Moderated: Money

[Tomtomkent]

It doesn't matter if you pay for materials or not, if you say a law will force recycling or not. Some materials can not be recycled. They can not be preserved if they are used t and can not be sed again or reclaiimed. This is a fact, a reality. It scuppers the ideas of Gatean by
aking them impossible.

Either he chooses a radio that is material efficient but irrepairable, or we all relyon very heavy old fashioned radios untill we run out of semiconductors and rare earth minerals.

Just saying it can be recy led does not alter the laws of physics to make it so.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

My words reflect the reality, if you let the money govern fishing there wouldn't be any fish in the ocean and it would be polluted like hell, i think you begin to understand, the opportunity makes the thief.

Well, no, you are incorrect again. Laws govern fishing, not money. I'm sure that you do understand that, you are just resistant to it. You seem to understand that without a profit motive that the people who fish for a living, supplying the rest of us with fish, would no longer do it without that incentive. They would catch enough fish for their family and call it a day.

Quote:

As well, when there is no redestribution of money, people lives in misery, except rich people, you need strong income tax rules and watch the transit of money.

Well, no, again you're incorrect. I'm not rich and I certainly don't live in misery. Why did you think everyone who isn't wealthy was miserable?

Quote:

When you use a tool like money, evil tool, you need laws to control the use of it, otherwise it is the end of humanity.

I'm not sure how the adjective "evil" is being associated with a monetary system. Can you explain? It seems to be a religious reference but I don't see the connection.

Quote:

How come they make products that are not fully recyclable or repairable, FOR MONEY PROFIT, it drains natural ressources, so you need to have laws for that too, as well as environment pollution laws because the air will be so polluted that nature disastre will abort any food production.

No, they make products that aren't fully recyclable because it is a more efficient use of resources, which are never free, and never 100% recyclable.

Quote:

And when you did all these laws, nature, preservation of natural ressources, and redistribution of money to contain evil, it is the same as abolishing money.

Again, "evil" doesn't seem to be much more than a religious reference with no significance to a discussion about the enormous boon that a monetary system has proven to be.

The only "evil" would be if money were abolished with the result that civilization would cease to exist and we would revert to barbaric hunter/gatherer tribes competing with one another for sparse "free" resources. They would be free as long as you could kill the other tribe who wants your resources before they kill your tribe.

[Joecool]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

What you don't want understand is that when labor is free they can make a radio that can be fixed or recyclable, and when money govern the world they can't do that and it drains natural ressources until the end of the world. They could have laws to protect the environment and ressources as i said when you use money you got to have rules to bridle the use of it, you could have laws that return money to poor people, but what i said if there is no law you can't use money, and if you have laws it is useless to use it. What i said is that your fish you are talking about, if you would let the industries and money govern fishing there wouldn't be anymore fish in the ocean and it would be polluted as hell.

What you don't understand, Gaetan, is that there will be no radios in a no money society. Radios are made for profit. Without, nobody will make radios.

Without profit, there won;t be gas/fuel as companies like Chevron won't exist.

Without profit, there won't be airplanes as companies like Hughes aircraft won't exist.

Without profit, there won't be cars as companies like Chevrolet or Toyota won't exist.

You can remove money from society but the starving people in Africa will still be starving.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

Well, no, you are incorrect again. Laws govern fishing, not money. I'm sure that you do understand that, you are just resistant to it. You seem to understand that without a profit motive that the people who fish for a living, supplying the rest of us with fish, would no longer do it without that incentive. They would catch enough fish for their family and call it a day.

Wrong, what i said is that for money profit people will fish until there is no more fish left at sea, more they wouldn't care about pollution because caring about pollution cost money and profit, you need laws for that too to oppose the bad effect of money.

Quote:

Well, no, again you're incorrect. I'm not rich and I certainly don't live in misery. Why did you think everyone who isn't wealthy was miserable?

If you don't live in misery it is because there is redistribution laws like income tax, workers unions, protection of workers laws. If you wouldn't have these laws there would be only rich or poor. You got laws but it is not enough.

Quote:

No, they make products that aren't fully recyclable because it is a more efficient use of resources, which are never free, and never 100% recyclable.

You are wrong again, if it is not recyclable or repairable it because it cost more money to save ressources, you need laws for that too.

Quote:

The only "evil" would be if money were abolished with the result that civilization would cease to exist and we would revert to barbaric hunter/gatherer tribes competing with one another for sparse "free" resources. They would be free as long as you could kill the other tribe who wants your resources before they kill your tribe.

Barbarity is the future of the earth with money and actually there is barbarity. because there is not enough laws to protect ressources, people and environment. Beside that without laws or rules to bridle money profit, workers more than 50 years or who get hurt, women pregnant, would be dismissed, workers wouldn't be in a safe environment to work. You need laws to watch the international transit of money and robbery and criminalty too. All that i said is because of money profit, so we could avoid all these laws and more laws to be done by abolishing money.

[Agatha]

Gaétan, you do not seem to grasp the two insurmountable problems with your 'no money' idea.

Firstly, resources are not infinite. There is a limited amount of every resource you can name, be it water, minerals, manufactured goods, prey animals, crops or anything else. There are seven billion humans on the planet at the moment, and there are not enough resources to go round.

Not everything is recyclable, and in order to recycle, further resources have to be used. To recycle glass (which is near 100% recyclable), for example, takes energy, manpower and water as well as the will of the consumer. Plastics are not 100% recyclable, neither is paper. Electronics are almost entirely unrecyclable. The recycling which can be done uses resources. Many of the everyday items which we have in our homes are not recyclable, so must either be sent to landfill or have to be burned.

Because nothing is infinite, it is not possible for everyone to have just what they want. Currently, the way we ration finite resources is by making things which are very limited (such as precious metals, gemstones, quality manufactured goods) very expensive and so out of the reach of the purchasing power of most people. How will you ration the finite resources in your proposed no-money society? If Bugatti Veyrons are free, many more people will want one than can ever be built. Nobody will choose to drive a 2CV if they could have a Veyron, a Jaguar, a Range Rover Evoque etc. How will you decide who gets the nice cars and who gets the clunkers? At the moment, price is the way they are rationed.

You use the example of fishing, but it is clear from our history that unfettered fishing (as there would be if everything was free) will lead to overfishing and dwindling fish stocks. It is only by regulating fishing that we can ensure sustainable stocks. Once you start regulating, you are accepting the finite nature of resources and you have to introduce a way of rationing them. If, for example, it's determined that only 10,000 cod can be caught by fishermen of a certain country each day but there are 60 million people in that country, how do you decide who gets some fish and who misses out? Extrapolate that to cereals, vegetables and meat and you will very quickly realise that some rationing has to take place. Right now, we ration by means of prices. How are you going to ration scarce resources if everything is free?

The second thing which your no-money idea fails to account for is human nature. Although some people enjoy working, most people, if given the option, would rather not work. If they can have all the things they want without working, they will not work. If travelling is free, lying on a beach is free, spending their time playing video games or watching TV and so on is all free, and they don't have to worry about earning money for food (all free), consumer products (all free) and housing (also all free) - what is the point of working? Most people simply will not go to work. They may put in just enough work to feed their family, but no more. It will not take very long before a farmer will only farm what he needs to feed his own family, a trawlerman will only fish for enough to feed his family, a slaughterman will only butcher what he needs for his family.... and everyone else will have no access to the resources they need. Doctors will not be able to continue to work as doctors if they have to grow crops and raise pigs and chickens in order to feed their families, as the farmers are not producing any excess food as they have no motive to do so. Teachers, engineers, scientists, hairdressers, etc have no time to pursue their professions if they have to spend their time growing food for themselves. People, in general, are selfish and lazy. They work at the moment because they need money to buy things. If things are free, and work is unpaid, they will not work.

Removing money and making everything free to all people will convert the world into hunter-gatherers in a very short time - measured in months, not years. The world cannot sustain 7 billion hunter-gatherers, there simply is not enough land or prey animals to manage that many people. There would be mass starvation and a reversion to barbarism, and humans would very quickly develop a token or barter system in order to develop societies where it would be possible to move away from subsistence hunter-gathering.

Your idea is fatally flawed, because it does not take into account finite resources or human nature.

[Joecool]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Barbarity is the future of the earth with (out) money and actually there is barbarity. because there is not enough laws to protect ressources, people and environment. Beside that without laws or rules to bridle money profit, workers more than 50 years or who get hurt, women pregnant, would be dismissed, workers wouldn't be in a safe environment to work. You need laws to watch the international transit of money and robbery and criminalty too. All that i said is because of money profit, so we could avoid all these laws and more laws to be done by abolishing money.

It's interesting Gaetan, how you say the exact opposite of the truth. In the primitive world, there was no money and it was full of violence, barbarity and brutality. As trade and money was introduced to society, man became more civilized and the standard of living got higher. This is true. A welfare recipient in the US lives a better life than many others in the world.

Removing money would set societies back into hunting and gathering. People would become territorial and people would fight over land, possessions and resources. We would revert back to brutality and barbarism.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by Agatha

Gaétan, you do not seem to grasp the two insurmountable problems with your 'no money' idea.

Firstly, resources are not infinite. There is a limited amount of every resource you can name, be it water, minerals, manufactured goods, prey animals, crops or anything else. There are seven billion humans on the planet at the moment, and there are not enough resources to go round.

Not everything is recyclable, and in order to recycle, further resources have to be used. To recycle glass (which is near 100% recyclable), for example, takes energy, manpower and water as well as the will of the consumer. Plastics are not 100% recyclable, neither is paper. Electronics are almost entirely unrecyclable. The recycling which can be done uses resources. Many of the everyday items which we have in our homes are not recyclable, so must either be sent to landfill or have to be burned.

Because nothing is infinite, it is not possible for everyone to have just what they want. Currently, the way we ration finite resources is by making things which are very limited (such as precious metals, gemstones, quality manufactured goods) very expensive and so out of the reach of the purchasing power of most people. How will you ration the finite resources in your proposed no-money society? If Bugatti Veyrons are free, many more people will want one than can ever be built. Nobody will choose to drive a 2CV if they could have a Veyron, a Jaguar, a Range Rover Evoque etc. How will you decide who gets the nice cars and who gets the clunkers? At the moment, price is the way they are rationed.

It is possible for people to get everything they need but i don't say they can get everything they want because it is not acceptable to produce a car that produce pollution for example, it is not possible to produce a device that is not 100% recyclable because its drains limited natural ressources. You say that not everything is recyclable, so don't produce that. People do that for money profit and if you want to use money you got to have mondial laws to bridle it.

Quote:

You use the example of fishing, but it is clear from our history that unfettered fishing (as there would be if everything was free) will lead to overfishing and dwindling fish stocks. It is only by regulating fishing that we can ensure sustainable stocks. Once you start regulating, you are accepting the finite nature of resources and you have to introduce a way of rationing them. If, for example, it's determined that only 10,000 cod can be caught by fishermen of a certain country each day but there are 60 million people in that country, how do you decide who gets some fish and who misses out? Extrapolate that to cereals, vegetables and meat and you will very quickly realise that some rationing has to take place. Right now, we ration by means of prices. How are you going to ration scarce resources if everything is free?

What we know is that earth can and produce enough food for every body now but i don't say that earth can produce enough food for 200 billion people, so it will come a point in future that we will need to explain to people that they can't have to many kids.

Quote:

The second thing which your no-money idea fails to account for is human nature. Although some people enjoy working, most people, if given the option, would rather not work. If they can have all the things they want without working, they will not work. If travelling is free, lying on a beach is free, spending their time playing video games or watching TV and so on is all free, and they don't have to worry about earning money for food (all free), consumer products (all free) and housing (also all free) - what is the point of working? Most people simply will not go to work. They may put in just enough work to feed their family, but no more. It will not take very long before a farmer will only farm what he needs to feed his own family, a trawlerman will only fish for enough to feed his family, a slaughterman will only butcher what he needs for his family.... and everyone else will have no access to the resources they need. Doctors will not be able to continue to work as doctors if they have to grow crops and raise pigs and chickens in order to feed their families, as the farmers are not producing any excess food as they have no motive to do so. Teachers, engineers, scientists, hairdressers, etc have no time to pursue their professions if they have to spend their time growing food for themselves. People, in general, are selfish and lazy. They work at the moment because they need money to buy things. If things are free, and work is unpaid, they will not work.

Removing money and making everything free to all people will convert the world into hunter-gatherers in a very short time - measured in months, not years. The world cannot sustain 7 billion hunter-gatherers, there simply is not enough land or prey animals to manage that many people. There would be mass starvation and a reversion to barbarism, and humans would very quickly develop a token or barter system in order to develop societies where it would be possible to move away from subsistence hunter-gathering.

Your idea is fatally flawed, because it does not take into account finite resources or human nature.

For every work there are people who like to do this work but because of money and other circonstances people don't do the work they are not born for, don't you see that some people like to do a certain work while others don't like to do it, it is just the matter to put the right person at the right place, if some people like to do an easy job, there are easy jobs.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by Joecool

It's interesting Gaetan, how you say the exact opposite of the truth. In the primitive world, there was no money and it was full of violence, barbarity and brutality. As trade and money was introduced to society, man became more civilized and the standard of living got higher. This is true. A welfare recipient in the US lives a better life than many others in the world.

Removing money would set societies back into hunting and gathering. People would become territorial and people would fight over land, possessions and resources. We would revert back to brutality and barbarism.

What you don't understand is that it is not money that produce a good living if ever but redistribution of money, where there is barbarism is where there is no redistribution, so redistribution is the same as not having money.

[Joecool]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

What you don't understand is that it is not money that produce a good living if ever but redistribution of money, where there is barbarism is where there is no redistribution, so redistribution is the same as not having money.

Redistribution is certainly not the same as not having money. If you have nothing and I have nothing, we both are in positions with no leverage. If you redistribute money and we each have $500,000, then we both have much leverage.

Money itself doesn't lead you to produce a good living, but money was the reason why society today is civilized. Money represents resources. That's why technology has progressed to where we have cars, boats, planes, etc. Without money, we would still be cavemen hunting and gathering our daily food supplies.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

What you don't understand is that it is not money that produce a good living if ever but redistribution of money, where there is barbarism is where there is no redistribution, so redistribution is the same as not having money.

And what you do not understand is that if there were no money, there would be no redistribution at all, which will lead to barbarism according to you.

[Tomtomkent]

Gatean. Please stop repeating your claims and start describing the technology you have to hand to make those claims possible. How for example will you recycle things one hundred percent efficiently?

Show me the technology to do this.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Wrong, what i said is that for money profit people will fish until there is no more fish left at sea, more they wouldn't care about pollution because caring about pollution cost money and profit, you need laws for that too to oppose the bad effect of money.

And you were wrong when you said it, as I explained. People do now fish for a money profit and they don't fish until the fish are gone because there are fishing laws against it. If you remove the profit motive, people won't fish at all beyond what their own family needs.

Quote:

If you don't live in misery it is because there is redistribution laws like income tax, workers unions, protection of workers laws. If you wouldn't have these laws there would be only rich or poor. You got laws but it is not enough.

No, you are wrong again. We do have laws so your scenario without them is moot. We will always have laws and we will always have money. There isn't much that anyone can do about it.

Quote:

You are wrong again, if it is not recyclable or repairable it because it cost more money to save ressources, you need laws for that too.

How could I have been wrong when you just affirmed what I said? Things aren't recyclable or repairable because it takes more resources to do so. You want to waste resources by recycling things that aren't easily recyclable.

Quote:

Barbarity is the future of the earth with money and actually there is barbarity. because there is not enough laws to protect ressources, people and environment. Beside that without laws or rules to bridle money profit, workers more than 50 years or who get hurt, women pregnant, would be dismissed, workers wouldn't be in a safe environment to work. You need laws to watch the international transit of money and robbery and criminalty too. All that i said is because of money profit, so we could avoid all these laws and more laws to be done by abolishing money.

No, there was barbarity in the past when there were only hunter/gatherer tribes fighting each other for limited resources. Now, with money, we are no longer living in the barbarity that you want to rekindle.

We can do away with money if we substitute a token system instead. We can have tokens of different denominations so they are easy to carry around. We can have "token houses" where we can store the excess tokens we build up. There would be many new jobs and much employment centered around the counting and keeping track of tokens.

Yes, with a token system we can do away with money. This might work, Gaetan!

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

<snip it is not possible to produce a device that is not 100% recyclable because its drains limited natural ressources. You say that not everything is recyclable, so don't produce that.

So allow me to look around the room where I am sat and see how many things I can spot that will not be allowed if Gaetan inisited we lived by this odd rule. If we did not allow or did not produce anything that was not 100% recyclable (or even 50% from recycled materials) then how would that effect me personally:

Well for a start I would have a much worse headache because I would not have paracetemol. Even if I did I would not be allowed to keep them in the current foil and plastic container. Somebody else will be in a far worse state because they would not be allowed to use their inhaler.

My food would go bad because I would have no fridge or freezer, and cooking would be a lot more aggrevasion with out my cooker or mircrowave. I would much rather live in a world with laptops, televisions and baby monitors if it is all the same to you. Even if my stainless steel taps were still fitted having fresh and cleaned drinking water would be nigh on impossible as my local treatment plant would not be allowed to obtain new parts and equipment. Everything I own that is, or contains, wood would be out of the question.

In hopsitals things will be even worse. X-Rays, MRI, Ultrasound, syringes, seeing eye glasses, sterilised drips, medicines, surgical tools, beds, cleaning products, dressings, swabs and saline, all banned.

We face further problems once we consider that Geatan does not want us to drive cars that cause pollution. Electric cars, vans, lorries, cars of any shape or size can neither be recycled 100% or driven with out some pollution somewhere. Even if we had all electric cars all powered by nuclear or green energy they (and the power distribution network) are not 100% recyclable and have components that can by no means ever be recycled. So those are banned. As are boats, aircraft of all kinds, and trains.

This of course adds a whole new question about the wisdom of the proposed world. Geatan thinks that there will be more than enough food in the world to feed everybody. But the food will no longer be storable, or transportable. The food will be grown in say the USA, but will not reach Africa because it would need to be stored in non-recyclable fridges and flown or sailed in non-recyclable boats. The food would spoil before it reached the starving millions. The starving millions who could not grow their own food because wells, desalination pumps, irrigation equipment, fertiliser, tractors, ploughs, seed drills, bio-domes, concrete, pesticides, shools, roads, rails, or hospitals would all be banned from being made.

[Joecool]

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

Gatean. Please stop repeating your claims and start describing the technology you have to hand to make those claims possible. How for example will you recycle things one hundred percent efficiently?

Show me the technology to do this.

Agreed. Gaetan keeps making assertions which are blatantly untrue. His goal of redistribution or recycling is not realistic. I might add that his model of Utopia was just an island society and not the entire world.

Now if he said he would redistribute wealth on his own version of Gilligan's island, I could believe that. I could believe him trying to recycle things on his own little island as well. But on a global scale, it is impossible. He seems to think that the government will be the do all end all for his society, and maybe it can on Gilligan's island. But not on a global scale.

In the real world, no money means no Chevron, no fuel, No money means no Aircraft. Even recycling companies are for profit they they too, would cease to exist without money. Even something as simple as a loaf of bread would be difficult to obtain unless you make your own.

It is money that led to technology and innovation. Without it, society will become barbarous and brutal. People will kill for resources and food. It happened in the past and will happen again if there's no money. A good example of barbarity is the day after thanksgiving. Black Friday. That's just how human nature works. Gaetan completely misses this point.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by Joecool

Agreed. Gaetan keeps making assertions which are blatantly untrue. His goal of redistribution or recycling is not realistic. I might add that his model of Utopia was just an island society and not the entire world.

What is not realistic is to go on another planet in an hostile environment to get ressources, what in not realistic is you. When ressources are gone, people will fight fot what we got left, we got to act now to preserve what we got.

Quote:

It is money that led to technology and innovation. Without it, society will become barbarous and brutal. People will kill for resources and food. It happened in the past and will happen again if there's no money. A good example of barbarity is the day after thanksgiving. Black Friday. That's just how human nature works. Gaetan completely misses this point.

I know how human nature works NOT YOU. When you got more guns in the street, you'll have more people killed, the guy gets mad, have gun in the house, kill his wife, we see that every day in US, the occasion makes the thief, it is the same with money, it kills people, have people to live in misery, except for few 10% of rich, we got to remove it from the street.