I recently came across this guy. I think his message is profound.
Charles addresses virtually all of the problems within our current system and also the maladjusted state of being that people compel themselves to exercise.
[video=youtube;EEZkQv25uEs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEZkQv25uEs[/video]
[B]In greater detail (Skip to 4:37):[/B]
[video=youtube;CR4GXN9B_Lc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR4GXN9B_Lc&t=276[/video]
Thoughts?
So what exactly is he arguing with regards to money?
Because if there is a way to get rid of competition, there isn't. There are finite resources, on a planet of finite size, and humans have endless wants.
This is the basic premise of economics.
The problem with money as of right now is that although it's designed to properly allocate resources, it doesn't. It's a wasteful system and we have a sufficient amount of evidence that confirms that. Otherwise we wouldn't have ecological and socioeconomic crises as large as we have now. Another fundamental error within the foundations of economics is the assumption that humans have infinite desires which inherently implies that there has to be enough goods manufactured to satisfy those desires. Why is this infered principle actually dangerous? Because there are no infinite resources of anything, and our current economic model is built upon the order of infinite growth in which humans have to compete and consume in order to maintain the economy along with their own survival which in turn damages our social relations with one another, damages our environment, and extends the gap of inequality between people instigating crime along with other types of destructive behavior. We also know from life that human material desires can only be satisfied within a realistic scope of resource management which our global system essentially defies.
[QUOTE=Cockman;39854148]The problem with money as of right now is that although it's designed to properly allocate resources, it doesn't.[/quote]
Firstly, it's not designed for that. It's a means of transaction.
Simply put, we use it to exchange labour or resources more easily. A fisherman can barter with his fish, but he can obtain wealth easier if he exchanged it for money and then bought what he wanted with it.
[quote]It's a wasteful system and we have a sufficient amount of evidence that confirms that.[/quote]
The intention behind money is to reduce wastage. Can you give me a source as to why its so wasteful, especially when it's now mostly digital or paper?
[quote]Otherwise we wouldn't have ecological and socioeconomic crises as large as we have now.[/quote]
Those problems are not down to money. Economic activity still happens without money (in the animal kingdom too, to boot!).
[quote]Another fundamental error within the foundations of economics is the assumption that humans have infinite desires which inherently implies that there has to be enough goods manufactured to satisfy those desires.[/quote]
It COULD be the case that desire is not infinite, but if it weren't then production of resources would eventually slow down once peoples needs have been satisfied. This isn't the case. People are always buying goods.
[quote]Why is this infered principle actually dangerous? Because there are no infinite resources of anything, and our current economic model is built upon the order of infinite growth in which humans have to compete and consume in order to maintain the economy along with their own survival[/quote]
It's a really big problem of economics in that we have finite resources. So instead, we figure out who to allocate resources to. In modern economics, generally those who produce wealth (or fiddle the books) get the lions share.
[quote]which in turn damages our social relations with one another, damages our environment, and extends the gap of inequality between people instigating crime along with other types of destructive behavior.[/quote]
So we found the big problem for all problems with humanity. How do we fix it? Well shock horror, economists have been trying to figure out how to do it for the past 250 years.
[quote]We also know from life that human material desires can only be satisfied within a realistic scope of resource management which our global system essentially defies.[/QUOTE]
What?
[QUOTE]It's a really big problem of economics in that we have finite resources. So instead, we figure out who to allocate resources to. In modern economics, generally those who produce wealth (or fiddle the books) get the lions share.[/QUOTE]
Those who typically "get the lions share" aren't producing wealth anymore. In fact what they are doing is counterproductive in most cases.
[QUOTE]It COULD be the case that desire is not infinite, but if it weren't then production of resources would eventually slow down once peoples needs have been satisfied. This isn't the case. People are always buying goods.[/QUOTE]
People are buying goods because they have to in order to sustain the economy and/or because they don't have the access to the goods.
You also have technology and machines on the horizon capable of automating most of these trivial jobs in the industry, and the machines will inevitably seize a majority of the job market. The reason that's not occurring exponentially is simply because people need jobs.
[QUOTE]Those problems are not down to money. Economic activity still happens without money (in the animal kingdom too, to boot!).[/QUOTE]
Actually yes most of those problems are down to (the use of) money. People devastate one another not because they want to, but because they have to according to their conditions of survival. If you remove the environmental catalysts behind destructive behavior, you won't have it.
[QUOTE]Firstly, it's not designed for that. It's a means of transaction.[/QUOTE]
Yeah it's to alleviate the exchange of goods and services. My bad.
[QUOTE]The intention behind money is to reduce wastage. Can you give me a source as to why its so wasteful, especially when it's now mostly digital or paper?[/QUOTE]
An example of the wastefulness behind our current financial system is planned obsolescence where products are designed to break down on schedule in order to facilitate the purchasing of a newer version (with planned obsolescence instilled within it). Enormous amounts of resources are wasted as a result of this system. Recycling also isn't effective because it costs more to recycle goods than to just to discard so most companies choose the latter. Money isn't the central problem, it's more so the appliance of it.
[QUOTE]We also know from life that human material desires can only be satisfied within a realistic scope of resource management which our global system essentially defies.[/QUOTE]
What I mean by this is basically switching to a model of finite growth, where everything is knowingly limited. Just as in your life you live knowing that you have a limited amount of money that you can spend on particular goods and services. It would be more effective to administer this approach holistically to our economy.
[QUOTE=Cockman;39855724]Those who typically "get the lions share" aren't producing wealth anymore.[/quote]
Source?
[quote]People are buying goods because they have to in order to sustain the economy and/or because they don't have the access to the goods.[/quote]
No? People buy goods because they want them.
[quote]You also have technology and machines on the horizon capable of automating most of these trivial jobs in the industry, and the machines will inevitably seize a majority of the job market. The reason that's not occurring exponentially is simply because people need jobs.[/quote]
Wrong. People are needed to not only maintain machinery, but build new ones, program them, clean, etc. There's still a lot of fringe jobs left, and some jobs (such as in engineering) are in huge demand.
[quote]Actually yes most of those problems are down to (the use of) money. People devastate one another not because they want to, but because they have to according to themselves. If you remove the environmental catalysts behind destructive behavior, you won't have it.[/quote]
What? How is a medium of transaction responsible for destroying the environment?
[quote]An example of the wastefulness behind our current financial system is planned obsolescence where products are designed to break down on schedule in order to facilitate the purchasing of a newer version (with planned obsolescence instilled within it). Enormous amounts of resources are wasted as a result of this system. Recycling also isn't effective because it costs more to recycle goods than to just to discard so most companies choose the latter. Money isn't the central problem, it's more so the appliance of it.[quote]
Then introduce legislation to repeal this sort of behaviour? Plus not all of economics is based around this.
[quote]What I mean by this is basically switching to a model of finite growth, where everything is knowingly limited. Just as in your life you live knowing that you have a limited amount of money that you can spend on particular goods and services. It would be more effective to administer this approach holistically to our economy.[/QUOTE]
How?
[QUOTE]What? How is a medium of transaction responsible for destroying the environment? [/QUOTE]
The acquisition of this medium of transaction is mainly responsible for destroying the environment. The oil paradigm is one example.
[QUOTE]
Wrong. People are needed to not only maintain machinery, but build new ones, program them, clean, etc. There's still a lot of fringe jobs left, and some jobs (such as in engineering) are in huge demand.
[/QUOTE]
Those engineering jobs will become the new fringe jobs. There will be an over-saturation of engineers. Besides many companies' CFOs are soliciting machines that require much maintenance simply because they're aware that people need jobs. Businesses are going to have to choose between productivity and employment.
[QUOTE]
Plus not all of economics is based around this.[/QUOTE]
Introducing legislation would raise expenses, increase inflation, stagnate productivity even more. And most of contemporary economics is based on infinite growth which is connected to the same problem.
Would you watch a video if I posted it here to prove a lot of my points?
[QUOTE=Cockman;39856160]The acquisition of this medium of transaction is mainly responsible for destroying the environment. The oil paradigm is one example.[/quote]
So are you saying that the need to create wealth is destroying the environment?
[quote]Those engineering jobs will become the new fringe jobs. There will be an over-saturation of engineers. Besides many companies' CFOs are soliciting machines that require much maintenance simply because they're aware that people need jobs. Businesses are going to have to choose between productivity and employment.[/quote]
But engineers are in high demand? You can't really predict if they will vanish or not.
[quote]Introducing legislation would raise expenses[/quote]
How? If you stop the use of planned obsolescence, how does that raise expenses?
[quote]increase inflation[/quote]
Do you know what inflation is?
[quote]stagnate productivity even more.[/quote]
How would a move towards producing goods intended for long term use to be used long term as opposed to short term be bad?
[quote]And most of economics is based on infinite growth which is connected to the same problem.[/quote]
Well, economists have been trying to solve this problem for ages. You can't just dismiss economics, especially as the scientific method is becoming much more prominent within economics, especially as psychology makes big inroads too.
[quote]Would you watch a video if I posted it here to prove a lot of my points?[/QUOTE]
You need to argue your points, not rely on somebody else.
Althrough I know what is this guy trying to tell us, and agree that money is far from being perfect, I don't think we are ready to live without it.
And by "we are not ready" I dont actualy mean that "society needs to grow up" or "human beings need to evolve more" or something even more stupid that hippies on the internet say when they discuss. I mean that our sociologists need to spend few more decades researching more uniqe societies (like pre-columbian indians, or various prison subcultures) in order to actualy design a system that may work. Beacouse simply removing money or economics form equaltion doesn't realy work; we already tested that.
In other words, I think money isn't perfect. It is necessary. For now.
[QUOTE]So are you saying that the need to create wealth is destroying the environment?[/QUOTE]
As of right now, yes.
[QUOTE]
But engineers are in high demand? You can't really predict if they will vanish or not.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/electrical-and-electronics-engineers.htm[/url]
Is 17,600 jobs over the course of 10 years a high demand? I don't think so.
[QUOTE]
How? If you stop the use of planned obsolescence, how does that raise expenses?[/QUOTE]
It would raise expenses for the producers tremendously, leading to expensive products..leading to not many purchases.
[QUOTE]Do you know what inflation is?[/QUOTE]
Yes.
[QUOTE]How would a move towards producing goods intended for long term use to be used long term as opposed to short term be bad?[/QUOTE]
Well if quality were to be taken into account, they would be forced to sell products no one could afford in order to sustain their business.
[QUOTE]Well, economists have been trying to solve this problem for ages. You can't just dismiss economics, especially as the scientific method is becoming much more prominent within economics, especially as psychology makes big inroads too.[/QUOTE]
Alright.
[QUOTE]You need to argue your points, not rely on somebody else.[/QUOTE]
Okay.
[QUOTE=Cockman;39855724]Those who typically "get the lions share" aren't producing wealth anymore. In fact what they are doing is counterproductive in most cases.
People are buying goods because they have to in order to sustain the economy and/or because they don't have the access to the goods.
You also have technology and machines on the horizon capable of automating most of these trivial jobs in the industry, and the machines will inevitably seize a majority of the job market. The reason that's not occurring exponentially is simply because people need jobs.
Actually yes most of those problems are down to (the use of) money. People devastate one another not because they want to, but because they have to according to their conditions of survival. If you remove the environmental catalysts behind destructive behavior, you won't have it.
Yeah it's to alleviate the exchange of goods and services. My bad.
An example of the wastefulness behind our current financial system is planned obsolescence where products are designed to break down on schedule in order to facilitate the purchasing of a newer version (with planned obsolescence instilled within it). Enormous amounts of resources are wasted as a result of this system. Recycling also isn't effective because it costs more to recycle goods than to just to discard so most companies choose the latter. Money isn't the central problem, it's more so the appliance of it.
What I mean by this is basically switching to a model of finite growth, where everything is knowingly limited. Just as in your life you live knowing that you have a limited amount of money that you can spend on particular goods and services. It would be more effective to administer this approach holistically to our economy.[/QUOTE]
Every single of your points actually doesn't refute money at all. Instead it attacks our wealth and wealth source models of which money isn't even a direct representative but ownership is. A few centuries ago you would perhaps had the same thing about landowneship as opposed to money ownership.
As to a lot of your other points.
a) People are not compelled to buy products to power the market. They compel themselves to buy said products for subjective and rarely objective reasons.
b) short timeframe during which products are replaced
This one essentially comes down to three issues really.
a) those with wealth want more wealth (planned obsolence for intance)
b) technological progress has sped up - a device which was top of the line 5 years ago is now below the bottom rung and often has to be replaced to give the same ease of use again
c) our manufacturing has essentially allowed us to make give a lot of nonperishable products the guise of perishable ones as we can maintain manufacture. And aren't forced to really take care of that one sword or that one showel we have.
Overal the objective worth of a lot of products has decreased massively as the production of it has simplified.
The only way in which you would get humans to recognise the worth of products again is, if you actually went out of your way to limit their availability.
The issue we face don't have that much to do with our economic model as they do with our actual production capability.
[QUOTE=Cockman;39856478]As of right now, yes.[/quote]
Then do explain the rapid rise of the environmentalist movement.
[quote][url]http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/electrical-and-electronics-engineers.htm[/url]
Is 17,600 jobs over the course of 10 years a high demand? I don't think so.[/quote]
How many engineers are there in the country? How many new ones are created annually?
[quote]It would raise expenses for the producers tremendously, leading to expensive products..leading to not many purchases.[/quote]
I assumed that planned obsolesence was basically adding a small modification to the item to cause it to fail in X time though?
[quote]Yes.[/quote]
So can you explain why it may increase it?
[quote]Well if quality were to be taken into account, they would be forced to sell products no one could afford in order to sustain their business.[/quote]
I thought people used to buy products which didn't have planned obsolescence? (And in fact, still do).
With all the doom this guy is preaching I'm not sure if someone has told them that the US recession has been over for almost half a decade. "Well without money depriving people of their sense of community maybe someone would make a garden and feed the homeless." Maybe, maybe, but that is some real scrub shit compared to harvesting many acres of herbicidal frankencorn in minutes using a million-dollar combine.
The video lost any intellectual merit it had for me after seeing the [I]totally[/I] positivist approach towards getting me on the guy's side at 6:00. Don't get me wrong gifts can have positive economic benefits. A job is someone's livelihood and during a recession when someone is threatened with homelessness after getting fired it might be more beneficial for the economy to prevent that homelessness so the person can continue searching for a new job. This could be proven with numbers, data, and positive analysis as opposed to some bullshit rhetoric reinforced by repetition. Positive statements with empirical evidence kick the shit out of normative statements and the best way of telling something is bullshit is to know the difference between the two.
[QUOTE=ravenhurst;39918401]With all the doom this guy is preaching I'm not sure if someone has told them that the US recession has been over for almost half a decade. "Well without money depriving people of their sense of community maybe someone would make a garden and feed the homeless." Maybe, maybe, but that is some real scrub shit compared to harvesting many acres of herbicidal frankencorn in minutes using a million-dollar combine.
The video lost any intellectual merit it had for me after seeing the [I]totally[/I] positivist approach towards getting me on the guy's side at 6:00. Don't get me wrong gifts can have positive economic benefits. A job is someone's livelihood and during a recession when someone is threatened with homelessness after getting fired it might be more beneficial for the economy to prevent that homelessness so the person can continue searching for a new job. This could be proven with numbers, data, and positive analysis as opposed to some bullshit rhetoric reinforced by repetition. Positive statements with empirical evidence kick the shit out of normative statements and the best way of telling something is bullshit is to know the difference between the two.[/QUOTE]
I don't really understand your argument against this video. "Real scrub shit compared to harvesting many acres of herbicidal frankencorn in minutes using a million-dollar combine." Obviously no one would cultivate a garden by primitive means if they didn't have to. And he's not explicitly stating anything in the video that suggests that shit is going to hit the fan anytime soon either. He's just asserting that humanity has grown increasingly more delusional about what it views as valuable and relevant to life brought on by a system that allocates resources inefficiently and damages the environment. If you prefer reading statistics, then just investigate the roots of the global financial crises that are beginning to mestasize more and more peoples' lives.
[editline]24th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39886342]Then do explain the rapid rise of the environmentalist movement.
How many engineers are there in the country? How many new ones are created annually?
I assumed that planned obsolesence was basically adding a small modification to the item to cause it to fail in X time though?
So can you explain why it may increase it?
I thought people used to buy products which didn't have planned obsolescence? (And in fact, still do).[/QUOTE]
There are many types of planned obsolescence. Like style obsolescence which is primarily socially driven which is why companies like Rolls Royce don't have to incorporate tremendous functional obsolescence in their products because they already expend budgets for products recognized for their quality. The types of "Rolls Royce" company model successes are also heavily attributable to their historical and/or cultural significance. However, most companies aren't sustainable on that kind of model because quite simply, most people just don't have the sufficient purchasing power since it's mathematically impossible for a majority to have it.
If it were a universal legislation it would cause inflation because it would reduce profitability, then sustainability and finally productivity, which would lead to lower distribution of products, which would affect demand which would force government to either remove legislation or print more money injecting more paper in circulation dramatically inflating the currencies in use.
Gift economies are still coercive. See Marcel Mauss' "The Gift"
[editline]25th March 2013[/editline]
This guy has a pretty dialectical understanding of history.
[QUOTE=Flameon;40035704]Gift economies are still coercive. See Marcel Mauss' "The Gift"
[editline]25th March 2013[/editline]
This guy has a pretty dialectical understanding of history.[/QUOTE]
Dialectical history is more or less bullshit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
