I’m not saying that there are not issues with economy of scale. And I’m not ignoring this.
I’ve read the link and I appreciate the fact that the equations do not have to balance. That does not seem to (and, perhaps I’m a little dim and require futher explanation) negate the fact that under capitalism, if you are loaded, you can not work and still recieve food, shelter and clothing.
If anyone can please explain why it is otherwise, jump in.
It is possible that any given rich man is so unskilled to be non-value added and that no matter what he does for society he’d have no net effect. And it is further more possible that he is so incompetant that, were he to work, he’d so foul things up that his fellow employees would prefer he was duck-taped to his chair so as to not make more work for them. I don’t think you can say that is true of everyone who can live off their wealth.
Farming is a perfectly valid vocation. Cabbages are free while money would not exist.
From the store, from no one in particular, and for no compensation.
Why not? Unless you are saying, that somehow, under the current system people are required to produce things they normally would not. If that is what you are getting at, you are conceding my OP.
Of course not. There is nothing in my proposal that says economy of scale would be for some odd reason verboten.
What exactly is wrong with that?
Yes, we have economy of scale now.
You haven’t explained why money is more efficient than not having money at all.
I finally think I ma beginning to understand jmullaney’s thinking (although I think it is totally out of left field). He is of the opinion that money was invented to make it difficult to get the things we need. Without money these things would be in ample supply, given of course that we make the effort to grow the food and create the goods we need. If I am mistaken then please correct me on this.
Believe it or not, I think we’re finally narrowing down on the real issues.
Ahhh, but are you really not working? Your money is doing the work for you (like our hypothetical robot). Your money is being loaned to people to do things they can’t afford outright. You are also spending money. This allows the farmer (from whom you bought cabbage) to buy shoes. Even though you are not working economic value is still generated.
Doesn’t your OP relate to the system forcing people to work for money? What I’m saying is that people work for STUFF, money is merely a flexible bookkeeping system. It is at root, people’s desire for things (some of which are necessary for life) that causes them to work and you can’t be held responsible for someone else’s desire. Therefore, it is not immoral for you to work. Oh hell, is that it? Whew!
I’m not sure I have to. Do you agree that human societies didn’t always use money? Do you agree that, in general, things which are adopted across multiple society boundaries tend to be adopted because they are more efficient (i.e., domestication of animals, farming, etc.)? If you do agree with the two questions above, I would suggest that the widespread adoption of money is evidence that money is more efficient. I realize that there is some circularity here, but given that efficiency is a vague concept in this case, I think I can live it. Obviously, if you don’t agree with the first two questions, I’d be interested in your theory.
Please tell me we haven’t come all this way to have you start to deny reality.
Not at all like a robot. The money does not actually do any work. Yes, loaning out the money does allow in cases for others to purchase labor or supplies which they otherwise would not be able to do because the borrower does not have the funds required under the capitalist system.
This is exactly the “fallacy of inclusion of dynamics which are not really there” which I forsaw you coming up with.
So? If the rich man worked and spent the money he’d be adding value on both ends.
No, it does not and I’ve told you that **repeatedly. **
Why do you feel this bookkeeping system is required?
Once again, we are not talking about work – we are talking about working for money. There is nothing wrong with people working because they desire things, some of which are required for life – and you are right that this desire is perfectly OK. Therefore, it is not immoral to work. I’m glad we’ve cleared that up again, but that, sadly, has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Feudalism was widely adopted at one point also, but it was largely displaced by capitalism. Of course, the Roman Empire was basically capitalist and it was displaced by feudalism. Communism is Russia is now being displaced by capitalism. Germany and Italy were capitalist, then they were fascist, then Germany was half capitalist and half communist, now it is all capitalist again. Some European countries are socialist now but I can never keep track of which ones. Egypt is socialist. China is communist.
Don’t you think China knows capitalism is more efficient? (Of course, these are the same people who are still using chopsticks while knowing full well that forks are more efficient… )
Of course, a nice Great Depression might change our minds about even that.
Slavery is very efficient too as long as you are not one of the slaves. You get maximum output with minumum input, right?
But, would you care to answer my question as to why you don’t think people would work “for the hell of it” as you say?
In the first paragraph you admit that the dynamic is really there. The money can be used to create value. I would suggest the ultimate purpose of work is to create value.
In a world with scarce resources, there must be some method of prioritizing. Money does that for us.
You gave examples from the last two-three hundred years, the examples I gave (including money) go back millenia. I would suggest that this is a significant difference.
Do you REALLY need me to answer this? Take a poll of the next 100 people you meet. Ask them: If you could do nothing at all and still receive the same “stuff” you get now, would you work?
If you get a significant number of “Yes, I would” answers, then I’ll be surprised. Maybe this is the pessimist in me, maybe its 10 years of supervisory experience.
You perceive its effect that way only because the lack of money creates just the opposite effect. If person X can’t afford to buy an inactive factory and revamp it and hire workers, no value is created until he can borrow the money to do so. Money in this case is actually preventing value from being created until such time as it can be borrowed to make this occur, right? Money is only coming in and solving a problem which it essentially created in the first place and making its owner a tidy profit in the process. Reminds me of a protection racket.
I agree.
So you are saying humans are not intelligent enough to prioritize things themselves?
Point taken, but I still think a monied system is less efficient.
If you contend people are all lazy, you admit the current system causes people to do work they would not normally do if the system did not exist. Whew, was that so hard?
I myself wouldn’t contend that is the case, but if you want to make my argument for me with that axiom, thanks.
So grem, you haven’t gotten completely frustrated yet? YOu are strong.
JM said
which is why every society in the world has developed and used money. The other choice is barter. Money is just a marker syste, as has been said repeatedly. Why is this bad? I know…because money forces people to work by exploiting them through a social contract…
People have to work regardless of any system. There is scarcity. THe things you want either need to be made, grown, or taken from the person who already owns it. It is a fact. Money is irrrelevant. Scarcity is what you are railing against JM, and that ain’t gonna change until we all get one fo those Replicators.
I am not going to pretend that I read all your posts about money and the evil it contains within. I just need to say that the american way has quickly gone from simple happiness to simple obesity.
No I am not speaking of body weight I am speaking of want. The gotta have this and that syndrome. Advertising is to blame…“you will look better if you drive this car”…“or have this stereo”…you know the rest of the claims. I could list them for hours.
Personal debt could be abolished if we as a country could just stop buying what they tell us to buy. Buy only what you need…and a very few things that make you happy. Only buy what you can afford with cash on hand and tear up those freakin’ credit cards!!!
Sure the jones’ may have a bigger house, 3 SUV’s, a boat, and new furniture…but in 98% of all cases of that situation…they will owe their ass for many years to come.
You have not been paying any attention, have you? Yes, money is better than barter – I’ve said this repeatedly. However, those are not the only choices, but if they were, you would have my full agreement.
I agree.
True.
Basically correct.
Yep.
No I’m not. You should reread some of the recent posts between grem and I – it appears you just skipped to the end. I’m going to get frustrated too with posts that state a series of agreed upon facts and then jump to an unrelated conclusion.
Hmmm…I think we’ve gotten off on bit of a side argument with the discussion of money/value/non zero-sum games.
I’m saying you’re asking people to make decisions which go against their desire with no incentive for doing so, other than feeling good about themselves. While I admire the sentiment, I have a feeling things would break down in practice. For example, it’s much nicer to sit here in my air-conditioned office and supervise computer programmers than it is to stand outside in the 98 degree weather and dig ditches (or, even worse, roof houses, I’ve done this and it is NOT fun). Who decides who does what? Is it a group consensus? Take a vote?
See the next section, I think you’re railing against our current system without defining what you are offering in its place. Let’s see some detail!
Ok, please define some of the other options. This is where the rubber meets the road.
Less efficient compared to what?
I admit nothing. My belief is that ANY system will cause people to work more than they would like to. Give me another system and I’ll see if my contention holds up.
To save time and trouble, no need to quote all of the above sections in your reply. I’ll sum it up:
You have said that working for money causes you to feel immoral because you are supporting a system you feel promotes the slavery of your fellow man. To call a system immoral implies the existence of a moral system. What’s your idea for a moral economic system?
grem
Mr Z said:
Thanks! Yeah, I’m still having fun. Now that we seem to be discarding some of the extraneous stuff that crept in, I think we’re getting somewhere (I just don’t know where yet).
Hey, all I’m saying is somone who is born rich never has to work a day in their life and that is considered perfectly moral in the capitalist system. I’m not sure if that will come in handy in the main argument or not.
If our economy takes as its precept that all people are essentially immoral, i.e. they are lazy and the only way to motivate them is greed, I would posit that means the system is immoral. It is certaintly prejudiced. It might be correct in that regard, but the ends don’t justify the means.
As opposed to now where the determination is largely luck and location? If a person was basically moral you would only have to convince them of the importance of a task for the greater good and they would perform it.
Do I think a perfectly moral system is impractical at the current time? Yes. Do I think it is a worthy goal? Yes. Am I going to return to bucking (no pun intended) the system myself? No idea.
The good news is assuming the current system is otherwise stable (heh) is that the only way it can be undermined is by moral people acting morally. So if there is a critical mass point, an emerging system would probably be OK.
Watch out for crossing chickens. Which is to say – if Mr. Zambezi has a chicken and someone comes up to him who is hungry, pity that man unless he had money or something to trade because Mr. Zambezi would think of no other options in order to resolve the man’s hunger!!
A free system. Although, you can argue that the less free a system is the more efficient it is. I really think the question of efficiency is another side argument.
I agree. But, do you motivate people with a sense of morality to work for the greater good, or do you motivate them with the threat of poverty if they don’t cooperate?
Certaintly morality is about ideals. It is easy to argue that a moral system is impractical, but such an argument essentially argues for that status quo based on the ends justifying the means.
Property shared in common with people working freely for the common good.
If you’re going to put up an OP as open-ended and inquisitive as yours, for heaven’s sake don’t get so inflexible and argumentative as you go along. I think the history of this post shows in microcosm how political thought degenerates into cheap slogans, bywords and propoganda.
You don’t have a coherent proposition to defend. So what? You raise good questions, I suppose. The 40-hour work week isn’t written into the sky or our biology; maybe our priorities should be to make the collective workload lighter.
But please put some of your ideas to a mental test. Surely, I can organize my own life to the point where it functions harmoniously. But how, how, do we integrate the plans of the many? If not in a post, at least on paper: sketch out a concrete method. Don’t just say “through reason and comman good” yadda yadda. Come up with something specific.
Stop trying to win an argument by leaning on buzzwords (“slavery”, “immoral,” etc.) and find out if you’re really listening. Just a tip.
Well, to say “nothing” is a little dismissive. But here, at the end of page 3, after all the quoting, after the double posts that I almost didn’t notice because the arguments have been the same post after post, we come down to the fact that if we all lived as perfectly moral actors, everything would be fine.
If we’ve arrived at some variation of Christian socialism, then the trip has been a long walk to nowhere. Yes, Jmullaney, if we all followed Christ’s example and gave freely to whoever asked, and only toiled to produce enough to supply the needs of all, and shared equally, then life would certainly be different than it is.
However, as a practical matter, this utopia (like all) depends on the complete participation and dedication of all members of society. Also, it requires an omniscient director to make best use of society’s resources, and to identify which needs are most important to meet. I don’t expect either of these requirements to be met in my lifetime. Like it or not, humans are selfish as well as selfless, greedy as well as generous, love their kin more than strangers, and are just generally imperfect. Like all other living things. And we’re like this because over human history, these traits have helped us survive.
Now, at our stage of development, we can theorize more ideal ways of designing a society. But for the moment, that society is going to be populated with people who have all of our flaws. Therefore, unless you can completely change human nature, the best society is one that can temper these flaws, or harness them to do good. Capitalism is one such system – our self-interest is a powerful engine for improving the lot of all. It isn’t a perfectly fair improvement, so we temper it and restrain it in certain ways more in keeping with our moral views. However, we don’t overturn it wholesale because we recognize that an alternative that relied on people being perfect to one another at all times is much, much more likely to devolve into a mess.
Dreaming of a moral system where all people act in perfectly moral ways, and only act for the good of all without any concern for their own personal needs, is just that – dreaming. Railing against the slavery of the modern world is really just railing against the reality of human nature. Jmullaney, you don’t want to change the system; you want to change humankind. That’s a fine goal, and there are many fine religions dedicated to that proposition. Just don’t make the mistake of thinking that it’s the economic system that’s the problem here. It’s just the result of how people are.
Point taken that I have not always concisely broken down the meaning of the “big” words until asked to do so, and that may have added some confusion to the thread. Some words like common good or freedom I wouldn’t even know where to begin with if we can’t generally agree what they mean. I would hope you do not think of freedom as merely a buzzword!
Here we go with the fact stating again
Gee, thanks.
Oh, I don’t think that is anymore true than it is of the current system.
What is wrong with local control? Sure there will always be moral dillemas with no easy answers but that is what makes life interesting, no?
These don’t seem to be requirements.
That may be completely true – people may be inherently immoral. But I keep hearing of these people who either claim they want to live moral lives. They can’t all be lying – although that is a scary thought if they are.
But on the individual level, if one wants to be a moral person, one should not participate in an immmoral system on the mere assertion that everyone else is morally flawed. The alternative is a circular justification: I’m moral, but others do not act morally, therefore, I will be immoral also. Do unto others as others do unto you. It is the anti-Golden Rule.
It wouldn’t rely on any such thing. You don’t think people are generally good to each other now? This is just pure pessimism.
I understand if you think people are basically craven that would be a valid objection. People deserve what they get.
You don’t think the capitalist system actually might be a little self promoting and encouraging what you call the “reality of human nature” along a little tiny bit?
I sometimes agree with you that for all their talk about love and morality, most of my fellow man are either ignorant or lying through their teeth, and there was a nice thread in the Pit about me when I went over the line from thinking that to expressing it.
So I’m trying – really – to think my fellow man is basically good. Misled? Perhaps. Poltroons (my word for the day)? I hope not.
I’m just exploring some ideas on a message board.
Here I thought religion was the opiate of the masses. Be a good employee so when you die you go to heaven, ain’t that the gig?
Keenan, if you don’t think capitalism encourages greed you should ponder this some more. It thrives on it. As long as you don’t cross over into outright theft, it smiles upon it.
If everyone else is immoral, why be moral? Beats me; like I said there is no justice in this world. For fun and adventure? For the contentment of doing what is right? Because you can’t take “it” anymore, whatever “it” is? People have their reasons apparently.
Fine, then here’s my challenge to you. You are free to establish a group of like-minded people, who can operate a collective self-sufficient group and live “moral” lives.
And I place “moral” in quotes because you’ve present your own definition of morality that I don’t agree with. You offer a pretty narrow test for morality: either I can opt out of the oppressive system and be moral, or be immoral by continuing in my ways.
Okay, so now you’re out of the system. And, don’t complain that by leaving the system you’ve now added to the burdens of those poor souls left behind. First, you could argue that you’ve eased their burdens instead, if you used to take more than you added (under your zero-sum hypothesis). Second, well, hey, you’re building a new moral order – in the short term you’ve made things harder, but in the long term people will be better off, right? And, don’t complain that you have to have money to buy the land so you can break free of the system. It’s hard, but it’s doable, and it’s worth doing, right? Think of it as the price you’re paying to be freed of slavery. Or, your last immoral act, which will be more than compensated by your new moral lifestyle.
Fine. Now you’re free. And, if your colony is successful, you should attract even more settlers. Your sphere of morality is spreading. Pretty cool, right?
Maybe it’ll even catch on, and other similar colonies will spring up.
Of course, you’ll get the occasional person who doesn’t want to work as hard as the others. Does he or she get the same share as the harder workers? You can’t really cast that person out, because you’d be forcing someone to leave your moral system for the immoral world outside, where he’ll be reduced to slavery. On the other hand, will everyone else be willing to work as hard, seeing that less effort gets them the same reward? Why work at all, in fact? Well, it’d be immoral to not do your share, but it would be tempting, wouldn’t it? That’s what I meant when I said that utopias require the dedication of their citizens – I meant that they have to uphold the full ideals of their founders if they are to work. A real society would have to have some sort of consequences to force people to live up to the ideals – but whether you mandate imprisonment, or a reduced share of goods, or pariah status for those who don’t work as hard as they should, you’ve now introduced the same “slavery” that you’re trying to avoid.
Jeez, Keenan where have you been? And now that you’re here, what am I going to do while those long migration scripts are running?
jmullaney, I think capitalism rewards greed much less than it awards ability. Maybe this is wishful thinking considering that capitalism has been pretty damn good to me. The same system you decry as immoral and greedy is the same system that offers a benefit to people who give to charitable causes. Does this sound immoral? Or is it an imperfect system working for something a little better? This is also the same system that takes from those who have and gives to those who have not (admittedly imperfectly, but it’s an attempt and that’s more than most of human history can say).
The term ‘slave’ indicates a lack of choice. Sure you listed a few scenarios re: what would happen if you stopped working for money, but there are yet other options.
I myself, am not a slave to money. More importantly, I’m not a slave to my job. I love what I do and choose, on a daily basis to go do it. In response to an earlier query, yes, I would go to work even if not paid. I state this with confidence, as it has happened.
I remember a time, before all this money stuff, when we had to grow our own veggies and bow-n-arrow us some meat. Things, on a basic level, have not changed. Now we hunt for money instead of going directly for the foodstuffs. It’s not a slave thing, it’s just something we do.
That being said, I know many people who are obsessed with money and I would say that they are ‘slaves’. But again, this is a choice that they make on some level. I kinda feel sorry for them.
There already are such people. But why would they need to be self sufficient?
Well, you seem to be backpedaling. In your previous post you wrote:
What exactly in my definition of morality don’t you agree with?
Well, that seems to make sense to me.
Teaching morality is a perfectly valid profession, and has been so throughout human history. OK, so we disagree about what morality means, but even spreading ignorance earns its keep in our current society. For example, there may be fundamentalist preachers most of us would disagree with, but our first response to them isn’t normally that they should go out and get a real job, right?
If you don’t think teaching is a valid proffession at all, by all means go down to your local school board and tell them to lay everyone off because their employees are doing society no good.
Now what are you talking about? What would you need land for?
Teaching morality, even if only by your own example, isn’t particularly hard work. Your mileage may vary, of course, but I would say in general the rewards are equivalent.
If someone was being generally counter productive to the cause, I guess you could make your feelings known that you would prefer they did not associate themselves with you. I don’t understand where this “in” is from which you’d be “out-casting” though. But in any case, they could contine to act as a free agent if they so chose.
That is a valid point. It is certaintly possible to eat without teaching morality, but the personal benefits far outweigh the costs.
What is tempting about standing on a street corner starving? You’d should get your act together and work. Alternatively, you could just hang out with someone who is teaching, which is a perfectly good symbiotic relationship. You lend the teacher the appearance of authority and reap a share of his reward.
I don’t see what you are getting at. If you are saying dystopias don’t require the dedication of their citizens I would like you to explain your reasoning.
But all these people keep telling me capitalism doesn’t force anyone to live up to its ideals. Are you saying capitalism isn’t real?
As far as immorallity against the common economic good in some future ideal society, I can only hazard a guess.
If in some future community, come harvest time, Larry the Farmer (no relation) doesn’t for some odd reason feel up to starting up his reaper and driving it around in circles, I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t cast him out of the community. Maybe he worked hard to rise to be a tractor driver and he’d have to go to the next community down the road and start all over. But that is pure speculation on my part.
grem0517 wrote:
I’ll admit that the U.S. does attempt to put a bandaid on a bad situation, and that is commendable. Not all parts of the economy make that attempt.
dewt wrote:
You are thinking of the term prisoner. A slave always has a choice – this was discussed somewhere on page 2 IIRC. Go through the thread and I think I adressed most of your points.
)