Could it work without money?

Great Debates
61

[quote=“msmith537, post:56, topic:531956”]

“The reason they don’t replace us with robots, Bob, is for the simple reason they haven’t invented one to do our job yet.”
-Larry Mann, The Big Kahunna (1999)
You do a lot of hand-waving about inventions that should do this that and the other thing. The problem is that in your mind, you have separated what things cost from the actual value they provide. You have a very common left-wing point of view that “money isn’t important” compared to things like feeding starving children or saving the manatee or whatever, therefore you completely take it out of your mental equations.

As I said, the dollar is simply a convenient standard unit of conversion between disparate goods, services and resources. It’s easier for me to provide an hour of business consulting services for a dollar rate instead of for an equivalent number of pigs, cows and chickens.

First this is not the opinion of the Zeitgeist Movement, this is just me commenting on what you said.

resources:
labor - assuming no machine is already in place to replace this labor. We have skilled and trained professionals volunteer their time to do a service for the community. It’s not forced. They don’t need to. The fewer who volunteer the longer it will take, but see people realize that if everyone pitches is the job gets done faster. The problem today is not everyone is so sure the other is willing to pitch in. It will take effort to build a community of trust and dependability… similar to what we expect from companies that make products but without the fact they only care about money.

time - relative to the task

research - delegated to a volunteer committee of experts… as opposed to a single lab with the few experts they could afford. I’d rather have all the experts working together rather than say 5 +staff.

energy - abundant. extremely abundant, but we just haven’t found profitable ways of getting it. Geothermal, wind, wave, water current, and solar, are all potentials. The problem is the least profitable of some of these have some of the best yields or require the least infrastructure. So why would you try to sell something you can’t make good money off of. Energy is a non-issue. We make it an issue because alternatives do not equal profits.

raw materials - think of all the raw materials we waste in these cheap products that aren’t durable and just become waste after a few months. Wouldn’t it be a better idea to use the limited raw materials we have to make durable goods? I think so.

manufacturing infrastructure - many are already in existence. Why shouldn’t we take advantage of what greedy corporations have used to build crap and use it to build the good stuff. From there it’s just a matter of building on top. Assuming we do it from scratch, then yeah it’s a difficult task with great potential reward.

transportation - again it’s already there, but I am sure there are some improvements we can add.

networks - this is a non-issue with the Internet. As far as maintenance the products would be made to last. If you need a repair or replacement, just send it back and get one.

opportunity cost - sure… by example… if we made an extremely durable tablet pc, with touch sensitive display that used an ‘expensive’ scratch resistant glass, CFRP shell, and nearly indestructible construction… then we’d forgo… a pair of scratch resistant glasses and a toy helicopter.

Also you have to consider that the system could be efficient enough that a good is only produced when it is requested and potentially shipped out the same day.

I just use that as an example (not a very good one). Please give me an example of a good where it makes a pretty big difference one way or the other. I personally would rather them stop making those cheap plastic knock-off electronics… what do they forgo making for those… obviously they forgo an environment with a smaller amount of garbage.

Isn’t ‘freemarket’ a pretty ridiculous term anyway. The idea is that given no regulation or restrictions you can produce cheap goods. It totally works I agree, but since you want to talk cost…

the cost of our enviroment, if not the poluution of our air and water at home, the air and water of a third world nation. Exploiting their resources for our benefit because of some backdoor deal between rich corporations and the leaders of these poor countries. Child labor in sweatshop conditions, with no other alternative to get by. It’s a a freemarket system that works, and when eventually we go back to slave labor it will be even better. People not getting paid at all, to do a great deal of work, where the end result may or may not benefit anyone, but the corporation.

62

It’s not like you’ve given a perfect argument against it either. I’ve explained my points as well as you’ve explained yours. If you’re asking to go beyond my expertise I won’t. I don’t expect you to either.

But like you I’ve done the best that I can with my limited knowledge (and perhaps yours not AS limited) to state my arguments for it. I might not have so aptly defended this but considering no one even tried to process it, I thought I had at least make a claim that I think it makes some sense.

The truth is I don’t know and never made a claim that I did. I stated some vague examples, but that’s all. There’s nothing wrong with musing about it.

63

The problem with a lot of this is that human nature is generally lazy and selfish. A lot of what this is advocating is similar to communism. What tended to happen was that workers either didn’t show up or did a half assed job when they did. For most people the incentive to show up for work is money.

Is AI even developed enough for this work? For the most part, my understanding is that it is a pipe dream and we aren’t even close to having the technology to use robots for anything other than mindless work.

I’m actually wondering what would happen if robotics became available and I could buy a robot to clean my house, repair my drywall, fix my plumbing, etc. Haven’t we just made a whole lot of people and their jobs obsolete? What will they do? Are they going to go on welfare? What then?

64

Exactly. It’s only a matter of time… so what then? That’s kind of the point I think.

I know in the video PeterJ stresses that many of the jobs we complain about losing have just gone to machines.

65

That is one film maker’s extremely biased opinion.

There is little advantage for a lender to “take” someone’s home. My wife works for Wells Fargo. It costs them thousands to just process a foreclosure. That doesn’t include the cleaning costs, realtor fees, and everything it takes to get a home ready for market. On top of that, foreclosure homes are usually sold for less than what the original note was worth so they take a loss there too.

66

What don’t you understand about “the technology doesn’t exist”? Robots can’t replace us because those robots only exist in your fantasy. Your utopia can’t exist because its only support is ficticious technology.

  1. We need people to work in order for society to function.
  2. People will only work if given rewards.
  3. Money is the easiest, most efficient way to reward people for working.

Now which of these points are you saying isn’t true?
Regarding your crazy stance on laws, the only reason I, personally, don’t drive drunk is because it’s illegal. If it weren’t illegal, I’d drive home from the bar all the time because when I’m drunk, I think I’m a better driver than I am. The law is the only thing that deters me from doing so. I’m afraid I’ll get arrested, fined, jailed, and lose my license and job.

This is the same reason I don’t run red lights, cheat on my taxes, shoplift, cheat at poker, and a bunch of other things. Yes, I know they’re wrong, but I simply don’t care. For these things, the law is the only thing that stops me.

Do you think other people are all that different? Do you think I’m unique in this aspect? I assure you, I’m not original or unique.

67

This is just so… silly. You cannot just answer “technology will fix it” to any question about the problems with implementing this system.

This strongly reminds me of a little sketch.

68

The point is they recoup something. The loss is a given hence why they took a risk of the loan in the first place. Also taking a loss is relative to what property they come to own.

They DO get something back at the expense of a families well-being… in this case because they couldn’t wait for them to make their normal monthly payments.

Isn’t it reasonable to assume that the reason they hiked up interest so much was because they needed some fast money and it had nothing to do with cutting losses.

In some of these cases people were paid a very tiny amount to clean out their own houses… much cheaper than getting pros. That’s a real help to those families too. The banks are such humanitarians cutting cost by getting the desperate people of the household to clean out their own house before moving into their truck for… all for $200.

69

Just because technology is MORE EXPENSIVE then CHEAP HUMAN LABOR does not mean it DOESN’T EXIST. Try thinking about why we get machines to replace humans.

  1. True. When did I say it wasn’t. The idea is to change our focus from greed to benefiting everyone.
  2. Not true. People volunteer their work all the time. You should try it sometimes it feels very rewarding. Oops I guess there is reward involved then :\
  3. Money is what keeps starving people away from food, homeless people away from shelter, and sick people away from healthcare. I am perfectly aware what money is capable of.

I’m the crazy one? You’re SMART enough to endanger the lives of yourself, passengers, and pedestrians just because something is not a law.

It’s not a law that you can’t drink until your blind in your own home, but I’d be worried about brain damage… you know I use that thing… up in my head… to make umm… decisions… logically.

Also I agree with you… to some extent laws would be needed and also rehabilitation for breaking them. I’m just not an expert in criminal psychology. Obviously a group of people with that type of knowledge would decide what should happen.

Did you see how many of those laws pertain to our current financial system, and how it wouldn’t apply at all to an alternative system hat has been presented?

Nope, but what does that prove. In a new system there will be people like you who won’t contribute… I don’t think it will be a problem. I think you overestimate how many people like you there actually are.

70

From the Zeitgeist Movement’s Website:

Oooookaaayyyy . . .

Dudes, some friendly advice: Stuff like “a specter is haunting Europe” and “they have nothing to lose but their chains” has a lot more oomph to it.

71

Technology has improved our lives in every way, and we DO rely on technology to fix every problem I can think of… except for philosophical or political.

So what do you mean. What problem can you think of besides the philosophical or political that CAN’T be fixed by technology.

Do you think Cancer is going to cure itself?

Do you think poverty is going to solve itself?

All of these things are going to be solved by applied science, TECHNOLOGY.

72

As opposed to the families getting something at the bank’s expense? How is that fair?

No, it’s not reasonable. Banks didn’t hike rates on a whim. They raised them in accordance with the contract freely entered into by the home-buyers. The same greedy buyers that planned to bail out of the loan once the rate went up.

Are you saying that’s a bad deal? If it’s such a bad deal, why did the family agree to do the cleaning for $200?

73

I think it’s put quite eloquently actually.

74

Of course they are. Don’t forget that these are the 9/11 Was An Inside Job and Greedy Jew Bankers Are Running The World guys.

Were Native Americans lazy and selfish? Are the indigenous tribes that survive to this day lazy and selfish? Are the Amish lazy and selfish? So many things that people accept as “human nature” are really just the hegemony of the current dominant global culture.

75

yeah and when the banks needed a bail out for their fuck up… who did they get to pay their bills?

That rate was cleverly hidden like most things are in finance. I’ve never saw a piece of literature from a bank that i could fully understand. You’re lying to yourself if you don’t think that’s intentional.

Yeah considering a contractor would probably charge… a few grand to do the same job, I think the bank did pretty well. And the family… desperate and poor with the provider out of work, well it was better than nothing I guess.

It’s a great mentality for workers to have right? Even better for rich people in those poor countries… those people will do anything for pennies…

What some people will do… for money. Even if it costs them their morality. To kill. To steal from someone who trusts them. To sell their body.

These are all good things right?

The rich people have hit men to kill people who oppose them or wrong them. The rich people have prostitutes to use like toys.

Also we wouldn’t have my personal favorite type of porn. The kind where the girl is obviously not into it or enjoying it, and nearly crying because this is what she chose to do to buy her books for college. yeah that stuff is hot.

Thank god for capitalism. No really… I am into that kind of porn. It’s as close to a rape video I’m allowed to watch legally.

76

You’re right, “more expensive” doesn’t imply “nonexistence”. But the reason it doesn’t exist is because it hasn’t been invented yet, not anything to do with expense. No one’s been able to create a car that drives itself safely and flawlessly. No one’s intented nanorobots that treat the body, then dissolve. No one’s made a proctologist robot. No one’s made an automated farm. This has nothing to do with expense. The fact is, you’re making up technology that doesn’t exist in order to handwave away the impossibility of your utopia.

  1. Impossible. People are selfish. That’s the way it always has been, and the way it will always be.
  2. But they don’t volunteer to do necessary jobs like cleaning sewers, picking up trash, etc.
  3. No, it’s not money’s fault. It’s that the person that made the food, built the house, and provides the healthcare demand to be compensated for their production. Without money, how do you plan to compensate them? Should you just take their bread away and give it to the starving person? Just take their home and give it to the homeless? Force the doctor at gunpoint to treat the sick?

We already have a system that does these things. It’s called taxation, and it’s a function of government- that thing you claim doesn’t solve any problems.
So without money, how do you get someone to clean the sewer? To give up their bread? To build a house?

But drinking myself blind would harm me. Stealing your TV does not harm me. It helps me. We don’t need laws to protect people from themselves, we need laws to protect people from each other. Because people can and will hurt others if they think they can get away with it.

And I use that thing in my head to make logical decisions too. I logically come to the conclusion that it benefits me to kill you and take all your stuff. Well, until I consider that the lawman will seriously screw me if I do that. So I logically conclude that I should not kill you and take your stuff.

Exactly none of them. They all have to do with selfishly acquiring goods without effort. It’s the exact opposite of money, which one must work for.

What percentage of people, do you think, would keep working their jobs if you said they won’t be paid? You think I overestimate it?

77

Oh no, I think technology and education are our best bet. And with time and new developments we will see changes and, you can see I’m an optimist by this statement, improvements in our society.

But when you set a goal for yourself, in this case a society with no use for money and laws, you need real, concrete solutions. Not hand-waving about technology solving everything as if it were magic.

Also, no amount of technological innovations or educational progress will cause all human beings to become decent and fair and sensible.

78

It’s true about what you say. 9/11 for me… is more a major failing of the Bush administration than anything. but like the JFK assassination there are many compelling arguments, and one in particular got me wondering about 9/11 (the supposed nitrate they found).

As far as banks ruling the world… I mean… that’s NOT true? I mean even when I was in high school my econ teacher wouldn’t have even denied that :X Though my college econ teacher would have, but she didn’t know anything really.

I just think it’s a simple equation. if you throw enough money at someone you’ll get your way. I assume that’s not the case with Obama, but I hear he got a lot of funds from banks when he was running, and his staff is full of wall street insiders. How is that not suspicious. You couldn’t have hired someone more independent?

It just seems very obvious to me that money buys political power.

79

In the majority of cases, no one. 100s of banks, like Lehman Brothers, went belly-up. Some, like National City, got bought out by other banks (PNC, in this case). Others sold stock to the government, which they promptly bought back by returning the TARP funds a few months later.
[/quote]

On my mortgage papers (which I actually read like a responsible adult), the interest rate is on the front page, in bold font. You’ve crossed into “making up stuff because I know I’m right” territory. But you’ve already admitted that you’re pretty ignorant of all things financial, so maybe it’s true that you can’t fully understand standard documents from banks.

But I’m betting this is actually just another case of the liberal “Other people are too dumb to understand” debate tactic, where the liberal insists that the majority of people are just brainless pawns that stumble through the world and would wander off cliffs, and they are therefore repeatedly scammed, hoodwinked, and swindled by “corporations”.

Rich people have hitmen? Prostitutes? You’re demonizing the opponent, yet again. Those assertions simply aren’t true- that’s all I’m going to say about that.

80

Look, I realize you’re new around here, so let me help you out. This isn’t the Youtube comments section. This isn’t Yahoo! Answers. If you say things like this, you need to provide citation for it, or we’re going to call you out on it, dismiss it, and either call you a liar or simply “dishonest”.

So please provide cites for:

  1. Obama getting campaign donations from banks.
  2. Obama hiring wall street insiders on his staff.
  3. These wall streeters have been involved in shady deals.