a price tag, and you don't see someone barging in and take it from you... you know what it is called?

PUBLIC BATHROOMS.

you want to come to my house that i don't own and bring some of your friends? sure, how about I get into the public bathroom stool you're using right as you're about to take a huge dump, push you out of the toilet and take a dump instead? hmm that would be unpleasant, but hey, disregard common sense, you don't own the bathroom, or the toilet, or anything for that matter, so what's stopping me eh? eh?


::End of Sarcasm::

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Orion--13 In reply to MattShadowwing [2012-04-09 18:04:21 +0000 UTC]

Well, since I have friends who are farmers, I likely know more about the process than you do...but...

That giant tractor he's driving needs fuel and maintenance and parts. It also needs chemicals (fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, etc.), which must be purchased, mixed, tracked, etc. And trust me - that driving is FAR from nonchalant. There's an incredible precision required, so much so that they use GPS now to track the locations of seeds and chemical applications. And of course, the GPS system requires maintenance, upkeep, staffing, etc. None of these exist in a vacuum.

As to waste management, dude, you need to visit a wastewater treatment plant and see how it's done. The PLANT is RUN by a handful of people. The PIPES are maintained by more people who DO get quite mucky. The plant is maintained by other people. The plant requires electrical power, chemicals. parts, etc.

As to PUBLIC BATHROOMS - those do indeed have a price, friend. I pay the taxes that provide the structure and the water, and the waste treatment and the police who patrol it and the janitor who cleans it and the plumber who maintains it.

And your example makes my point for me, brother.

Orion

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MattShadowwing In reply to Orion--13 [2012-04-09 21:19:02 +0000 UTC]

I won't have to post down all the detailed answered of that because, it's been answered a whole lot of times right here: [link]

about who makes the food, how to automate it and so on and so forth, it'll keep the conversation short and neat and trolling-free

the thing is, in a project this BIG, people tend to pick on the smallest detail to bring it down and say it's invalid or stupid or etc while it's so much better than our current system.

i mean heck, did the inventor of free market enterprise thought about who will clean our shit, and who will make the farms? i think not. hey just made a general idea that eventually got implemented. (money will drive the public to work for profit, when and the profit gainers will use the money to make other people work, therefor profit shall be distributed evenly)

same thing for TVP: most of the repetitive jobs will be automated to free the people from such boring and destructive environment, while the other jobs that couldn't get automated at the moment will be done by volunteers who work on it for much less time than the average full time job, 4 hours a day, 3 times a week? maybe less if there's an abundance of volunteers, and that till new technologies are developed to automate it. and at the same time, the products of those automation shall and will be distributed evenly to all people so there will be never a person who doesn't have access to those products.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Orion--13 In reply to MattShadowwing [2012-04-09 23:20:02 +0000 UTC]

I wondered if you were going for The Venus Project - idealism is fine, but there's a reason (actually a host of reasons) why it doesn't work in practice. Have you ever heard the phrase "The Devil is in the details?" - That is entirely true.

These wonderful, grand, lovely ideas all fail because they do not take into account those annoying little details that ruin them. Things like friction, scarcity, human nature, and who is going to do the nasty jobs - and who is going to ASSIGN those jobs: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

There WAS no inventor of the free market enterprise system. It EVOLVED based upon what worked and what did NOT work over millenia. The details took centuries to work out and have evolved over time as times change: We're seeing changes now as we move from a manufacturing society to an information society with all the pain and loss associated with any evolutionary change. Just like we did when we shifted from an agrarian society to a manufacturing society.

Various Communist 'peoples' revolutions have been tried, and all failed. Central planning does not work, never has worked, and never CAN work. These sorts of idealistic well-meaning idealists and their dreams have turned to horrors every single time since the French Revolution. Have you heard of Robsepierre? Pol Pot? Mao? Ho Chi Minh? Hitler? Lenin? Trotsky? Castro? Che? How many more hundreds of millions will die in the NEXT utopian experiment?

Automating repetitive jobs is wonderful when it can be done. Someone still has to make those machines. And make the parts for them. And program them. And maintain them. And fuel them. Which means someone has to go find the petroleum and drill it out of the ground, then haul that to refineries, so people have to refine it, and then haul the fractions to places where it will be made into plastics, lubricants, fuels, which must then be hauled to...and all the rest. DETAILS.

It's fun to deal with grand-scale ideas, but they do no one any good unless they are grounded in reality. The abject failure of wind and solar power to scale up is a perfect example of this. The ideal was fine, but they were utterly destroyed by reality. As Huxley put it: "The great tragedy of Science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."

These utopian social models are based upon an unrealistic ideal image of humanity that simply is not borne out by fact anywhere, or at any time. THAT detail ALONE is enough to doom the experiments.

But! Let's follow Uncle Albert and engage in a thought experiment. We shall wave our magic wand and PRESTO - the ENTIRE United States is now engaged in a social structure EXACTLY as TVP proposes. Which means we are not going to be producing and exporting megatons of excess food or products any more, dooming billions to death, but we'll skip that part. What do you think will happen when we are all enjoying our vast free time and immense wealth....Do you believe the other nations of the world will change to match, or will they march to conquer? I ask you to look to history for your answer.


Orion

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Rangertamer In reply to Orion--13 [2013-03-23 22:09:47 +0000 UTC]

Orion. You are a critical thinker. The elites that push those communal ideas so people don't get ahead and get them out of the game despise you for that.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Orion--13 In reply to Rangertamer [2013-03-24 22:49:47 +0000 UTC]

Thank you - and Yup. The majority of the folks who are fans of Communist/Socialist 'critical theory' believe that they are the enlightened elite and destined to rule - from the best of intentions, of course.

We can trust them because their hearts are pure.

Orion

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rangertamer In reply to Orion--13 [2013-03-25 02:09:45 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MattShadowwing In reply to Orion--13 [2012-04-10 08:21:05 +0000 UTC]

Your inability to adapt to the entirety of new ideas is giving me headaches.

if you actually took a look at TVP's FaQ, you'll find all the answers of the points you talk about, and weirdly enough, those "pesky details" too.

i think you are confusing a social economic system with THE economic system.

socialism, communism, capitalism and all of those are different social models of the same economic system, it's still monetary system, it still uses freaking money.

you can't outright say that the idea FAILS when it never got the chance to get implemented. specially when it was never tried ever before in history

also TVP is a global project, not a localized one, it aims to change the failing social, political and economic structure of the entire damn planet XD Fresco stated it himself that you can't implement TVP/RBE in a single country alone while the rest stays exactly the same.

if he couldn't work out the details, we can very much think about it and evolve the whole thing, just like the monetary system came to be. i am sure in our lovely conversation alone we tapped a few peices of details that weren't thought about or mentioned elsewhere, and since we are human beings with things called brains in our head, we can very much think of a solution to those left out details, even if it's not us, I'm sure someone somewhere reading these comments and say "the hell are you debating about, do XYZ and ABC like this and that and it will solve the whole damn thing without much of a sweat"

and that's the beauty of it, but i must point out that the monetary system was used as early as the Ancient Egyptian Civilization, ofcourse we don't know who first came up with the idea of exchange value placeholder for products, and i don't disagree that it evolved out of that thought into what we have now, but i am pretty sure that even the first guy didn't think about all the details, but in the process of evolving the idea cleared out all the issues, and things became relatively fine.

RBE is not a Utopian system, it still has it's own problems (otherwise we wouldn't have this conversation) but the benefits of a Resource Based Economy certainly blows the benefits of a monetary system out of the window, and don't have as much problems as the monetary system. for example, look at the issues we talk about, who will do the cleaning and the maintenance and so forth, that's issues of RBE (even tho it's been mentioned and solved) now look at issues that should be discussed in a monetary society, who will feed and shelter the 1 fucking billion people who are currently starving to death throughout the world? i don't see anybody talking about this problem and YET, ::Sarcasm mode INITIATED:: who the fuck will clean my shit, i don't care about 1 billion people being alive or not, i don't give a flying damn about , wait, WHAT? NO MONEY? NO JOBS? FUCK DAT, DIS IDEA SUCKS ::Sarcasm mode DEACTIVATED::

....sigh...

the keywords to this problem are these: Durability, Automation, Sustainability.

if you make machines and automatons that lasts so long without failing ...

(and yes you can do that, dig up planned obsolescence and see why your lovely peice of plastic and silicon FAILS very quickly, and you'll have to just throw it away, causing harm to the environment, and disposing of actually good material that can be used in other productions, and then wasting your "placeholder of value" to buy a new one that will do just the same in a couple of years. hooray!)

... by the time these automatons actually fail, you'll have a brand new ones that will take it's place, it'll be more efficient, more durable, and more environmental friendly, the old one will be taken back, disassembled , and recycled back into creating more of the brand new stuff. our current monetary system (which is profit based) don't like the idea of durability, so it intentionally degrades the materials used in the production of products, so it fails more quickly so you can buy them again or pay for their maintenance. i am sure you and i experienced this with cell phones or cars, or even your personal laptop/desktop.

in-case of those automatons weren't actually created yet, how about creating them, research them, think about them and bring them into existence, I'm sure mechanical and electrical engineer today have already some plans in their desks about automating some task(s) they do in their lives.

bottom line is, we have a great concept here, not yet implemented, still have some problems here and there, why not improve it instead of flat out rejecting it based on those "problems" we refused to contribute in solving it? eh? that sounds much better than debating who's better than what, no?

that's just the two of us got into a deep conversation/debate, what about the vast majority of the planet got into the same conversation, see how much progress we can make just by discussing issues.

And now if you'll excuse me good sir, i have to get to my daily dose of a pay-less JOB, looking forward to your reply. cheers

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Adarsta In reply to Orion--13 [2011-06-06 19:38:26 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MattShadowwing In reply to Adarsta [2012-04-09 13:11:39 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MattShadowwing In reply to thedesertkitsune [2012-04-09 13:03:36 +0000 UTC]

well that explains how fine and dandy the world economy is right now, the quality of our lives is just fabulous... NOT?

while this indeed is how the free market economy works, but i don't see you mentioning how the money came to existence in the first place, i suggest you read Modern Money Mechanics [link]

it states quite clearly that in order for money to come into existence, it needs to be in the form of DEBT, and Debt ofcourse has interest (which doesn't physically exist FYI) and that whole mechanism is what makes the world turn a spiraling whirlpool of doom. and hey, i'm not talking about greed that is pre-installed in the economic system, and planned obsolescence or any of the other fatal and live-ruining problems within the current system.

so much for "economics"

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Orion--13 In reply to MattShadowwing [2012-04-09 18:52:25 +0000 UTC]

You should, perhaps, compare the quality of our lives to the quality of the lives of our grandparents. Or to the lives of a Taureg tribesman. Or to the lives of the average Iranian citizen. Or the average Chinese villager. Or the average North Korean subject.

I'd say, yes, the quality of our lives is just fabulous. I've got a small chunk of plastic and silicon in my hand that let's me talk to people the world over for pennies, research anything I want, or summon a team of medical experts to take me to the most amazing health-care on the planet in less than 5 minutes by pressing 3 buttons.

Money came into existence as a place-holder for objects of value, NOT in the form of debt. Unless you want to consider being a place-holder to be debt. But most Communist theory involves re-defining terms, so perhaps you do...And debt does not always have interest.

I challenge you to name ANY other economic system that has done even 1/10th as much as capitalism and money to raise people out of poverty.

Orion

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MattShadowwing In reply to Orion--13 [2012-04-10 07:46:09 +0000 UTC]

is there any economic system other than the monetary system? because last time i checked history, there was a barter/trade system which was way even before the ancient Egyptian Civilization.

so, what other economic system are you talking about?

read the "Modern Money Mechanics" book (publish by your beloved Federal reserve) it states quite nicely that money is debt. can't get much proof than that.

and if our quality of life is just fabulous now, does that mean you should never look forward for future improvements? should we stop our eternal quest to be better in every aspect of life? just because things are fine and dandy now? that's quite static.

and if the average US citizen is indeed in a better life than well.... planet earth...

should that mean you should stop caring about their lives and let them rot in their humble quality of life, or you don't wish to see them in a better state so you can always be "superior" to them?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MyLittleTripod In reply to MattShadowwing [2014-10-30 13:21:49 +0000 UTC]

But then again, considering this is a Right-Wing Libertarian Anti Socialist, he probably can only comprehend: COMPLETELY UNREGULATED FREE MARKET WITH PRIVATE MONOPOLY OVER RESOURCES, OR TOTALITARIAN POLICE STATE.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

theubbergeek2 In reply to DinobotLoki [2011-06-06 03:31:16 +0000 UTC]

Ideologies of the past, you meaned. Religions can be not a problem...

I agree with ideas on the pic.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DinobotLoki In reply to theubbergeek2 [2011-06-06 03:42:40 +0000 UTC]

No, I mean religions, and not of the past either. Most religions want their followers to 'spread the word' and that is taken to a degree of absurdity. If not for the fact that 'saving' people leads to hounding and -torture- I wouldn't care so much. But all it is is control, control and more control. More people are hurt by religion then by anything else.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

theubbergeek2 In reply to DinobotLoki [2011-06-06 04:36:13 +0000 UTC]

I am sorry, but this is kinda wrong...
There is also a progresist side to religions. A religious left. Religious communists. Even religious anarchists.

Religious peoples who fight for human rights, separation of state and church, peace, and so on. Anti-creationists.

And so on.

There is not just the old structures, or the Right. there is an hidden world too.

And on the other side, you have also dangerous atheist fools like Objectivists.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DinobotLoki In reply to theubbergeek2 [2011-06-06 04:58:27 +0000 UTC]

There is always both sides of anything, a dark and a light, as well as a middle ground, or gray area. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Simply putting it, in the case of religion, the dark outweighs the light as well as the gray both.

I do apologize, but I cannot overlook the years of mental anguish that people I know have had to go through at the hands of religion because 'it's not all bad.'

Not only that but I am atheist, and to me that is the only redeeming quality of any Objectivist, and of Ayn Rand herself. Her works were that of a cult leader, not of a true thinker. It is the same scope such as, say, Stephenie Myer, the writer of the Twilight series. Her books are chock full of Mormon propaganda, while she romanticizes stalker behavior as well as abuse and misogyny.

And how many people eat up such trash? Too many. For both sides its preying on the weak for profit and cultism.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

theubbergeek2 In reply to DinobotLoki [2011-06-06 05:04:56 +0000 UTC]

I'm sorry, but this dismiss as usual the progressive branches, doubly screwed by orthodoxes progressives and the right....

Religion can be empowering, free thinking and all. It's *IDEOLOGY* perhaps the real issue. Not christianité, but christian-ism, by example, to play on words.

Tolstoi said after all, 'the Kingdom of God is in YOU', as far I remember...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DinobotLoki In reply to theubbergeek2 [2011-06-06 05:44:18 +0000 UTC]

I did not dismiss anything, I agreed to your point that there is two sides. It's just that the bad outweighs the good, and by many tons at that.

Religion is the opposite of empowering, it takes the power away from the person and puts it into the hands of an all knowing being. It also takes away responsibility, and that is what is so 'nice' about it. "Oh, I shot that man. God told me to do it." "Oh, I didn't get into the school? God must not have willed it." "Oh, I disagree with that person. God must want me to set them straight."

Also, religion is the basis of ideology, and you cannot just blame that for the problems that it has caused. Playing on the words, and shifting around blame does nothing. The base is still the base, and the base is still the problem.

Not only that, but there is no kingdom inside me, no angels, no demons, no nothing. If I screw up, no magic being will help me, and I know that I must hoist myself up by my bootstraps and continue on.

Further, quoting someone is easy, making the quote fit with the argument is something different all together. Take this for example. Richard Dawkins once said, "What worries me about religion is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding."

Is that a legit quote? Yes. Does it belong in the argument at this time? Not really, no.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

theubbergeek2 In reply to DinobotLoki [2011-06-06 05:54:34 +0000 UTC]

This is (second point) not reaally understand religion beyond typical stereotypes - you find the Truth in you, ultimatly, spiritualy. If you blindly follow a book or words, its kinda really falling the point.

Ideologies are based on PHILOSOPHIES as much if not more, something as old as religions, but distinct. Plato's Republic by example, which had naught much to do with their religion.

You see things also too litteraly - religion, spirituality, isnt built actually mainly on those magical myths, Even if Jesus never had existed, his ideals, ideas and concept would thrive on.
the REAL deal is the way of life, perhaps, more than anything.

A christian by example dont do things to 'gain Paradise' ; such hypocrisy... but do it because they are RIGHT and good, in Jesus's example.

buddha's teachings were quite direct on this, because this religion is paradoxaly based much on the self. Improve your self, for yourself, but that will at the end improves all.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

DinobotLoki In reply to theubbergeek2 [2011-06-06 06:27:22 +0000 UTC]

'Er. No. Just that, no. Religion DOES blindly follow the book, that is what it is, and that is what it does. In church you are taught not to ask questions or go against authority, and are to 'go with the group.' Not only that, but philosophies are often the beginnings of religion, the same as any cult or idea, such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Not only that, but I don't think the people who have been physically beaten, tortured, raped, and killed because of religion and its oppression would agree with you about seeing things literally. One of my best friends is afraid to sleep under the same roof as her parents, who have used 'honer thy mother and thy father' quite literally. To the point of not pulling punches.

Taking things literally, as they are, is what separates those looking away, from those standing up.

...

You just made me laugh. Oh, thank you, thank you. I don't know how many Christians you know, or if you are one, but that is the exact reason why they obey the 'rules' in that horrid little book. You do this, you go to heaven, you don't, you go to hell. There has been many times Christians and other religious people have said that without God, they would do as they pleased- including murder and rape.

The Buddha did not believe in any god. He worked to end suffering and reach pure happiness by getting rid of physical pleasures, and by focusing on his mind. Buddhism in the new age is not the same, though interesting, it is one of the few religions that I will cede to having 'value.' This is because it is an atheistic religion.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

theubbergeek2 In reply to DinobotLoki [2011-06-06 06:38:05 +0000 UTC]

Tsk, tsk. Religious guys can and will criticises the books, analyses em, etc... even catholics like here dont follow blindly. I can give a few example... I am sorry, but not even Islam follow like it - this is a rather rigid orthodxy NOW, but personal interpretation of the Book and law is key.


Also, jerks and monsters freaks are that. Religious or atheist or anything. It's an excuse for them. A freak is a freak.

Tsk. Sorry, but this is one shalow interpretation. Christians are supposed and should be good peoples, gentle and all. But as with many things, we are humans, and we can be... well, you know. And so, your following of prejudices as shown by second...

Buddha was more complecx than that. He didnt think there was a CREATOR, MAJOR ONE-GOD. He believed however in gods, albeit they where beings caught in the wheel of karma, as us. Buddhism is NOT atheistic, its more complex than that. jainism would be more like it.


look, dude. You may have had NASTY events at you. living in the bible belt or such. You have the right to think what you want. But you clearly have major issues with religion, and it shows taht you have a shallow understanding of how it can be, beyond religious right, fundamentalists and all. Real life is not all black or white, again.

There is religious peoples fighting for peace. For GAY rights. For separation of church and state. For socialism. And so on. This is not one united mass of brainwashed fools, such thinking is offensive and plain WRONG.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

MattShadowwing In reply to theubbergeek2 [2012-04-09 13:28:02 +0000 UTC]

"but personal interpretation of the Book and law is key."

with this line, you ruined EVERYTHING.

personal interpretation is the main cause of such division between people from the same group (many sects of Islam, Christianity, etc) and one of the major causes of bloodshed within medieval Europe.

and probably it's idea that ONE RELIGION RULES THEM ALL is also a big part of the problem, that someone is right and everything else is wrong. that's really what most religious teachings say.. otherwise we wouldn't be having this topic right now.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1