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

[Leftus]

Yes but when you don't have to pay workers and ressources anything can be done as money is not a stop.

Well, that didn't take long to go from cutting off pollution to not caring about it.

 

[abaddon]

Well, that didn't take long to go from cutting off pollution to not caring about it.

There is more than a hint of dominionism about this whole notion. That might make the basis of a discussion, but alas Gaetan discusses nothing.

 

[Joecool]

It cost labor and ressources to make power plants (wind or solar) but it is free of charge, the problem is money not ressources. If you love money you'll have to live without water. The water and swimming pools will just be for richest.

Gaetan is lying. Even with the money system, most people on earth have enough water to drink. For the places that struggle with water, it is money that helps them to build wells and places to obtain water.

 

[Leftus]

There is more than a hint of dominionism about this whole notion. That might make the basis of a discussion, but alas Gaetan discusses nothing.

There is also the problem that he thinks he is the first to think of the solution, and experts in the field haven't considered it, and since a problem didn't immediately pop to his mind in the very second it passed his fingers, the problem can not exist and anyone who mentions one works for the CIA, or satan.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Gaetan is lying. Even with the money system, most people on earth have enough water to drink. For the places that struggle with water, it is money that helps them to build wells and places to obtain water.

I would actually argue that there are SOME places where profit driven company action has left people without water. Coca Cola have done this all over the world because they're bastards.

That isn't the fault of money, of course, but severely under-regulated capitalism.

 

[Leftus]

I would actually argue that there are SOME places where profit driven company action has left people without water. Coca Cola have done this all over the world because they're bastards.

That isn't the fault of money, of course, but severely under-regulated capitalism.

While it's bad, Gaetan's system will only make it worse. Does anyone think Coke will only take "what they need" which will be less than they are taking now?

Coca Cola will hire thugs to protect their property, and reward their "employees" with the water they need to live. There is going to be good resources to be made in rent a thugs.

We aren't going to get a discussion on this issue. He will just reassert his premise if he can be bothered to address it at all.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Why would Coca Cola be motivated to do any of that when they aren't making money any more? They're not competing with other companies, they're just turning up to work as usual, making fizzy drinks and then giving them away for no reward. The only reason they'll bother to keep coming to work is that Gaetan insists we all will.

 

[Belz...]

In a world of money profit is the insentive of over exploitation and waste of ressources, for exemple, to make product repairable and recyclable is not profitable in term of money.

You're not thinking straight: if everything is free nothing stopping people from taking ALL the ressources immediately, never mind by July.

 

[Leftus]

In a world of money profit is the insentive of over exploitation and waste of ressources, for exemple, to make product repairable and recyclable is not profitable in term of money.

So, when it comes time to take your car, are you sourcing it from the used or new lot?

 

[Leftus]

So, when it comes time to take your car, are you sourcing it from the used or new lot?

Years ago, I wanted to replace my old, needing vast amounts of repair, 1988 IROC Camaro. I decided to buy new, because I just landed my first real job and it was time to commute in style. So I bought a 2010 Camaro, brand loyalty and all that. Couldn't source it used, but, hey, new job, I deserve it, right?

A few years ago, 3 or so, my parents are coming to town. I can't shuffle them around in the Camaro, the rear seats are in name only. So I needed a sedan. I was also at the time watching some exotic car YouTube channel. Still am. So I did some searching and found I could get a used 2008 Maserati Quatroporte at around 20K, I was sold. New, they retail for like 120K, so what a deal. Now, if it weren't for the retail costs, I would have grabbed a new one. But I have to live within my means, so used it is.

Did I really "need" a second car. No. Parents come out maybe twice a year, could have rented one for them. Or they could have rented one for themselves. But it's really not as fun as telling mom, "Just take the Maserati." Now to keep them both in road condition, I do have to swap driving them, and keep the Maserati on a charger for its off month. But I don't regret buying it for one moment. I can't imagine how I would feel if I bought it new, spending that much on it, even without money, just factoring in the resources that made and maintain them.

That being said, I'm now in the market for a truck. I'm going to need to haul some stuff. Now in my world, this perceived need takes a back seat to my means. In your world, I'd have already consumed the resources AND pretend this consumption was environmentally friendly. It's not, but I can lie to myself. There is a flaw in your plan Gaetan. And it's you.

If all you are going to do is reassert your premise, don't bother responding. Let's not waste time.

 

[theprestige]

All you have to do is distill the water but it costs money to do that, in a world without money it is free

No. Distilling ocean water costs time and space and effort and possibly fuel. Money is just a standardized tool for measuring those costs. Take away money, and it still costs someone time and space and effort (and possibly fuel) to do the distillation. All the problems of ownership and quid pro that you want to eliminate along with money will still be problems even without money.

Your whole argument boils down to other people putting in the effort and spending their resources, and giving you the results for free. That can be done just as easily with money as without. In fact, it's easier to do with money.

The people that aren't giving you free stuff today won't start giving you free stuff tomorrow just because you abolished money. They will, however, promptly re-invent money so that they can charge you for stuff.

 

[Joecool]

Yes but when you don't have to pay workers and ressources anything can be done as money is not a stop.

So why did society only begin to advance in serious steps only after money was used by people?

Because money is an incentive to do more and to excel. If everyone just got what they needed regardless of effort, you will revert into a sloth like society where people do the minimum.

There will be on innovation.

And unlike Gaetan's assertion, it isn't in people's nature to only take what they need.

 

[Gaetan]

So why did society only begin to advance in serious steps only after money was used by people?

Because money is an incentive to do more and to excel. If everyone just got what they needed regardless of effort, you will revert into a sloth like society where people do the minimum.

There will be on innovation.

And unlike Gaetan's assertion, it isn't in people's nature to only take what they need.

Money is a stop to innovation, research need money, if it wouldn't be necessary we would exploit march since a long time

 

[Leftus]

Money is a stop to innovation, research need money, if it wouldn't be necessary we would exploit march since a long time

Once again, you ignore the question just to reassert the very point of the question.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Money is a stop to innovation, research need money

Garbage. Research needs resources. Money is just a way of counting your resources, so you can tell how much of your resources you are putting into something. Resources committed to research are not available for other uses.

Once again you fail to grasp that there are not limitless supplies of everything. If we stop counting how much we use that doesn't mean we can never run out.

Time and again you seem to display this weird magical thinking that if we just stop counting things we can have as many as we want. If you take the fuel gauge out of your car, do you imagine it will never run out of fuel?

 

[Joecool]

Money is a stop to innovation, research need money, if it wouldn't be necessary we would exploit march since a long time

There are no money societies in existence now. They are generally primitive hunters and gatherers with little to no modern conveniences. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Gaetan]

The nasa need money to make research but Biden doesn't have it. If it wouldn't be necessary we would be far more advanced.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The nasa need money resources to make research but Biden doesn't have it. If it wouldn't be necessary we would be far more advanced.

Fixed that for you. Yes, if everyone had unlimited resources they could do far more. So what? Do you have a magic wand?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Again, money is just a system of counting things. Removal of the system of counting doesn't suddenly make resources limitless.

I'm going to ask you again Gaetan, if I grow apples and I have 100 apples, what difference does it make whether I sell them or give them away once all 100 are gone? What do I tell the 101st person who wants an apple?

 

[abaddon]

Again, money is just a system of counting things. Removal of the system of counting doesn't suddenly make resources limitless.

I'm going to ask you again Gaetan, if I grow apples and I have 100 apples, what difference does it make whether I sell them or give them away once all 100 are gone? What do I tell the 101st person who wants an apple?

He will not answer because he cannot.