Thread: The Perfect Society

Originally Posted by Licity

If I make the cake and share it with my friends, I will be happy, I enjoy seeing my friends happy. Share the cake with everyone? They didn't help make it. I don't know these people. Why share?

This is the part I agree the most. If you have no bonds to people, why should you care? Friends are a different story, for them you have those bonds.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

If these goods didn't satisfy human wants then why do people buy them? .

It is not denied that the goods satisfy human wants. But this is not the point. The point is that the purpose of producing those goods is not primarily to satisfy those wants but to make a profit. This is why goods are not produced to satisfy the wants of people who lack the money to buy them

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

If profit didn't determine what is highly valued then how do companies get these profits? Why would all these people be paying for something they don't value? .

No you miss the point again. The conventional argument in favour of capitalism is that profits dont determine what is valued but are determined by what is valued. Of course the conventional argument is flawed since my valuing something does not mean it will be proiduced if I lack the money to buy it

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I'd like to see your figures on prices between the 1920's and mid 19th century [ whenever that is ]. If overinvestment is the cause of the disproportion, where does the monetary base comes from to cause this overinvestment? It can't be inflation according to you. .

Ill try and soruce that figure but I do have another to hand http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/c...bour(1975).pdf . This makes the point that the GPI was lower in 1914 than it was in 1814. The key to understanding infation in subsequent decades was abdandonment of the gold standard and the printing of excess inconvertible currency

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Money is a medium of exchange, what rationally allocates resources is the value system..

If you run a business try rationally allocating resources towards the production of goods for which there is no market but plenty of human need and you will soon find yourself bankrupt!

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Because there will always be scarcity but wealth is generated through the subjective desires of individuals. We have a finite time but overtime new technologies are invented and capital accumulation makes production easier but it will never produce an environment where everything is like a Fourier utopia. ..

Scarcity is a myth created and maintained by capitalism - both on the supply side and on the demand side as I explained earlier

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

The psychological effects of not helping the child is something the individual cannot live with. ..

This is precisely an example of redefining motives that James Rachels referred to as I said earlier. Faced with the prospect of a child drowning in a river people dont weigh up the options and consider whether or not they could they live with the consequences. They just strip off and dive in. There are many accounts of "heros" and "heroines" whose testimonies bear this out

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

That is an exchange. You are getting the cake, whoever made the cake and is sharing it with you is getting the social benefit of making you happy.

Sorry no that is NOT an exchange. At least it is not an exchange in the quid pro quo sense of economic exchange - I give you something only if you first give me something esle in exchange. You can legitimately call it reciprocity but reciprocity is NOT the same thing as economic exchange. FRee access socialism/communism might be called a system of generalised reciprocity but there is no buying or selling or barter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut View Post
If you don't want to share you got to cook it yourself at your own fire. Which is fine. But everyone else will be going from one kitchen to the other partying and sharing delicious things while you are hiding by yourself like Gollum with your precious steak.

Unelias: Oh come on, we were having a nice discussion and you label me an anti-social because I want a private steak?

Dannon: No offense meant. Nothing personal. I am not thinking of you in particular. I have brought a bottle of wine into a gathering and drank it at my camp with a woman friend. I understand your point. No doubt people will want to enjoy some private things. And that is fine, it is a luxury. You worked for your steak, you want it and you son't have enough to share with the whole community. That is what I meant by a luxury. If someone else wants some and it is a valuable commondity, they can trade for it. And sure a monetary system can be developed in a Utopia. My point is that the monetary system will be used for luxuries and that it will be based on value, not profit, not debt. And it will be backed by something substantial and valuable in itself. I don't know about gold.

Originally Posted by robbo203

It is not denied that the goods satisfy human wants. But this is not the point. The point is that the purpose of producing those goods is not primarily to satisfy those wants but to make a profit. This is why goods are not produced to satisfy the wants of people who lack the money to buy them

Why not? Satisfying wants means profit.

Originally Posted by robbo203

No you miss the point again. The conventional argument in favour of capitalism is that profits dont determine what is valued but are determined by what is valued. Of course the conventional argument is flawed since my valuing something does not mean it will be proiduced if I lack the money to buy it

Profits are determined by what is valued but doesn't determine what is valued?

Originally Posted by robbo203

Ill try and soruce that figure but I do have another to hand http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/c...bour(1975).pdf . This makes the point that the GPI was lower in 1914 than it was in 1814. The key to understanding infation in subsequent decades was abdandonment of the gold standard and the printing of excess inconvertible currency

I'll give it a read and present my critique



Critique: The author gives no citation as to where he/she found the prices of Britain in either 1814 or 1914. Also the author assumes that there was no inflation in Britain for 100 years before 1914. That is false. The Bank of England was setup in 1694 and was allowed to issue bank notes through fractional reserve banking and that inflated the monetary supply of gold by creating several property titles for a single unit of gold.

Originally Posted by robbo203

If you run a business try rationally allocating resources towards the production of goods for which there is no market but plenty of human need and you will soon find yourself bankrupt!

That is the point of non-profit organizations and charity. The market is not for individuals who are unable to barter or utilize their labor power for an income.

Originally Posted by robbo203

Scarcity is a myth created and maintained by capitalism - both on the supply side and on the demand side as I explained earlier

Then I challenge you to rip up your checks and accept no more income. If we are in a post-scarcity world then you should be fine.

Originally Posted by robbo203

This is precisely an example of redefining motives that James Rachels referred to as I said earlier. Faced with the prospect of a child drowning in a river people dont weigh up the options and consider whether or not they could they live with the consequences. They just strip off and dive in. There are many accounts of "heros" and "heroines" whose testimonies bear this out

Nonsense. If one is capable of watching a child die then they are not going to spontaneously jump in and save them. They may be so twisted as to sit and watch.

Originally Posted by robbo203

Sorry no that is NOT an exchange. At least it is not an exchange in the quid pro quo sense of economic exchange - I give you something only if you first give me something esle in exchange. You can legitimately call it reciprocity but reciprocity is NOT the same thing as economic exchange. FRee access socialism/communism might be called a system of generalised reciprocity but there is no buying or selling or barter

Ah yes it is. I give you cake, you give me psychological positivity [ happiness ]. You never gave an individual in hard times a certain amount of money for a positive feeling about yourself?

Originally Posted by Licity

If I make the cake and share it with my friends, I will be happy, I enjoy seeing my friends happy. Share the cake with everyone? They didn't help make it. I don't know these people. Why share?

That is why I think that in an Utopian society we will live in communities where we all know each other and we all help each other, where we are all friends. I am not saying to bake a cake and split it between 4 billion people. Trade would mostly happen between neighboring communities or farther communities.

Let's say that you live in a community that has access to some good clay and your community is made of skilled artisans who make the best pottery that it is valued by other communities, but you lack good wool. Another community 500 miles away are skilled weavers of wool. Yes you could trade of course.

But let us say that you have family in that community and you guys have a hard winter and don't have enough warm clothes, so they decide to share some of their extra wool clothes and blankets with you as a favor. You can do them a favor as well, but is not expected.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Let's say that you live in a community that has access to some good clay and your community is made of skilled artisans who make the best pottery that it is valued by other communities, but you lack good wool. Another community 500 miles away are skilled weavers of wool. Yes you could trade of course.

I agree with your premise of division of labor, such is the basis of the capitalist system.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

it will be based on value, not profit, not debt.

You've stated this multiple times, and I still can't make heads or tails of it. How can an economy not completely regulated (i.e. socialistic) ever be based on anything other than value?

I go to the store and see an mp3 player for $300. If I decide the price is good, then I, the consumer, have set the value of said mp3 player to $300 where I will either buy it or not buy it depending on how much I money I have for luxury goods. No matter what they try, companies cannot force people to buy something. It is ultimately up to the consumer how much a good is worth/the value of the good. If the consumers were, on the whole, upset with the profit margins of the company making the mp3 players, then the consumers have the right and ability to stop buying them until the prices drop to a level they will buy them at.

I get it, you are misunderstanding what I mean by value. I am not talking about supply and demand. I am not talking about profit. I am talking about how useful a product is and how much it is needed. I am not talking about the more value it has, the more expensive it is.

OK, here is some good information. They call it a resource based economy:

A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.

Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.

In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.

We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.

Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.

A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people.

What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.

As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.

With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.

If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.

Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Why not? Satisfying wants means profit.

No. Wants are only satisfied in capitalism IF it is profitable to do so. In other words if there is what economists call effective demand

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Profits are determined by what is valued but doesn't determine what is valued

You contradict yourself. Earlier you said "If profit didn't determine what is highly valued then how do companies get these profits? " Now you are saying profits are determined by what is valued

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I'll give it a read and present my critique

Critique: The author gives no citation as to where he/she found the prices of Britain in either 1814 or 1914. Also the author assumes that there was no inflation in Britain for 100 years before 1914. That is false. The Bank of England was setup in 1694 and was allowed to issue bank notes through fractional reserve banking and that inflated the monetary supply of gold by creating several property titles for a single unit of gold.

The general price leve can go up or down for reasons other than the printing of excess currency. For example the velocity of monetary transactions can increase or slow down depending on economic conditions. However, until the gold standard was scrapped, the circumstances that allowed for contiuous increases in the RPI - the printing of excess currency -did not apply and this why prices remained fairly stable fdoir much of the 19th century and early 20th

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Then I challenge you to rip up your checks and accept no more income. If we are in a post-scarcity world then you should be fine.

As I said, capitalism creates and mantains scarcity. Last I checked we still live in a capitalist society. Capitalism however has created the material possibility for a post scarcity society

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Nonsense. If one is capable of watching a child die then they are not going to spontaneously jump in and save them. They may be so twisted as to sit and watch.

Certainly it is possible to find sick individuals who would do such a thing. This i have not denied. But it is you who deniend the possibility of altruistic behaviour. I have only to cite one example of such behaviour to refute your claim and I would contend that most normal people would not behave in the way you suggest

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Ah yes it is. I give you cake, you give me psychological positivity [ happiness ]. You never gave an individual in hard times a certain amount of money for a positive feeling about yourself?

Certainly but that is not an economic exchange. It is called reciprocity which is quite different. Further I would point out that whatever positive feeling you may get is a byproduct of this charitable giving not the reason for it. It is becuase we are endowed with empathy that we can relate to other individuals and feel motivated to help them

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I get it, you are misunderstanding what I mean by value. I am not talking about supply and demand. I am not talking about profit. I am talking about how useful a product is and how much it is needed. I am not talking about the more value it has, the more expensive it is.

OK, here is some good information. They call it a resource based economy:

A Resource-Based Economy is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.

Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.

In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.

We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.

Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.

A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people.

What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.

As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.

With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.

If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.

Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

The problem with money being treated as an inefficient artificial system is that it is not one. Money was not an invention of some greedy prehistoric man that then spread it around, the concept of a good that had no use other than to stand in as a sort of broker between goods developed independently. In the sense that it is a go-between from apples to plywood to room on an airliner to what-have-you, money is not a thing but a unit of measurement for how much society is indebted to a person. If a man has ten thousand in his bank account, this literally means that he is short goods and services equal to ten thousand dollars. Although it sounds(and is) simple in theory, strange things such as inflation begin to occur when monetary systems go into practice. The unit of measurement for value is changing as well as the value of what it may be exchanged for.

Now, you seem to agree that money is an acceptable system for manufactured goods but not for raw material and necessities for life. Someone has to be in the field, planting and harvesting wheat. That person will not receive compensation for their work past their own share of wheat. The person running the water treatment machines receives nothing more than their eight glasses a day. The emissions inspector would, quite laughably, get nothing more than an unlimited supply of fresh air.You might say, the resources are free so people would need to get their own wheat and water and... air? There simply isn't enough room on the Earth to have wheat fields for everyone, or water test kits for everyone, or air testers for everyone. Someone must do a greater than normal share of the work to ensure there is empty space. It would be illogical to pay these people a salary, as they are simply making the free resources available. No one would voluntarily take these jobs, as under this system a cashier at a fast-food restaurant gets paid more. With no one to free up Earth oh-so-bountiful resources, there effectively are none. And just like that, post-scarcity is suddenly dystopia.

Moreover, what kind of world would that be? A world where hard work in the raw materials professions is punished and laziness is rewarded. A world where the man that harvests twenty acres gets the same payment as the one that harvests ten. A world where incredibly advanced technology is brought to standstill for want of materials. A world where there is no progression for lack of need to progress further than your competitors. A world where every meal one eats is made of goods stolen from people doing unpaid work on land that belongs to everyone.

Originally Posted by robbo203

No. Wants are only satisfied in capitalism IF it is profitable to do so. In other words if there is what economists call effective demand

And what determines 'effective demand' is what people are willing to give for the good or service. It must be of greater value, there are institutions which do non-profit work but that is not the basis of a market.

Originally Posted by robbo203

You contradict yourself. Earlier you said "If profit didn't determine what is highly valued then how do companies get these profits? " Now you are saying profits are determined by what is valued

I don't see the contradiction in this. Profits indicate to the business man what consumers want. If corporation X sees an increase in sales [ profits ] in their hula-hoop sector, then that means that consumers are valuing hula-hoops. People are buying them because they desire them. This buying is satisfying the wants of consumers and satisfying the corporation with profits. A positive-sum transaction.

Originally Posted by robbo203

The general price leve can go up or down for reasons other than the printing of excess currency. For example the velocity of monetary transactions can increase or slow down depending on economic conditions.

Yes but under a commodity base system which allows for little inflation, a increase in prices in one sector means a decrease in another. It tends toward equilibrium. Under inflation, all prices can go up while no other sectors go down.

Originally Posted by robbo203

However, until the gold standard was scrapped, the circumstances that allowed for contiuous increases in the RPI - the printing of excess currency -did not apply and this why prices remained fairly stable fdoir much of the 19th century and early 20th

No no no, inflation is possible without a fiat currency. Like I said, you can engage in fractional reserve banking which allows for multiple title claims on a singular unit of gold or silver. Therefore you can inflate bank notes while the monetary base stays the same.

Originally Posted by robbo203

As I said, capitalism creates and mantains scarcity. Last I checked we still live in a capitalist society. Capitalism however has created the material possibility for a post scarcity society

Well that doesn't make sense. It maintains scarcity yet allows for post scarcity. However, lets see if capitalism creates scarcity by applying what is with what was in the feudal age, the age before the 'capitalism' we have today. Which system has provided more food for the masses? Feudalism or capitalism? More drugs? Higher standard of living? The poor today have better living standards then the kings of old. They have televisions, cars, some have houses, working plumbing. Do they have the very best of these things? No. Is it better then feudalistic standards of living? Yes.

Originally Posted by robbo203

Certainly it is possible to find sick individuals who would do such a thing. This i have not denied. But it is you who deniend the possibility of altruistic behaviour. I have only to cite one example of such behaviour to refute your claim and I would contend that most normal people would not behave in the way you suggest

Well my theory is that many people act out of self-interest, to feel better about themselves, to feel like they made a difference. Is the act they did seem 'altrustic'? Perhaps. But the definition of alturism is a complete disregard for your welfare. I don't think it is possible to do anything without recognizing something that involves yourself with the action.

Originally Posted by robbo203

Certainly but that is not an economic exchange. It is called reciprocity which is quite different. Further I would point out that whatever positive feeling you may get is a byproduct of this charitable giving not the reason for it. It is becuase we are endowed with empathy that we can relate to other individuals and feel motivated to help them

We are endowed with empathy but we don't have to act on it. There are plenty of cases in which parents don't care for their children. I think you are failing to realize the exchange in this process though. Person A owns the cake, they either made it or traded for it. They have the ability to not share with you and in having that ability means that you do not have ownership over it. Therefore you go from a non-owner to an owner of a portion of it by person A sharing it with you. That is exchange. Person A might give it to you to be nice to you or to expect something in return but it is a proper definition of exchange.

Exchange
1. To give in return for something received; trade: exchange dollars for francs; exchanging labor for room and board.
2. To give and receive reciprocally; interchange: exchange gifts; exchange ideas.

Originally Posted by Licity

The problem with money being treated as an inefficient artificial system is that it is not one. Money was not an invention of some greedy prehistoric man that then spread it around, the concept of a good that had no use other than to stand in as a sort of broker between goods developed independently. In the sense that it is a go-between from apples to plywood to room on an airliner to what-have-you, money is not a thing but a unit of measurement for how much society is indebted to a person. If a man has ten thousand in his bank account, this literally means that he is short goods and services equal to ten thousand dollars. Although it sounds(and is) simple in theory, strange things such as inflation begin to occur when monetary systems go into practice. The unit of measurement for value is changing as well as the value of what it may be exchanged for.

Now, you seem to agree that money is an acceptable system for manufactured goods but not for raw material and necessities for life. Someone has to be in the field, planting and harvesting wheat. That person will not receive compensation for their work past their own share of wheat. The person running the water treatment machines receives nothing more than their eight glasses a day. The emissions inspector would, quite laughably, get nothing more than an unlimited supply of fresh air.You might say, the resources are free so people would need to get their own wheat and water and... air? There simply isn't enough room on the Earth to have wheat fields for everyone, or water test kits for everyone, or air testers for everyone. Someone must do a greater than normal share of the work to ensure there is empty space. It would be illogical to pay these people a salary, as they are simply making the free resources available. No one would voluntarily take these jobs, as under this system a cashier at a fast-food restaurant gets paid more. With no one to free up Earth oh-so-bountiful resources, there effectively are none. And just like that, post-scarcity is suddenly dystopia.

Moreover, what kind of world would that be? A world where hard work in the raw materials professions is punished and laziness is rewarded. A world where the man that harvests twenty acres gets the same payment as the one that harvests ten. A world where incredibly advanced technology is brought to standstill for want of materials. A world where there is no progression for lack of need to progress further than your competitors. A world where every meal one eats is made of goods stolen from people doing unpaid work on land that belongs to everyone.

I see your point. I hear you.
However, in nature there is no money. In nature laziness is not rewarded and hard work is not punished. But in Nature, as far as we know it is survuval of the fittest. In Nature, beings are working for their own individual survival. So what we need to do is model nature but improve upon it by basically treating a whole community as one organism. In the old testament they have the 7 deadly sins, right? Sloth is the worst among all the 7 deadly sins. If someone is too lazy to contribute work to the community then they deserved to be put to death. I have lived in communities and if you didn't contribute you would be kicked out. If you didn't work, you didn't eat. But in these communities and in the Old Testament they didn't have technology on their side. It is like a hive of bees or a pack of wolves that need to work together so that they all survive both individually and collectively.

But in this modern society which you and I are in, I would say that at least 50% of the people don't actually contribute to the survival needs and are getting rewarded. In this modern present society it is the people who work the hardest who get paid the least, and it is the supervisors and CEOs who get to go on long lunch breaks, take long vacations, get the best Health Insurance and Life insurance, etc. It is this society that rewards laziness and punishes hard work. The ones who get a higher salarly are the ones who work less. And if you own the company, you don't have to work at all.
If you cannot afford your own home you have to pay money to someone else who owns your home and pay his mortgage.

When you have a family you delegate chores to each member of the family. In a community everyone has chores. If someone doesn't do their chores then they are going to have problems with their peers and their families. Look at the Native Americans.

But now we have technology, we have robots, we have bulldozers, we have solar powered electricity, we have wind power, we have wave power. In this present society, this technology replaces jobs so that the CEOs can make more of a profit. In the Utopian society, that profit will be shared so that everyone will have to work less, everyone will have enough. In the Utopian society the abundance will be shared, not the scarcity.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

And what determines 'effective demand' is what people are willing to give for the good or service. It must be of greater value, there are institutions which do non-profit work but that is not the basis of a market.

What determines effective demand is what people want limited by the purchasing power at their disposal. A pauper has virtually no effective demand

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I don't see the contradiction in this. Profits indicate to the business man what consumers want. If corporation X sees an increase in sales [ profits ] in their hula-hoop sector, then that means that consumers are valuing hula-hoops. People are buying them because they desire them. This buying is satisfying the wants of consumers and satisfying the corporation with profits. A positive-sum transaction.

The contradiction lies in the fact that you said
"If profit didn't determine what is highly valued then how do companies get these profits? " and then that "profits are determined by what is valued".
What you are stating above is merely a restatement of the second of these claims

Capitalism is based on a sero sum transaction - the inverse relationship between wages and the fruits of exploiting wage labour, profit

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Yes but under a commodity base system which allows for little inflation, a increase in prices in one sector means a decrease in another. It tends toward equilibrium. Under inflation, all prices can go up while no other sectors go down.

This is true and this is why it is quite false to claim as many politicians do that excessive wage demands are "fuelling inflation". Thisis not possible. If relative wages go up the capitalist share of the product, goes down. It doesnt effect the price of a commodity since capitalists cannot just put up pruces as they wish. Market competition sees to that.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

No no no, inflation is possible without a fiat currency. Like I said, you can engage in fractional reserve banking which allows for multiple title claims on a singular unit of gold or silver. Therefore you can inflate bank notes while the monetary base stays the same.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/e...Inflation.html

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well that doesn't make sense. It maintains scarcity yet allows for post scarcity. However, lets see if capitalism creates scarcity by applying what is with what was in the feudal age, the age before the 'capitalism' we have today. Which system has provided more food for the masses? Feudalism or capitalism? More drugs? Higher standard of living? The poor today have better living standards then the kings of old. They have televisions, cars, some have houses, working plumbing. Do they have the very best of these things? No. Is it better then feudalistic standards of living? Yes.
.

Ironically Marx praised capitalism for raising for raising the level of productive forces. But while it develops the technological capacity of human society it also increasingly thwarts the rational and full apllication of that potential. This is what is called a basic contradiction of capitalism. Huge amounts of resoruces are increasing squandered simply to keep the system ticking over not to meet human needs. Most of the jobs in capitalism are socially useless in the sense that they do not enhance human welfare in any way - from banking to insurance to pay departments to salespersons and a thousand and one other occupatons. All these will disapear in a society geared directly and solely to satisfying human needs and thereby massively increase the productive resoruces for such a society

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well my theory is that many people act out of self-interest, to feel better about themselves, to feel like they made a difference. Is the act they did seem 'altrustic'? Perhaps. But the definition of alturism is a complete disregard for your welfare. I don't think it is possible to do anything without recognizing something that involves yourself with the action.
.

I am not saying people dont act out of self interest; I am simply saying they also act altruistically. Egoistic theories of human motivation deny this and are manifestly false

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

We are endowed with empathy but we don't have to act on it. There are plenty of cases in which parents don't care for their children. I think you are failing to realize the exchange in this process though. Person A owns the cake, they either made it or traded for it. They have the ability to not share with you and in having that ability means that you do not have ownership over it. Therefore you go from a non-owner to an owner of a portion of it by person A sharing it with you. That is exchange. Person A might give it to you to be nice to you or to expect something in return but it is a proper definition of exchange.

Exchange
1. To give in return for something received; trade: exchange dollars for francs; exchanging labor for room and board.
2. To give and receive reciprocally; interchange: exchange gifts; exchange ideas.

Well I m sorry but I beg to differ. In the context of economic anthropology a clesar distinction is made between exchange economies and gift economies. We are not talking loosely about exchange in the sense you are referring to it - e.g. exchanging ideas. I might be exchanging ideas wuith you now buy I dont own them do I? I didnt even invent them. In economic anthropology when we are talking about an exchange economy we are are referring solely to no.1 in your defintion above

keep going, guys, this is interesting. I am learning something.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I see your point. I hear you.
However, in nature there is no money. In nature laziness is not rewarded and hard work is not punished. But in Nature, as far as we know it is survuval of the fittest. In Nature, beings are working for their own individual survival. So what we need to do is model nature but improve upon it by basically treating a whole community as one organism. In the old testament they have the 7 deadly sins, right? Sloth is the worst among all the 7 deadly sins. If someone is too lazy to contribute work to the community then they deserved to be put to death. I have lived in communities and if you didn't contribute you would be kicked out. If you didn't work, you didn't eat. But in these communities and in the Old Testament they didn't have technology on their side. It is like a hive of bees or a pack of wolves that need to work together so that they all survive both individually and collectively.

But in this modern society which you and I are in, I would say that at least 50% of the people don't actually contribute to the survival needs and are getting rewarded. In this modern present society it is the people who work the hardest who get paid the least, and it is the supervisors and CEOs who get to go on long lunch breaks, take long vacations, get the best Health Insurance and Life insurance, etc. It is this society that rewards laziness and punishes hard work. The ones who get a higher salarly are the ones who work less. And if you own the company, you don't have to work at all.
If you cannot afford your own home you have to pay money to someone else who owns your home and pay his mortgage.

When you have a family you delegate chores to each member of the family. In a community everyone has chores. If someone doesn't do their chores then they are going to have problems with their peers and their families. Look at the Native Americans.

But now we have technology, we have robots, we have bulldozers, we have solar powered electricity, we have wind power, we have wave power. In this present society, this technology replaces jobs so that the CEOs can make more of a profit. In the Utopian society, that profit will be shared so that everyone will have to work less, everyone will have enough. In the Utopian society the abundance will be shared, not the scarcity.

Nature, survival of the fittest... all applicable and totally inescapable. As long as we are human, we are still just a very smart type of animal forced to live under nature's rules. Sure, the discoveries of penicillin, heart bypass, and the airfoil would make us think we don't have to live with nature, all of those things are readily found to adhere to the natural laws.

Altruism, acting in a way that offers no benefit to the actor, is rather rare in the natural world. It is around, but for the most part, an animal does nothing unless it is doing something in its own self-interest. Those wolves organizing themselves into a pack are doing so for their own protection, not a random desire to protect the rest of the pack. Altruism in humans is ultimately a learned behavior, perhaps taught by a philosopher or more commonly, a religious authority. Typically, helping another at no cost to yourself is done in the hopes that the person you are helping will reciprocate, or the person carries enough of your genes that it is worthwhile, or the person is a potential mate, etc.

How exactly can only 50% of people contribute to survival needs when 100% of the people alive are alive? People working harder for less than other people are doing so through their own fault. There are labor unions, there can be strikes to raise pay. Workers are in no way forced to work, they only do so so the money keeps flowing into their pockets. If there is some kind of government restriction on strikes, then that is the fault of the government(and ultimately the governed) and not a flaw inherent to a fully capitalistic system. The CEOs and businessmen that take long lunch hours had to work their way up. They are the smartest of all, they figured out how the economy works and managed to play the system in the same way investors learn the intricacies of the stock market. CEOs should not be looked down on for laziness, but respected for their ability to rise.

Native Americans... a widespread term for the many cultures spread over the Americas and parts of the Caribbean, etc. Usually discussed as though socialist and somehow more in tune with nature, they were also the first ones to fall when Europe decided to expand. Survival of the fittest, perhaps?

Yes, we have electricity from virtually free endless sources and extremely powerful machinery. We also have human beings that run the equipment and profit from it. By creating a resource based economy, you are shooting entire industries in the foot. No more profit to be had in farming, electricity generation, mining, water treatment, and so many more. You would be removing income from millions that have learned to do nothing but that. The shift from this efficient machine of millions of competing innovating workers to millions of workers sitting on the streets will necessarily generate a net loss.

Ok...
So I have a lot to say about that. I don't look up to a CEO for learning how THIS system works so he can use it for his own benefit and have other people do his work. That is exactly what I',m talking about. THIS is not a Utopia! In a untopia there will be NO CEOs who will know how to have other people do their work for them. Everyone pitches in, unless they are too young or too old.

It is not the fault of the workers that they work, it is the systems. And it is not a fault in the first place. Someone has to do the work. If everyone split it equally then it would be a piece of cake for everybody.

You may not have any altruistic motives, but don't speak for everyone. Everyone I know helps people, even strangers, out for no benefit for themselves. You wouldn't help a child out who you found lost? Isn't that altruism? What benefit or approval would you be hoping for from that? It is instinct.

Yes we are animals, but we are unique among animals in that we can make conscious informed decisions. We have already made laws to govern ourselves, we made an economy which is artificial and not natural. Why not use our intellect and consciousness to try to make this world the best place possible.

I am talking about a world where we won't need Unions, CEOs, Governments, etc. I am talking about an Utopia, something completely different.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Ok...
So I have a lot to say about that. I don't look up to a CEO for learning how THIS system works so he can use it for his own benefit and have other people do his work. That is exactly what I',m talking about. THIS is not a Utopia! In a untopia there will be NO CEOs who will know how to have other people do their work for them. Everyone pitches in, unless they are too young or too old.

It is not the fault of the workers that they work, it is the systems. And it is not a fault in the first place. Someone has to do the work. If everyone split it equally then it would be a piece of cake for everybody.

You may not have any altruistic motives, but don't speak for everyone. Everyone I know helps people, even strangers, out for no benefit for themselves. You wouldn't help a child out who you found lost? Isn't that altruism? What benefit or approval would you be hoping for from that? It is instinct.

Yes we are animals, but we are unique among animals in that we can make conscious informed decisions. We have already made laws to govern ourselves, we made an economy which is artificial and not natural. Why not use our intellect and consciousness to try to make this world the best place possible.

I am talking about a world where we won't need Unions, CEOs, Governments, etc. I am talking about an Utopia, something completely different.

I can see why you would want to divide up the labor, but I firmly believe that anything on earth worth having needs to be worked for, and that even socialistic division is only fair if all of the participants agree. Unions and CEOs and governments arose from nature, and cultures that lacked them could not stand up to the influence of the ones that did. I figure that the naturally strongest economy is the best to use.

I must say, this is one of the best discussions I've had in a while. Our responses are well-thought-out and we haven't degraded to name calling and ad hominem like so many other threads do.

Ditto, these are good discussions with so many points of view. It is like we all have some knowledge to share here. I don't know about economics but others do. I may be a dreamer and an idealist, I have a vision and a dream and others have the practical knowledge about things like economics. It is very interesting. It reminds me of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington and Ben Franklin etc. gathering in a pub and disussing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I wonder if we could come up with a Constitution?

Ok, I am a little drunk so give me a break.

But, even if from your perspective it makes sense that the wolf is serving the whole pack for his own sake, that may not be the case from the wolf's point of view. In fact, the point is not WHY the wolf woRks together with the group or not, but the fact that it does. And, the whole group benefits, no matter why the singular wolf is there.

If I am out by myself after the apocoplypse and I find a group of people who have their shit together, you will bet that I will join them and try to fit in, even if it is for my own benefit to be a benefit for them, you see?

And one reason that I have for keeping self sufficient communities small is that they WILL have to all work together instead of some people slacking off. Young people tend to slack off a little more than older people, so we have to give that to them. We have to allow for that. They are still kids. They are Soo curious and want to explore. Ok. Let them have that, let's allow them this priviledge. They will travel around looking for their own niche and someday they will find it. If it is with our community or another's doesn't matter. As long as we foster the connections between communities and the bonds of family.
But, aside from all the definitions of differnet governments, whether they be socialist, capitalist, or democratic... If we think of them all as members of our own family, since the whole world IS (regardless of race, culture, or religion, etc.), we should want the best for all of us. We will all rather save a fellow human rather than a fellow rabbit. We are a human family. All of us.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Ok, I am a little drunk so give me a break.

But, even if from your perspective it makes sense that the wolf is serving the whole pack for his own sake, that may not be the case from the wolf's point of view. In fact, the point is not WHY the wolf woRks together with the group or not, but the fact that it does. And, the whole group benefits, no matter why the singular wolf is there.

If I am out by myself after the apocoplypse and I find a group of people who have their shit together, you will bet that I will join them and try to fit in, even if it is for my own benefit to be a benefit for them, you see?

And one reason that I have for keeping self sufficient communities small is that they WILL have to all work together instead of some people slacking off. Young people tend to slack off a little more than older people, so we have to give that to them. We have to allow for that. They are still kids. They are Soo curious and want to explore. Ok. Let them have that, let's allow them this priviledge. They will travel around looking for their own niche and someday they will find it. If it is with our community or another's doesn't matter. As long as we foster the connections between communities and the bonds of family.
But, aside from all the definitions of differnet governments, whether they be socialist, capitalist, or democratic... If we think of them all as members of our own family, since the whole world IS (regardless of race, culture, or religion, etc.), we should want the best for all of us. We will all rather save a fellow human rather than a fellow rabbit. We are a human family. All of us.

The point is in WHY the wolf is with the pack... if the wolf was no longer benefiting from being in the pack, it has every reason to leave. If the post-apocalyptic group tries to kill you, would you still stick around? Even with a small community, there will still be people not working. Go to any community, large or small, and there is always some lazy person to gossip about.
Different people, uniting as one family... why? Helping these people won't necessarily further the individuals. Why should providing for another be so superior to providing for one's self?

Originally Posted by Licity

The point is in WHY the wolf is with the pack... if the wolf was no longer benefiting from being in the pack, it has every reason to leave. If the post-apocalyptic group tries to kill you, would you still stick around? Even with a small community, there will still be people not working. Go to any community, large or small, and there is always some lazy person to gossip about.

Ok...
Why is the wolf sticking with the pack? IT is for survival, first. ( We can agree on that). I f I am starving, freezing, etc. and there is a communtiy who has its shit together I will join it... In order to survive.

But eventually I will establish social bonds, like a chimpanszee, we ARE chimps, just mutated. And a little bit smarter.

Even if the chimp left the pack, it would not make it off any better. And why would the post apocolyptic group try to kill you? Unless you were trying to steal what you didn't earn?

Go to any community large or small and there is always some lazy person to gossi[p about. OK.... But gossipping is a lot different then killing. And there is always somebody to gossip about no matter what... especially if you are a woman... that is to be expected. ( sorry if that sounds sexist... I am drunk and my wife gossips all the time about people. But she would never kill anyone)... If they don't earn there keep, they won't eat. If it comes down to it. Simple as that.

Providing for everyone is better than just providing for oneself BECAUSE it is energy effeicient. Just like rent and utilities is more efficient when you have rooommates than when you live alone, or hitchhiking is more efficient than everyone driving their own cars. It doesn't matter if it is a selfish motivation or not when you get down to it. The ends justify the means. You cannot say, "well, he was trying to make it easier for himself so it isn't an example of community living" if it also happens to benefit the communtiy in the end.

If chimps benefit individually from their communal living social structure that doesn't mean that the sovial structure is flawed. On the contrary, the social structure is a success.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Ok...
Why is the wolf sticking with the pack? IT is for survival, first. ( We can agree on that). I f I am starving, freezing, etc. and there is a communtiy who has its shit together I will join it... In order to survive.

But eventually I will establish social bonds, like a chimpanszee, we ARE chimps, just mutated. And a little bit smarter.

Even if the chimp left the pack, it would not make it off any better. And why would the post apocolyptic group try to kill you? Unless you were trying to steal what you didn't earn?

Go to any community large or small and there is always some lazy person to gossi[p about. OK.... But gossipping is a lot different then killing. And there is always somebody to gossip about no matter what... especially if you are a woman... that is to be expected. ( sorry if that sounds sexist... I am drunk and my wife gossips all the time about people. But she would never kill anyone)... If they don't earn there keep, they won't eat. If it comes down to it. Simple as that.

Providing for everyone is better than just providing for oneself BECAUSE it is energy effeicient. Just like rent and utilities is more efficient when you have rooommates than when you live alone, or hitchhiking is more efficient than everyone driving their own cars. It doesn't matter if it is a selfish motivation or not when you get down to it. The ends justify the means. You cannot say, "well, he was trying to make it easier for himself so it isn't an example of community living" if it also happens to benefit the communtiy in the end.

If chimps benefit individually from their communal living social structure that doesn't mean that the sovial structure is flawed. On the contrary, the social structure is a success.

I understand that they will usually benefit from communal living social structures. But not always. There are bad relationships, bad families, bad living conditions. Why should a person more capable of farming for themselves be forced to farm for everyone and only accept as much as everyone else? It is punishing hard work by merit of reducing compensation relative to work performed.

Originally Posted by Licity

I understand that they will usually benefit from communal living social structures. But not always. There are bad relationships, bad families, bad living conditions. Why should a person more capable of farming for themselves be forced to farm for everyone and only accept as much as everyone else? It is punishing hard work by merit of reducing compensation relative to work performed.

I hear you. OK... But not when everyone pitches in.. And who knows? It may be way fucking harder to make vegetables, pickles, wool, cotton, honey, bee's wax, wine, cheese, bread, pottery, baskets, etc. for oneself than with at least a wife. And you like to have friends, and your wife likes to have friends. It may or may NOT be easier by yourself, but we are STILL social creatures who like to have friends.

There are bad relationships, but really, how much bad relationships? In community? Can it be worked out? Is there a way of communciation? Being married I am amazed and I have learned SO much how we can flex our minds to understand each other. My wife and I wouldn't understand each other, IF... we didn't agree to... If .... we didn't have to.... to stay married. And that is just to stay married... What about to survive???!

I would work with whoever the fuck I had to work with to survive. Heck.... I've had to before. I have starved before... I have worked before just to survive. But I think if we all work together, it will be SO EASY to make it. In this SOCIETY everyone is competing. But IF WE ALL WOKED TOGETHER we could afford a few hundred thousans people goofing off and not working. WE already support people lik real estate agents and lawyers and politicians.

WEll, bad living conditions... I always wondered why the Eskimos never came south...

And, DO NOT FORGET that we have TECHNOLOGY! WE have technology to help us. It can only help us. If it makes it harder then we won't use it. If we use technology to help all of us, not just the elite, most of us will be better off than we are npw. Except the CEos who will have to actually have to put in and hour or two of manual labor a week.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I hear you. OK... But not when everyone pitches in.. And who knows? It may be way fucking harder to make vegetables, pickles, wool, cotton, honey, bee's wax, wine, cheese, bread, pottery, baskets, etc. for oneself than with at least a wife. And you like to have friends, and your wife likes to have friends. It may or may NOT be easier by yourself, but we are STILL social creatures who like to have friends.

There are bad relationships, but really, how much bad relationships? In community? Can it be worked out? Is there a way of communciation? Being married I am amazed and I have learned SO much how we can flex our minds to understand each other. My wife and I wouldn't understand each other, IF... we didn't agree to... If .... we didn't have to.... to stay married. And that is just to stay married... What about to survive???!

I would work with whoever the fuck I had to work with to survive. Heck.... I've had to before. I have starved before... I have worked before just to survive. But I think if we all work together, it will be SO EASY to make it. In this SOCIETY everyone is competing. But IF WE ALL WOKED TOGETHER we could afford a few hundred thousans people goofing off and not working. WE already support people lik real estate agents and lawyers and politicians.

WEll, bad living conditions... I always wondered why the Eskimos never came south...

And, DO NOT FORGET that we have TECHNOLOGY! WE have technology to help us. It can only help us. If it makes it harder then we won't use it. If we use technology to help all of us, not just the elite, most of us will be better off than we are npw. Except the CEos who will have to actually have to put in and hour or two of manual labor a week.

What do you have against real estate agents, lawyers, politicians, and CEOs? They work just like everyone else. They might not be doing manual labor, but what they do is still important, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

Yes, it is good to work with other for survival, but only if the individual working is directly benefiting from working with others. A shared resources system would mean that the people running the technology are losing value earned from work because they need to support others, whereas a machinist that gets a bit of technology for himself and leaves will directly see the fruits of his labor. It's then up to him if he wants to share with his friends, or give to the poor, or whatever he feels like. The miners and farmers and ranchers are directly hurting themselves by supporting a society that, by your own admission, will contain lazy people. How is this at all fair?