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

[MarkCorrigan]

He is saying that they have fallen AWAY from god. He supports the OT. He even states that he isn't there to remove the old law.

All this shows is that it is easy to make the Bible say whatever you want, because it's a bronze age book of fairy tales.

God isn't real. Satan isn't real. Jesus might not have been real.

 

[The Man]

Embarrassment is just a respect of people

Your lack of respect for people and the value of their work is demonstrably evident in this thread, how embarrassed by that are you?

Not deliberately embarrassing someone is also "a respect of people".

As with most of your assertions, your conflation of embarrassment and respect of people is at odds with just itself and with you.

 

[Gaetan]

Your lack of respect for people and the value of their work is demonstrably evident in this thread, how embarrassed by that are you?

Not deliberately embarrassing someone is also "a respect of people".

As with most of your assertions, your conflation of embarrassment and respect of people is at odds with just itself and with you.

Bah, the lovers of money will never agree with me.

 

[The Man]

They had means to preserve the food and people in a world of no money are not so stupid to waste ressources nor animals. Wolves are not so stupid to kill all the deers but in a world of money you think you can pay, you can waste and make all the pollution you want, natives didn't use money and never did that and their tradition says to not do that.

Of course animals can overhunt an area, then they either starve or move on. They can also overbreed, again leading to starvation by making available food more scarce. Heck, house cats hunt things they don't eat and feral cat are reportedly responsible for the extinction of 33 species world wide.


Surplus killing

In Tasmania, in a single dog attack, 58 little penguins were killed.[22] In mainland Australia, a single fox once killed around 74 penguins over several days, eating almost nothing.[23] One leopard in Cape Province, South Africa killed 51 sheep and lambs in a single incident.[24] Similarly, two caracal in Cape Province killed 22 sheep in one night, eating only part of the buttock of one carcass.[25] Up to 19 spotted hyenas once killed 82 Thomson's gazelle and badly injured 27, eating just 16%.[1]

 

[The Man]

Bah, the lovers of money will never agree with me.

Again the point was, your assertion don't even agree with themselves, nor you.

 

[The Man]

That what i say, when people pay for it they waste but in a world of no money you see things differently. In food banks when it is free people don't take more than they need.

How would you know?

Food banks don't generally supply people directly. They supply other agencies such as food pantries which often limit what, when and to whom they give food. Even providing three-day food packages to families, people don't get to just take stuff. So it is not the case of the people taking free stuff limiting themselves but the pantries and banks limiting what they give to those in need.


https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/46497/52138_fanrr16-2c.pdf?v=0

Policies Used To Limit Food Distribution
Many pantries have implemented policies that control
who can receive food and how often (table 3.15). Twothirds of pantries reported that they limit the frequency
with which households can obtain food.34 About half
of those that do so allow households to receive food
packages 12 times per year, or about once a month,
whereas only 13 percent allow them to do so more
than once per week.
About 40 percent of pantries limit who can receive food
packages. The criteria used most frequently by pantries
with clientele restrictions are income (50 percent) and
residence in the service area (40 percent). In many cases
these restrictions reflect, in part, TEFAP and/or State
regulations, which set constraints on who can get USDA
food and on how often they may receive it.
By Size
In general, large pantries are more likely than small
ones to control their distribution of food (table 3.15).
About half of large pantries limit who can receive
food, but only about one-third of small ones do

 

[Gaetan]

How would you know?

Food banks don't generally supply people directly. They supply other agencies such as food pantries which often limit what, when and to whom they give food. Even providing three-day food packages to families, people don't get to just take stuff. So it is not the case of the people taking free stuff limiting themselves but the pantries and banks limiting what they give to those in need.


https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/46497/52138_fanrr16-2c.pdf?v=0

Scarity is a control made by money, the only control in a world of no money is yourself.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Nonsense. How exactly does money produce scarcity?

If I have 100 apples I have 100 apples. Doesn't matter if money exists or not. You can't just magic more apples out of thin air.

 

[Gaetan]

Nonsense. How exactly does money produce scarcity?

If I have 100 apples I have 100 apples. Doesn't matter if money exists or not. You can't just magic more apples out of thin air.

The world of money is a world of slaves, the world of no money is a world of freedom

 

[Joecool]

The world of money is a world of slaves, the world of no money is a world of freedom

The basis for your entire theory is a book called Uptopia, written by Thomas More.

It's ironic that the Utopia that you based your no money idea upon, had both money and slaves involved.

A no money world is not freedom. It would be a matter of survival.

Without money and civilized society, humans will revert to a hunting and gathering society. People will starve, lack medical care and there is likely to be a lot of violence in the world of no money that you describe.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The world of money is a world of slaves, the world of no money is a world of freedom

That isn't a response to my question at all. You're just regurgitating your own nonsense talking points and frantically attempting to handwave away the people who are pointing out that you are talking rubbish.

Try again. How does money produce scarcity? How does removing money eliminate scarcity?

I have 100 apples. In a world with money people come to me and I sell them apples. 100 people each buy one apple from me, and I am out of apples.

In your world, people come to me and take one apple each. 100 people come to me and take one apple each. What do I tell the 101st person who asks for an apple?

 

[Leftus]

Bah, the lovers of money will never agree with me.

Sucks that those are the people that you have to not only convince to come along, but you have to include in your fantasies. Maybe, I don't know, address their specific points rather than reassert your claims?

 

[Leftus]

The world of money is a world of slaves, the world of no money is a world of freedom

See, this is what I'm talking about. You didn't address the question, you just reasserted your fantasy. Stop that and discuss your idea. Work out the flaws. Maybe then you will get more buy in (pardon the pun).

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The world of money is a world of slaves, the world of no money is a world of freedom

The first, the real world, is a world with incentivised production and limited consumption.

Your fairy tale world removes a major incentive for production and removes a major limit to consumption. Result - overconsumption and scarcity.

You have no idea how to deal with scarcity. You just assume everything that is needed will exist in limitless abundance. If we could achieve that, we would not need money. The price of all necessities would fall effectively to zero, as if everyone was suddenly a bazillionaire.

"How much are the apples?" "Oh, just help yourself. There are infinity million more so just take all you want".

That's how unrealistic your plan is.

 

[Leftus]

The first, the real world, is a world with incentivised production and limited consumption.

Your fairy tale world removes a major incentive for production and removes a major limit to consumption.

You have no idea how to deal with scarcity. You just assume everything that is needed will exist in limitless abundance. If we could achieve that, we would not need money. The price of all necessities would fall effectively to zero, as if everyone was suddenly a bazillionaire.

"How much are the apples?" "Oh, just help yourself. There are infinity million more so just take all you want".

That's how unrealistic your plan is.

Take a look at California and the upcoming drought. You can't just call down to the water factory and order more water. There is a finite supply and when you are out, you are out. And when it's something as important as water, you are really up the creek without a paddle, or water to paddle.

But, hey, make it free, decouple cost from use. Let the farmers take their fill, and the individuals, and the environmentalists. It will all work out when people die, but whatever. I'm sure than when it's free, it will rain, or snow, to match our avarice to the supply. Somehow.

 

[Gaetan]

Take a look at California and the upcoming drought. You can't just call down to the water factory and order more water. There is a finite supply and when you are out, you are out. And when it's something as important as water, you are really up the creek without a paddle, or water to paddle.

But, hey, make it free, decouple cost from use. Let the farmers take their fill, and the individuals, and the environmentalists. It will all work out when people die, but whatever. I'm sure than when it's free, it will rain, or snow, to match our avarice to the supply. Somehow.

The problem with water is the money cost not the lack of that ressource

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The problem with water is the money cost not the lack of that ressource

Wrong. The problem is scarcity.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The problem with water is the money cost not the lack of that ressource

Nonsense.

Scarcity is always the problem with everything.

Deal with my apples problem please. Stop just restating your premise and answer questions.

 

[Gaetan]

Wrong. The problem is scarcity.

Ridiculous, the oceans are full of water, the problem is the money. There is no lost of water, the problem is the money to take it where it is.

 

[Leftus]

Ridiculous, the oceans are full of water, the problem is the money. There is no lost of water, the problem is the money to take it where it is.

You can't drink, nor irrigate, nor fill the rivers with ocean water. If you are considering desalination, what are you going to do with the waste salt? Free, or not free, you've got some serious problems with using ocean water for consumption.

Desalination plants also eat electricity at an impressive rate. California would have a choice between Water or Power. Not both.

Did you do any research on this, or did you pull it straight out of your ass?