Moderated Money/inequalities - Part 3 / Poll - willing to work for free?

[Gaetan]

Don't you feel stressed about loosing your job, the obligation to perform at work, to not be able to make the paiements at the end of the month, about not being able to have food on the table for your family, to not be able to pay for health care, university for your children. All that can be avoided by the abolition of money.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

No.

What happened to you crying about colleges? It appears that you don't have the common courtesy and decency to admit you're wrong. You will continue to push your ignorant, irrational, and incorrect ideas here because you like the attention.

 

[Lplus]

Don't you feel stressed about loosing your job, the obligation to perform at work, to not be able to make the paiements at the end of the month, about not being able to have food on the table for your family, to not be able to pay for health care, university for your children. All that can be avoided by the abolition of money.

What you appear to be advocating seems to be described by the slogan "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"

I'm somewhat surprised you are getting so much flak for it on a left leaning forum.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

… All that can be avoided by the abolition of money.

No it can't.

Abolishing money is equivalent to printing unlimited money. Have you ever heard of a case in history of any government trying to fix things by printing lots of money? I suggest you look up the term "hyperinflation".

You are effectively proposing infinite inflation, where the value of money falls literally to zero. That doesn't make other people want to just give you their stuff, it just means you have nothing of value to exchange for their stuff.

I know, you think people just need to believe that everyone will freely contribute to the common good and take only what they need, but you haven't given us any reason to think you can persuade people to believe it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

What you appear to be advocating seems to be described by the slogan "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"

I'm somewhat surprised you are getting so much flak for it on a left leaning forum.

Gaetan's plan is more precisely "From each assuming they can be bothered, to each according to how greedy they are".

He says he wants and expects people to take only as much as they reasonably need, but his proposed method consists of nothing beyond ceasing to count how much people take.

 

[Gaetan]

In the actual society it is accepted that riches take more than they need but in a world of no money it won't be accepted because it cost free labor to do goods and services then people won't take more in excess of what they need. Different systems different views.

 

[bruto]

In the actual society it is accepted that riches take more than they need but in a world of no money it won't be accepted because it cost free labor to do goods and services then people won't take more in excess of what they need. Different systems different views.

They will if they anticipate shortages or scarcity. Now you assume for your reasons that this will never occur, but I believe that one of the earliest results of your plan would be that, at least temporarily, shortages of most things will occur.

Long before people get the hang of a moneyless society where they consume only what they need and generously produce what others need, people will take advantage. Too many will consume without producing, shortage and famine will occur, and with it greed, coercion, warfare, panic and chaos.

But we need not worry, as your fantasies will never be anything more than a half baked idea on a forum anyway.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

"... it cost free labor [sic] ..."

If it costs something then it's not free.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

What you appear to be advocating seems to be described by the slogan "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"

I'm somewhat surprised you are getting so much flak for it on a left leaning forum.

If it was actually a proposal of this kind I wouldn't have a problem with it.

It is not. It is the removal of money for vague reasons that don't hold water, coupled with an almost Pollyanna like naivety about how humans operate and wilful refusal to answer criticism of any part of the idea.

As a Socialist I could argue all day about the merits and difficulties of setting up a system based upon "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" including recognising potential issues and trying to come up with ways to work around them.

This thread and it's predecessors are not that.

 

[abaddon]

Don't you feel stressed about loosing your job,

No, because I am good at my job

the obligation to perform at work,

No because I always perform at my job. I enjoy it and I am good at what I do.

to not be able to make the paiements at the end of the month,

No, because I have few payments to make. Trivial utility bills and such, no big deal.

about not being able to have food on the table for your family,

No, I pride myself on always cooking fresh and enjoy doing so.

to not be able to pay for health care,

No, because it's free.

university for your children.

No, because that is also free.

All that can be avoided by the abolition of money.

No. Money abolition changes none of that.

 

[Leftus]

(1) Don't you feel stressed about loosing your job, (2) the obligation to perform at work, (3) to not be able to make the paiements at the end of the month, (4) about not being able to have food on the table for your family, (5) to not be able to pay for health care, (6)university for your children. (7) All that can be avoided by the abolition of money.

1 - no, I'm fairly secure in my field.
2 - Not a bum who expects handouts.
3 - Not financially irresponsible. I don't live above my means.
4 - Nope. See #3. Also Family consists of me and a dog. We are fine.
5 - Nope. See #3.
6 - Nope. See #3.
7 - No it won't and we've explained why. Resources don't magically fart into existence due to want. Can also be solved by personal improvement. Get getter skills, better job, stop being a burden on society.

 

[Leftus]

In the actual society it is accepted that riches take more than they need

Accepted? No. Asserted, absolutely.

but in a world of no money it won't be accepted because it cost free labor to do goods and services then people won't take more in excess of what they need. Different systems different views.

Why would it not be accepted? Since nobody is counting what someone takes, how would anybody know?

Despite the idiocy that is "free labor" how would that be more of a barrier than "paid labor?" I know, slave owners lived in modest houses on tiny lots. We go back to those times. FUN!

 

[Leftus]

Roughly 5 years ago I bought my first house. Before that I was renting a small apartment. Did I buy a house bigger than I needed? Yes I did. Single, 1 dog (which I got after the house), and I've got a 4 bed, 2.5 bath house. Yes, I've a bathroom I don't use, and is almost strictly for guests which I have twice a year or so. Now, granted, when I have out of state visitors, having the spare rooms comes in handy, but I don't "need" them.

Now, since I did this with my own money, and it would be wasteful in the eyes of Gaetan, why would I take possession of a smaller home for "free" than something I spent actual money on?

This is yet another flaw in Gaetans plan. The assumption that people will limit their wants because everything is available at no cost.

Also, I've 2 cars. Despite being limited to driving one at a time. One is a 2 door sports car, the other is a 4 door sedan. They serve different purposes, but to be fair, I really don't need the sedan all that often. I needed a car to pick up my parents and while I could have shoved mom in the back of the Camaro, I decided to get something nice. So I got a used Maserati. Also, I wanted, not needed, an exotic car.

How would being a society without currency lighten my modest consumption?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

In the actual society it is accepted that riches take more than they need but in a world of no money it won't be accepted

Rich people can afford to take more than poor people. If you get rid of money, suddenly everyone is rich.

Different systems different views.

Same humans same behaviour.

 

[Leftus]

Gaetan's plan is more precisely "From each assuming they can be bothered, to each according to how greedy they are".

He says he wants and expects people to take only as much as they reasonably need, but his proposed method consists of nothing beyond ceasing to count how much people take.

Yeah, the notion that people will put out maximum, or any, effort for the same reward as those doing nothing is wrong. There was a study where a monkey was given a cucumber for a task, and another was given a grape for that same task. Cucumber monkey got upset.



A monkey could figure out why his system would fail. But, I hear him say, everyone will get grapes! But no, there aren't enough grapes to go around, scarcity and all that, someone will have to eat the cucumbers. Won't be Gaetan, of course. There will be people happy to have cucumbers over grapes, I can sense his retort. Yeah, no they won't. Not in numbers to make it work.

He doesn't address scarcity, beyond being expensive. Actually, for real, running out of something? Like the TP scare of months ago? Market manipulation by the manufactures. Or something. Again, never really addressed. Mostly ignored, like any questions asked of him.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

He doesn't address scarcity, beyond being expensive. Actually, for real, running out of something? Like the TP scare of months ago? Market manipulation by the manufactures. Or something. Again, never really addressed. Mostly ignored, like any questions asked of him.

That's the huge hole in his plan. He has no idea of how he's going to make rationing work.

He only considers the absolute extremes: all things you need will be in oversupply, so everyone can take as much as they want, any stuff that can't be universally supplied will be a pointless luxury so they'll just be banned and nobody will get them.

Strawberries and tomatoes: you can have them both when they're in season and there's enough to go round, but don't take too many. No, I don't know how many is too many, but just don't. And most are the long-lasting but flavourless varieties that look great but don't taste of anything. The really nice tasty ones are always going to be in short supply. Don't ask Gaetan who gets the tasty tomatoes and who gets the disappointing ones. He has no idea. He has no plan.

It wouldn't be fair if someone gets the nice strawberries and the nice tomatoes while others get neither. A monkey could tell you that's not fair. Gaetan will tell you "in a world of no money it won't be accepted" but what does that mean? He has no plan to count what people take or how to limit it. No plan to let people know how much of anything is fair to take and how much is too much. No way to spot what should "not be accepted". No plan for what to do about it if you could.

 

[Leftus]

That's the huge hole in his plan. He has no idea of how he's going to make rationing work.

He only considers the absolute extremes: all things you need will be in oversupply, so everyone can take as much as they want, any stuff that can't be universally supplied will be a pointless luxury so they'll just be banned and nobody will get them.

Strawberries and tomatoes: you can have them both when they're in season and there's enough to go round, but don't take too many. No, I don't know how many is too many, but just don't. And most are the long-lasting but flavourless varieties that look great but don't taste of anything. The really nice tasty ones are always going to be in short supply. Don't ask Gaetan who gets the tasty tomatoes and who gets the disappointing ones. He has no idea. He has no plan.

It wouldn't be fair if someone gets the nice strawberries and the nice tomatoes while others get neither. A monkey could tell you that's not fair. Gaetan will tell you "in a world of no money it won't be accepted" but what does that mean? He has no plan to count what people take or how to limit it. No plan to let people know how much of anything is fair to take and how much is too much. No way to spot what should "not be accepted". No plan for what to do about it if you could.

I think all of this started out of his jealousy of not being able to afford a Tesla. Rather than do the rational things, get a better job, work more hours, feed the kids less, he decided to blame everyone else for his lack of funds. Look at his posts, his assumptions that everyone is hanging on by their fingertips. Seconds away from being fired, no money left once bills are accounted for. Been there, worked my way out of it. Better job, more hours, now firmly in the middle class.

I think you would find a robust black market where people are trading their goods for goods of others. We may put our tomatoes and strawberries into the marketplace, but the really primo ones, we set aside for barter. Which will, again, lead to a disparity between the haves and have nots.

My grandmother, who was perhaps the biggest influence on my life, taught me the importance of stockpiling resources (and how to cheat at card games, story for another day). For example, she had three apricot trees and a fig tree, but at the time of her passing, enough apricot and fig preserves to last years. Yes, she came out of the great depression, where these skills were not just nice to have but downright necessary, and a lesson Gaetan is in dire need of learning. You can get through whatever hardship you are going through. Use the lifelines people offer to pull yourself up, not others back down.

 

[Gaetan]

No, because I am good at my job

No because I always perform at my job. I enjoy it and I am good at what I do.

No, because I have few payments to make. Trivial utility bills and such, no big deal.

No, I pride myself on always cooking fresh and enjoy doing so.
No, because it's free.

No, because that is also free.

No. Money abolition changes none of that.

People of values worry more about their neighbour than themself.

 

[abaddon]

People of values worry more about their neighbour than themself.

Then why do you refuse to do that?

 

[Leftus]

People of values worry more about their neighbour than themself.

Then why did every single question you asked only addressed self and not others? For someone so concerned about their neighbors, you asked ZERO questions about them.

Why did you ignore the responses of your neighbor? Do you lack concern for him? Or, because Abaddon doesn't share you views, he is not in your tribe and thus not your neighbor?