Thread: a society changing idea...for the better?

i have long had a few ideas of how to improve life for the working class grunts like you and me. what would happen if you stopped paying your mortgage? you would probably loose your house. what would happen if you stopped paying your car payment? well pretty much the same thing. but what would happen if you and everyone you know stopped paying these bills that pretty much go directly to the banks? they have manipulated the markets, screwing you. they have gotten bailouts, screwing you. what would happen if you took the power in your hand and just said enough? surely they couldnt arrest everyone. what are your thoughts. no hate please just curious to your thoughts.

Well basically what you've done there is refused to give back the money you borrowed from somebody; if everybody did this I guess it would precipitate an economic meltdown. Well done.

Originally Posted by Xei

Well basically what you've done there is refused to give back the money you borrowed from somebody; if everybody did this I guess it would precipitate an economic meltdown. Well done.

where did the money come from that they lent us? basically from the tax payers i think if you follow banker bailouts.

Originally Posted by juroara

Lol, well it is pretty impractical to imagine enough people rallying for any cause together . Were so divided.

That said, there's nothing like a real economic depression to unite people to do crazy things! I mean, didn't Americans already do something like this back in the great depression? Entire neighborhoods stopped paying their mortgage, not out of choice mind you, they literally had no money. The banks would foreclose and put up their house for auction. Since the whole neighborhood was suffering, they united together and neighbors bought each others houses from the banks auctions. How's a $5 house auction? Lol.

It would take something epic, huge, and life threatening to get enough modern people to fight against the system.

Alternatively, you could build a cob home and live simply. One of the philosophies behind cob building is to be mortgage free, and to get back to our roots where people knew how to house themselves. Also, the cob book Im reading makes some good arguments against the established system.

For example, modern houses are so expensive most people will spend most of their adult life paying off their mortgage, with the interest making them pay for their house three times over. At the same time, you never actually own your house. The bank owns your house until you are done paying. After spending DECADES to finally OWN your house, it's old and already needs major repairs. Modern houses have a short life span, especially in comparison to cob houses which can last generations. If not a millennium or more.

As for cars, well I haven't figured that part out. Maybe we all need to go for a walk more often? I see people here who struggle just to walk across a parking lot.

Or how about student loans? How about we rebel against our student loans until our income reflects the promise of higher education?

Your house is never truly yours, even after you pay it off, if you count property taxes. and i like your idea about students loans but about the cars, i say just keep them. stop paying the bill. screw the banksters.

Originally Posted by Xei

Well basically what you've done there is refused to give back the money you borrowed from somebody; if everybody did this I guess it would precipitate an economic meltdown. Well done.

also xei, the banks get all the profits then when their gambles dont work out they get to socialize their losses. its bullshit. not to mention the fact that most of the banks only had $1 for every $40-$60 they lent out. what they hell was going on? they screw us (and you as well in england) whenever it is convenient for them.

Originally Posted by poopman

also xei, the banks get all the profits then when their gambles dont work out they get to socialize their losses. its bullshit. not to mention the fact that most of the banks only had $1 for every $40-$60 they lent out. what they hell was going on? they screw us (and you as well in england) whenever it is convenient for them.

So why did you borrow from them? That was your decision.

You can't borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars from somebody and then say, 'I don't like your practices so actually I think I'll keep this money', it's ridiculous. It's not yours. Why on Earth do you think you have this right?

Originally Posted by Xei

So why did you borrow from them? That was your decision.

You can't borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars from somebody and then say, 'I don't like your practices so actually I think I'll keep this money', it's ridiculous. It's not yours. Why on Earth do you think you have this right?

i dont have a mortgage. but the money is not real. it is created out of thin air. they get it for free. what right do they have to create money?

Originally Posted by Xei

So why did you borrow from them? That was your decision.

You can't borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars from somebody and then say, 'I don't like your practices so actually I think I'll keep this money', it's ridiculous. It's not yours. Why on Earth do you think you have this right?

I agree with this one hundred percent. Fortunately a bank isn't 'someone'. It manages to be simultaneously a fictitious and rapacious entity. I see no reason not to rob it blind if it's practical and convenient to do so. It's not like you're actually robbing anything from a real, living organism.


On the whole, I think that it's a great idea. Perhaps it would precipitate an economic meltdown but so what. It's a corrupt system now, the worst that could happen is that a corrupt system would replace it. Somethings gotta give eventually.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I agree with this one hundred percent. Fortunately a bank isn't 'someone'. It manages to be simultaneously a fictitious and rapacious entity. I see no reason not to rob it blind if it's practical and convenient to do so. It's not like you're actually robbing anything from a real, living organism.

Legally, an incorporated bank is a person . And in any case, the bank is owned by real, living organisms who would be directly impacted.

On the whole, I think that it's a great idea. Perhaps it would precipitate an economic meltdown but so what. It's a corrupt system now, the worst that could happen is that a corrupt system would replace it. Somethings gotta give eventually.

Except that in the mean time anarchy would ensue with many people dying and mass poverty. When the USSR (and it's centralized economy) collapsed in the early 90s, Russia's life expectancy fell by a decade and their economy still hasn't fully recovered 20 years later.

There are better ways of instituting change if we want to see it in our lifetime.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Legally, an incorporated bank is a person . And in any case, the bank is owned by real, living organisms who would be directly impacted.

Right. It's owned by shareholders which, as keepers of wage slaves, are very low down on my list of priorities. Honestly if I saw the typical billionaire burning I wouldn't piss on him to put it out.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Except that in the mean time anarchy would ensue with many people dying and mass poverty. When the USSR (and it's centralized economy) collapsed in the early 90s, Russia's life expectancy fell by a decade and their economy still hasn't fully recovered 20 years later.

This is true but given that this is likely to happen with the collapse of the oil economy anyways, I'm not sure that it constitutes a large enough negative to detract from the overall worth of the proposal.

Civilization in general is founded on delusions to numerous to discuss in this format. The delusion that we can grow at a rate faster than the sun feeds energy into the ecosystem is one. Another, more directly related to the topic at hand, is that ownership exists. If some billionaire wants to tell me that I have to pay for access to land that that slimy motherfucker's never even looked at then I call that delusion. Granted, it's written into our laws that he has the right (another questionable notion) to do this sort of thing but there is neither a mandate from nor a god to mandate that this is the way it is supposed to be. It's essentially feudalism and I see no reason to accept it.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Legally, an incorporated bank is a person . And in any case, the bank is owned by real, living organisms who would be directly impacted.



Except that in the mean time anarchy would ensue with many people dying and mass poverty. When the USSR (and it's centralized economy) collapsed in the early 90s, Russia's life expectancy fell by a decade and their economy still hasn't fully recovered 20 years later.

There are better ways of instituting change if we want to see it in our lifetime.

such as? we are all open to ideas.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I agree with this one hundred percent. Fortunately a bank isn't 'someone'. It manages to be simultaneously a fictitious and rapacious entity. I see no reason not to rob it blind if it's practical and convenient to do so. It's not like you're actually robbing anything from a real, living organism.

Except for all the people who have money in said bank.

The worst about banks is that in good times they are totally free to risk the money to profit more and yet burrow money from government as they like, who is ordinary people in essence -- or should be. It's like they are another class of humans, the enlightened ones, and can do as they please.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Except for all the people who have money in said bank.

How so? If I take out a hundred thousand dollar loan and don't pay it back, the next person in line can still withdraw their money. What have I stolen from them?

Originally Posted by poopman

not to mention the fact that most of the banks only had $1 for every $40-$60 they lent out. what they hell was going on?

It's called fractional reserve banking.

thats called imaginary money

Originally Posted by juroara

thats called imaginary money

In Layman's terms, yes.

they couldnt arrest everyone

That's what the FEMA camps are for.

Lol, well it is pretty impractical to imagine enough people rallying for any cause together . Were so divided.

That said, there's nothing like a real economic depression to unite people to do crazy things! I mean, didn't Americans already do something like this back in the great depression? Entire neighborhoods stopped paying their mortgage, not out of choice mind you, they literally had no money. The banks would foreclose and put up their house for auction. Since the whole neighborhood was suffering, they united together and neighbors bought each others houses from the banks auctions. How's a $5 house auction? Lol.

It would take something epic, huge, and life threatening to get enough modern people to fight against the system.

Alternatively, you could build a cob home and live simply. One of the philosophies behind cob building is to be mortgage free, and to get back to our roots where people knew how to house themselves. Also, the cob book Im reading makes some good arguments against the established system.

For example, modern houses are so expensive most people will spend most of their adult life paying off their mortgage, with the interest making them pay for their house three times over. At the same time, you never actually own your house. The bank owns your house until you are done paying. After spending DECADES to finally OWN your house, it's old and already needs major repairs. Modern houses have a short life span, especially in comparison to cob houses which can last generations. If not a millennium or more.

As for cars, well I haven't figured that part out. Maybe we all need to go for a walk more often? I see people here who struggle just to walk across a parking lot.

Or how about student loans? How about we rebel against our student loans until our income reflects the promise of higher education?

I don't have a car payment, I own my car outright and have for the last 5 years. I got a used car and bought it with cash. I don't own a house, so I don't pay a mortgage.

In order to add human will, one must first have will to add.

What do you think Plato was about? or Christ, or Confucius? The Scripture, human judgment?

What do you think my work has been about?

If you want to change the world, you have to at least provide the tools by which a person can learn to develope their own will by.

Otherwise, a heap of people will always be just a heap.

Doing what one pleases and willing a thing is not the same thing. If one does not even know the difference, well, they will never accomplish anything of any lasting value.

Lucid dreaming itself is such a tool, perhaps one of the greatest. However, if you don't even have the sense to know how to use it, or even what it is for, it wont do you any good either.

There are standards in human psychology to be discovered and deployed, just like standards in measurement. They are linguistically based. How well you think determines how well you will do.

The metaphor about the mark on the forehead and on the hands is just such a metaphor, and, your ability not to see it, should tell you how far away you are from understanding even simple things.

It is simple mindedness to think one can craft a social structure when they cannot even craft themselves.

What right do you have to steal the created money?

People don't realize that if more than 10%(some banks this goes as low as 1%) of people in any given bank withdraws their money at one time, they wouldn't have any money left to give back. Banks rely on the fact that at any given time only a tiny percentage of people with money in their bank, will actually want it. Most banks operate at dangerous levels of available money.

Originally Posted by Alric

People don't realize that if more than 10%(some banks this goes as low as 1%) of people in any given bank withdraws their money at one time, they wouldn't have any money left to give back. Banks rely on the fact that at any given time only a tiny percentage of people with money in their bank, will actually want it. Most banks operate at dangerous levels of available money.

Moral of the story: Rob a liquor store instead.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I find that hard to belive

I think we agree that arbitrarily making "money" out of thin-air is a bad thing.

I've never said that value is fictitious. I've said that banks, 90 calories that popped out of thin air and the value of money, gold and silver are fictitious. (I know this because I did a ctrl-f 'fictitious' and those were the occurrences [totally OT: try switching out the caps-lock key with the control key in your keyboard bindings. Then you can just hit it with your pinky without scrunching up your hand. Unless you're an idiot that likes to yell a lot (hint: you're not) you probably use the control key more often]) And yes, I do take fictitious to have it's standard meaning of "does not exist."

Mkay, so I was a bit mistaken. Regardless, you're operating under a deluded definition of value, which you elaborate on below.

The value of anything to any living organism objectively stems from either a) it's caloric content, b) its use to prevent the loss of calories or c) it's use for security. All three can either refer to its use for the organism itself or another organism to which it has an altruistic relationship. Which ever one the organism is more in need of will be the favored use. I think that we can explain pretty much any temporary (and believe me, it will be temporary) deviation from this objective measure in terms of run-away sexual selection: this is generally not a good sign for the long term survival of the species in question.

This is not true. For example, I value my computer. I couldn't care less about its caloric content. It has no bearing on any loss of calories. And it's not useful for security. I could find thousands of other examples that refute your objective theory of value. Seriously, read through Menger's Principles of Economics, available here: http://mises.org/books/mengerprinciples.pdf.

Is that book based on the same uninformed sense of anthrocentrism which, when dressed up with suitably big words, seems to be taken seriously in some liberal arts circles? For example, would a literal interpretation of it lead one to believe that value is assigned to things purely by humans as you claimed to?

Your condescending language is unneeded, but I linked to it above. I believe chapters 2 and 3 pertain to our conversation.

It is precisely because you think that the value of a dollar is subjective that I am pressing the issue. While we both agree that government should not arbitrarily set, you (along with most economists) seem to think that market fluctuations can influence the amount of calories (i.e. the value) in a piece of paper: this is just not so.

I didn't say the market could influence the amount of "calories" in a piece of paper, or anything else for that matter.

Like I said before, just because Item X has Y amount of calories and Item A has B amount of calories, that does not mean Item X (which, let's say, has more calories than Item A) is more valuable. That is a completely ridiculous notion.

Perhaps not as an individual but, statistically, yes. That's how genes operate, statistically. I would argue that we are genetically programmed to conform to our culture. As individuals, we still have free will of course (in the sense used by Dennet) but as a group, a certain percentage will be forced, if it is available, to seek employment at McDonald's as opposed to accepting homelessness because it is taboo to be homeless in this culture. Were it not taboo, I imagine that the economy would pretty much collapse because many more people would choose it over taking shit from rich yuppies all day and said yuppies would then have to cook their own damn food, fix their own damn houses, and wipe their own damn asses leaving them with less time to drive the economy with their yuppie ways.

If being homeless is so taboo, why are there homeless people? Don't you think people take jobs at McDonald's because they prefer having shelter, a source of income, and food? I think you're just grasping at straws here to formulate an argument.

No, not grasping. Holding it firmly in my hand. Available resources are appropriated by the ecosystem. This is a fact. Hermit crabs don't put no trespassing signs up on their summer shell and bears don't have two dens because they're busy using the first one for hibernation. That is the way things work. The bear is free to think that it has two dens all it wants but when it shows up, someone else is going to be using it. All available unused resources are exploited in the ecosystem. Why are we any exception?

Comparing apples to oranges...

That is a lulzy statement. I suppose they would have had their house slaves carry their stolen loot up into their unvisited room for safekeeping.

Focus on my statement and leave out the unnecessary crap.

[quote]And I'm speaking of the sort of "gunboat civility" where people for forced to live in a feudal system. To do it peacefully and hell, willingly, would require domesticated animals, more or less.

What?

My understanding was Keynesians believed that it was necessary for the government to counteract the short-sighted decisions of ruthless profiteers by spending public money, in some sense, direct the markets. That's not what I'm talking about at all.

Or the decision of ruthless regulators and federal reserve chairman which cause the misallocations/malinvestments of labor and capital in the marketplace...

My friend Google leads me to the conclusion that the names you list are mostly (first and only three I checked) associated with the Austrian School which was at its heyday when robber barons were massacring (or, more in character, paying their thugs to massacre) people for trying to demand fair pay.

Relevance to my statement?

What I'm referring to is the across the board assumption that economics is anything other than a subbranch of ecology and their acceptance of the confusion (value is subjective, 100 calories can turn into 190, etc) that this brings about. The technical term for this sort of thing is gobbledygook. If their are economists which carry out their calculations in calories, and are predicting the extinction of our species if it doesn't drop this mess which has resulted from divorcing our sense of value from reality, then I would love to read them. The ones that you listed are not among them and I can smell them coming (along with the rest of economics) from a mile away.

So basically, you're willing to accept long-refuted objective theory claims. What's the point in debating with you anymore?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

This is not true. For example, I value my computer. I couldn't care less about its caloric content. It has no bearing on any loss of calories. And it's not useful for security. I could find thousands of other examples that refute your objective theory of value. Seriously, read through Menger's Principles of Economics, available here: http://mises.org/books/mengerprinciples.pdf.

I'll check it out. Your computer is a bad example though: You value it subjectively but there is very little inherent objective value in it. A mouse could sleep in it I suppose.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I didn't say the market could influence the amount of "calories" in a piece of paper, or anything else for that matter.

You said that the value of a dollar could and should be set by the market. I'm conflating the two because I think that that's the correct definition.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Like I said before, just because Item X has Y amount of calories and Item A has B amount of calories, that does not mean Item X (which, let's say, has more calories than Item A) is more valuable. That is a completely ridiculous notion.

No it is not. It is pretty much the definition of value that is in currency throughout all forms of life. I would say (again) that it is incredibly anthrocentric to assert that we can somehow magically violate that rule.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

If being homeless is so taboo, why are there homeless people? Don't you think people take jobs at McDonald's because they prefer having shelter, a source of income, and food? I think you're just grasping at straws here to formulate an argument.

If fucking goats is taboo than why do people fuck goats? Most people don't look homeless people in the eyes, don't talk to them and generally don't behave towards them as if they are a member of their own species. There are exceptions to be sure but the general attitude is that homeless people are inferior to others. I would say that this, while not meeting the literal definition, qualifies in essence as a taboo (kapu here in hawaii).

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Comparing apples to oranges...

In what way? I'm comparing animals to animals. A little closer to home, a chimpanzee doesn't claim two nests and no self respecting hunter-gatherer claims to huts.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Focus on my statement and leave out the unnecessary crap.

For you to imply that storing unused volumes of crap in otherwise unused space constitutes legitimate use of that space warrants the response.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

And I'm speaking of the sort of "gunboat civility" where people are (fixed in edit) forced to live in a feudal system. To do it peacefully and hell, willingly, would require domesticated animals, more or less.

What?

The fundamental role of the state is to have poor people pay taxes to protect the possessions of the rich from being appropriated by the poor people. It is a feudal system because nobody really owns land but pays rent to the government (which is largely in the pocket of the banks) and/or the banks. You then go to work for a company that the bank is invested in and generate profit for them. You then go to the store (that the bank is invested in) and spend some percentage of the money that you don't give to the bank on food (produced by other wage slaves). You then drive your car (purchased or rented from a company that the bank is invested in) to the gas station (that the bank is invested in) and purchase gasoline (manufactured by a company that the bank is invested in) and hope that your car doesn't break down so that you don't have to take it to be repaired by a company that the bank is invested in. etc. etc. Doesn't it just sound simpler to live on their land and slave in their fields directly? I really don't see what the progress is. I'm disagreeing with Marx here, I know. He thought that capitalism represented progress and was a necessary first step away from feudalism and towards communism. Stalin banned that part of his writing of course.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

So basically, you're willing to accept long-refuted objective theory claims. What's the point in debating with you anymore?

There was a lot more to the statement than that. Specifically, I reiterated my statement, which you still have not responded to, that economics can only be sanely understood as a subbranch of ecology. Trying to understand a field without even knowing what it is leads to confusion.

1) What is this obsession with national debt? We both agree that it's largely imaginary money. What about a "reality debt?" That is, how much of the money in circulation is real (in the sense that it represents an actual unit of energy) and how much if it is just imaginary?

2) What percentage (if any) of imaginary energy will cause an ecological subsystem to collapse?


seem to be two particularly burning questions for a legitimate theory of economics to address. So that leaves the question. If you are going to completely disregard one of my two main points, then what's the point of debating with you?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I'll check it out. Your computer is a bad example though: You value it subjectively but there is very little inherent objective value in it. A mouse could sleep in it I suppose.

Right, I value it subjectively. That is the only way to value something.

You said that the value of a dollar could and should be set by the market. I'm conflating the two because I think that that's the correct definition.

We're reaching an impasse because you think value stems from how many calories you can get out of something, and I think value stems from humans evaluating what is most useful to them at a given time, or what they prefer the most.

Let's say we can get X amount of calories out of one item, and X+5 amount of calories out of another. The second item has more calories, right? What if I value the second item more?

No it is not. It is pretty much the definition of value that is in currency throughout all forms of life. I would say (again) that it is incredibly anthrocentric to assert that we can somehow magically violate that rule.

Maybe I'm not following you. First you said I stated the market could influence the amount of calories in a dollar. I never said that, I said it influences the value of a dollar. We're not following each other due to conflicting definitions of value...Sort of makes them subjective huh?

If fucking goats is taboo than why do people fuck goats? Most people don't look homeless people in the eyes, don't talk to them and generally don't behave towards them as if they are a member of their own species. There are exceptions to be sure but the general attitude is that homeless people are inferior to others. I would say that this, while not meeting the literal definition, qualifies in essence as a taboo (kapu here in hawaii).

Again, maybe I'm not following your use of taboo. If taboo is something so awful that they have to avoid whatever is taboo, why do people still do the taboo things?

And your statement of whether people act like homeless people are inferior isn't relevant. Honestly what are we even talking about anymore? You keep going on these tangents like "rich asshole yuppies this, rich asshole yuppies that."

In what way? I'm comparing animals to animals. A little closer to home, a chimpanzee doesn't claim two nests and no self respecting hunter-gatherer claims to huts.

Your statements are similar to mutualism, I think.

For you to imply that storing unused volumes of crap in otherwise unused space constitutes legitimate use of that space warrants the response.

Do you have an attic or basement, or a closet?

The fundamental role of the state is to have poor people pay taxes to protect the possessions of the rich from being appropriated by the poor people. It is a feudal system because nobody really owns land but pays rent to the government (which is largely in the pocket of the banks) and/or the banks. You then go to work for a company that the bank is invested in and generate profit for them. You then go to the store (that the bank is invested in) and spend some percentage of the money that you don't give to the bank on food (produced by other wage slaves). You then drive your car (purchased or rented from a company that the bank is invested in) to the gas station (that the bank is invested in) and purchase gasoline (manufactured by a company that the bank is invested in) and hope that your car doesn't break down so that you don't have to take it to be repaired by a company that the bank is invested in. etc. etc. Doesn't it just sound simpler to live on their land and slave in their fields directly? I really don't see what the progress is. I'm disagreeing with Marx here, I know. He thought that capitalism represented progress and was a necessary first step away from feudalism and towards communism. Stalin banned that part of his writing of course.

I may just be dull, but I'm not grasping the point of this section of your post. Could you be more succinct or get to the point?

And what's the use in mentioning Marx?

There was a lot more to the statement than that. Specifically, I reiterated my statement, which you still have not responded to, that economics can only be sanely understood as a subbranch of ecology. Trying to understand a field without even knowing what it is leads to confusion.

1) What is this obsession with national debt? We both agree that it's largely imaginary money. What about a "reality debt?" That is, how much of the money in circulation is real (in the sense that it represents an actual unit of energy) and how much if it is just imaginary?

2) What percentage (if any) of imaginary energy will cause an ecological subsystem to collapse?

seem to be two particularly burning questions for a legitimate theory of economics to address. So that leaves the question. If you are going to completely disregard one of my two main points, then what's the point of debating with you?

Then explain to me how it is a sub-branch of ecology so I can have an actual understanding of whatever the hell it is you're saying.