[Moderated] Money - Page 77

AdMan · 2nd May 2012, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Well with $2 a day it takes 2 years of hard work to buy a TV if you don't eat in that time, you can't see the problem by yourself. Under a no money system, it is free.

You continue to demonstrate that you don't even have the most basic understanding of economics. Do you think TVs grow on trees?

Dinwar · 2nd May 2012, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Under a no money system, it is free.

You're right, it won't cost anything--you can't buy what doesn't exist.

And it's telling that your idea of poverty is "unable to buy a TV". Roman emporers were poor according to you.

Belz... · 3rd May 2012, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

I put the statistic, just remember, 40% of the world population live with less than $2 a day, You can search on internet by yourself or look on the previous pages.

No you didn't. You CLAIMED that 99% live in misery, and now you say it's 40%. Make up your mind.

Belz... · 3rd May 2012, 02:48 AM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Well with $2 a day it takes 2 years of hard work to buy a TV if you don't eat in that time, you can't see the problem by yourself. Under a no money system, it is free.

No. Under a no money system, it doesn't exist.

Gaetan · 3rd May 2012, 06:51 AM

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

You still dont understand why that is not true. Any resource is finite. If you pay for something, or get given it for free there are limited numbers. Not everybody gets one. Tvs, food, clean water, if there are no imports or exports, as in Utopia, nobody gets a TV...

I get you, you say that only U.S. or U.K. people should have a T.V. because there is not enough ressources for everybody. Under a no money system we don't build something that is not recyclable 100% so there will be enough T.V. for everybody on earth as money profit won't be considered when we decide if we recycle or not.

RoboTimbo · 3rd May 2012, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

I get you, you say that only U.S. or U.K. people should have a T.V. because there is not enough ressources for everybody. Under a no money system we don't build something that is not recyclable 100% so there will be enough T.V. for everybody on earth as money profit won't be considered when we decide if we recycle or not.

No we should give everyone millions of dollars so that everyone would be wealthy. Why don't you want everyone to be wealthy?

Mark6 · 3rd May 2012, 07:19 AM

Why is anybody still responding to Gaetano? Pointlessness of it should be obvious by now.

Belz... · 3rd May 2012, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

I get you, you say that only U.S. or U.K. people should have a T.V. because there is not enough ressources for everybody. Under a no money system we don't build something that is not recyclable 100% so there will be enough T.V. for everybody on earth as money profit won't be considered when we decide if we recycle or not.

Your post makes no sense.

Belz... · 3rd May 2012, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by Mark6

Why is anybody still responding to Gaetano? Pointlessness of it should be obvious by now.

Your post makes some sense.

Dinwar · 3rd May 2012, 09:22 AM

Quote:

I get you, you say that only U.S. or U.K. people should have a T.V. because there is not enough ressources for everybody.

No. We say that a person should evaluate whether a TV is worth it. The more rare things are, the less you're likely to need them, and price is a great rule-of-thumb tool for such evaluations.

Quote:

Under a no money system we don't build something that is not recyclable 100%

This is impossible. Do you have any idea what recycling IS? Aluminum cans can be recycled pretty easily. Paper is horrible to recycle (all KINDS of chemicals involved), and plastics cost more to recycle than to make new both in terms of cash and environmental consequences.

And unless you're willing to eat a recycled radish, you KNOW this is impossible.

Quote:

so there will be enough T.V. for everybody on earth as money profit won't be considered when we decide if we recycle or not.

First, the fact that you can recycle things doesn't mean there's an infinite amount. Gold is nearly 100% recycled. Does that mean we all have gold bars? Second, even if money profit isn't considered the expenditure of resources--including at minimum time and effort on the part of the person doing the job--MUST be considered. If the resources going in aren't replaced, you run out. Simple as that. And THAT is why your system will necessarily decend into barbarism and subsistance living.

Gaetan · 3rd May 2012, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Dinwar

And unless you're willing to eat a recycled radish, you KNOW this is impossible.

I don't talk about recycle an apple or because it grows by itself, all it needs is a little care.

Quote:

First, the fact that you can recycle things doesn't mean there's an infinite amount. Gold is nearly 100% recycled. Does that mean we all have gold bars? Second, even if money profit isn't considered the expenditure of resources--including at minimum time and effort on the part of the person doing the job--MUST be considered. If the resources going in aren't replaced, you run out. Simple as that. And THAT is why your system will necessarily decend into barbarism and subsistance living.

That where we are going now: Barbarism. You maintain that not everybody shall have access to ressources because of lack of them, that's why there is a big hole inside your country and people who dies are swallow in hell, you don't ear people trying to save you. What i say is to not build something that can't be recycle 100%. The problem with money profit is that ressources are not profitable to be recycled and when it will be profitable there will be nothing left.

Dinwar · 3rd May 2012, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

I don't talk about recycle an apple or because it grows by itself, all it needs is a little care.

Natural apples aren't anything like what you'd want to eat. What we consider "normal" apples are actually highly hybredized and cultivated. If you just let an apple orchard go to seed, you'll never get enough apples for a decent pie.

The fact that you think apples don't require care shows that you know nothing of agriculture.

Quote:

That where we are going now: Barbarism.

No. If you thinks this current culture is barbarism you have no concept of barbarism.

Quote:

You maintain that not everybody shall have access to ressources because of lack of them, that's why there is a big hole inside your country and people who dies are swallow in hell,

So....God doesn't put enough resources on Earth, then damns everyone who acknowledges that fact.

I thought religion was off-topic?

Quote:

What i say is to not build something that can't be recycle 100%.

And what I'm saying is that this is IMPOSSIBLE. It CANNOT BE DONE. Not even in theory.

Quote:

The problem with money profit is that ressources are not profitable to be recycled and when it will be profitable there will be nothing left.

No, the issue is that many resources CANNOT BE RECYCLED. Those that can often involve recycling processes that are more damaging to the environment than production of the original materials. This has nothing to do with money, it has to do with resources and basic chemistry. If you bleach paper (a component of recycling it), that bleach has to go somewhere. It only has so many uses before it's used up.

Belz... · 3rd May 2012, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

That where we are going now: Barbarism.

As opposed to a no money system which necessarily leads to it ?

Joecool · 3rd May 2012, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

That where we are going now: Barbarism. You maintain that not everybody shall have access to ressources because of lack of them, that's why there is a big hole inside your country and people who dies are swallow in hell, you don't ear people trying to save you. What i say is to not build something that can't be recycle 100%. The problem with money profit is that ressources are not profitable to be recycled and when it will be profitable there will be nothing left.

You keep claiming that in a no money world, everything is free. It will never work, but lets run with it for the sake of discussion.

Say I have a farm where I have livestock and fruit trees in abundance. I live in the midwest of the united states. Say there's a guy in Africa starving to death and lacking fresh water. How does he access my free livestock and apples?

Tomtomkent · 3rd May 2012, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

I get you, you say that only U.S. or U.K. people should have a T.V. because there is not enough ressources for everybody. Under a no money system we don't build something that is not recyclable 100% so there will be enough T.V. for everybody on earth as money profit won't be considered when we decide if we recycle or not.

What?

That makes no sense. Making something that can be recycled means you can use it for something else AFTER you destroy the original.

It does not mean you can somehow produce more at the same time. It does not in any way negate the issue of finite resources. Even if it were possible it would ONLY mean those resources could be recycled, not that they were infinite.

Secondly: Utopia has no imports or exports. It doesn't matter if your TV is recyclable or not, you are in a land with no factories to produce silicone chips or plasma screens. Where do they come from Gaetan? Oh you will give them a factory to make them because of no money? Nope, no imports or exports, you have to be self sufficient. So where will you mine lithium in lands with no lithium? Forget TVs. I need medicines, but don't grow the right plants in my country. If we all follow spiritual leader Thomas Moore as you suggest, and make the nation self sufficient how do I get the medicines I need? They aren't and can't be made in my country. I cant import them. I have to let people die?

You see, you talk about "everybody on earth", but ignore that the Utopian model is for self sufficient countries. You understand that? The country you want us to emulate says stuff made in nation X stays in nation X. The people of nation Y are ONLY allowed what can be produced in nation Y.

There probably will be enough TVs for everybody in the world. But they are in Korea. No good for anybody else.

Dinwar · 3rd May 2012, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

Making something that can be recycled means you can use it for something else AFTER you destroy the original.

This is an interesting point. The Earth does not gain or lose a significant mass over, say, geologic periods (with rare exceptions, such as teh Hadean). Thus, any mass that was around in the Eoarchean is around in the Miocene. We know life was around in the Eoarchean (3.9 ga is the oldest fossil I'm aware of, from Australia), and we know that life was around in the Miocene (land mammals, predatory birds, whales, and the like dominated the macrofauna).

What Gaetan would have us believe is that because the Earth is, in terms of biomass, essentially a closed system, all life should remain the same throughout time. Only instead of life, he's saying technology, and instead of the biosphere he's referring to what could be described as the anthroposphere. Obviously that doesn't work--things change over time.

And it must be noted that while bioMASS is essentially a closed system on Earth, the bioSPHERE is not--constant input from the Sun or the mantle is required to keep the two main types of ecosystems functioning. Both represent openings into the system, and both represent why you cannot have a perfectly closed system and live: it takes energy to live, and energy suffers entropic decay. The anthroposphere is a subset of the biosphere, and thus requires energy. That energy WILL NOT and CANNOT be recycled. Ever. Thus, Gaetan's idea will fail. It's pretty basic thermodynamics.

MIKILLINI · 3rd May 2012, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by MIKILLINI

Define misery Gaetan, and how miserable you are...

Dear Gaetan

Is this to difficult for you to explain?

Gaetan · 4th May 2012, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

What?

That makes no sense. Making something that can be recycled means you can use it for something else AFTER you destroy the original.

It does not mean you can somehow produce more at the same time. It does not in any way negate the issue of finite resources. Even if it were possible it would ONLY mean those resources could be recycled, not that they were infinite.

Secondly: Utopia has no imports or exports. It doesn't matter if your TV is recyclable or not, you are in a land with no factories to produce silicone chips or plasma screens. Where do they come from Gaetan? Oh you will give them a factory to make them because of no money? Nope, no imports or exports, you have to be self sufficient. So where will you mine lithium in lands with no lithium? Forget TVs. I need medicines, but don't grow the right plants in my country. If we all follow spiritual leader Thomas Moore as you suggest, and make the nation self sufficient how do I get the medicines I need? They aren't and can't be made in my country. I cant import them. I have to let people die?

You see, you talk about "everybody on earth", but ignore that the Utopian model is for self sufficient countries. You understand that? The country you want us to emulate says stuff made in nation X stays in nation X. The people of nation Y are ONLY allowed what can be produced in nation Y.

There probably will be enough TVs for everybody in the world. But they are in Korea. No good for anybody else.

I talk about that before, first my plan is to abolish borders and let people circulate freely. For beginning we could start with few countries having ressources than many others will joint us.

Dinwar · 4th May 2012, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

For beginning we could start with few countries having ressources than many others will joint us.

Fine. Please explain how you're going to get over that whole "entropy" issue I explained.

Tomtomkent · 4th May 2012, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

I talk about that before, first my plan is to abolish borders and let people circulate freely. For beginning we could start with few countries having ressources than many others will joint us.

Ok... so when you said you wanted to live in a society as defined by Thomas Moore in Utopia did you ACTUALLY mean that at all?

Yes or No. Is your proposal based on the book you claimed?

JoeBentley · 4th May 2012, 12:48 PM

About to say. He could have claimed his economy was based on The Shining or Goodnight Moon and it would have been just as valid.

Tomtomkent · 4th May 2012, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

About to say. He could have claimed his economy was based on The Shining or Goodnight Moon and it would have been just as valid.

Well he wants us to follow a spiritual leader, except for the slaves. And borders. And Internal Passports. And limited resources... And....

So it breaks down: Do everything like in Utopia except for anything the book actually contains.

Joecool · 4th May 2012, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

I talk about that before, first my plan is to abolish borders and let people circulate freely. For beginning we could start with few countries having ressources than many others will joint us.

Okay, so you remove borders and people move about freely. So let's say that Mexicans can now enter the US freely and vice versa.

I have a farm in the US with plenty of livestock and fruit trees. How does a starving guy in Africa get some of my "free" supplies?

Belz... · 5th May 2012, 03:05 AM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

I talk about that before, first my plan is to abolish borders and let people circulate freely. For beginning we could start with few countries having ressources than many others will joint us.

Ah, let the badguys just come right in !

MIKILLINI · 5th May 2012, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by MIKILLINI

Dear Gaetan

Is this to difficult for you to explain?

Are you living in misery?

Joecool · 6th May 2012, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Ah, let the badguys just come right in !

That's okay. There's no theft if everything is "free" as Gaetan claims right?

RoboTimbo · 6th May 2012, 06:43 PM

In case anyone was wondering, Gaetan hasn't sent me his money yet.

MIKILLINI · 6th May 2012, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

In case anyone was wondering, Gaetan hasn't sent me his money yet.

He likes being miserable.

Gaetan · 8th May 2012, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

Ok... so when you said you wanted to live in a society as defined by Thomas Moore in Utopia did you ACTUALLY mean that at all?

Yes or No. Is your proposal based on the book you claimed?

What i point out in the book of Thomas More is the system of no money.

RoboTimbo · 8th May 2012, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

What i point out in the book of Thomas More is the system of no money.

And what the book points out is that babies are taken from their mothers for redistribution, people who travel without permission are sold into slavery and the king does have money and so does the rest of the world.

Did you have any rational arguments to make?

MIKILLINI · 8th May 2012, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

What i point out in the book of Thomas More is the system of no money.

Dear Gaetan: you proposed a system of no money/no equity based system, but haven't proved or provided anything tangible of how it would work the way you want it to. One word: Failure

Belz... · 9th May 2012, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

What i point out in the book of Thomas More is the system of no money.

Translation: "But I really really want a no money system to work without having to justify it. Come on, guys. Believe me. Pretty please."

Gaetan · 9th May 2012, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by MIKILLINI

Dear Gaetan: you proposed a system of no money/no equity based system, but haven't proved or provided anything tangible of how it would work the way you want it to. One word: Failure

We discussed about it before, equity is an abstract value because it depends of abstract factors. What i discuss are real things, the value you put on something is an illusion. So equity is just an evil illusion, stay in what is true.

RoboTimbo · 9th May 2012, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

We discussed about it before, equity is an abstract value because it depends of abstract factors. What i discuss are real things, the value you put on something is an illusion. So equity is just an evil illusion, stay in what is true.

Evil is an abstract and an illusion. What you discuss are fantasy based on fiction books that you don't understand.

Tomtomkent · 9th May 2012, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

What i point out in the book of Thomas More is the system of no money.

So when you called him a spiritual leader and told us we should adopt the principles of Utopia did you mean it at all?

There are two possible answers. Yes or No.

Belz... · 9th May 2012, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

What i discuss are real things

What you discuss are fantasies.

Gaetan · 9th May 2012, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

So when you called him a spiritual leader and told us we should adopt the principles of Utopia did you mean it at all?

There are two possible answers. Yes or No.

I told you, what i point out in that book is the no money system and that's what we should adopt, and i said that this book was an advance compared with what we had in the world at the time the book was written, yes i would say that Thomas More was a spiritual leader in his period of time.

Dinwar · 9th May 2012, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

We discussed about it before, equity is an abstract value because it depends of abstract factors.

No. You ASSERTED this. I countered it by showing that the factors ARE NOT arbitrary. Besides, "abstract" and "arbitrary" don't mean "not real" or "not important". Darcy's Law includes abstract values, but governs fluid flow. The color of my house is arbitrary, but that doens't mean my house lacks a color.

Quote:

What i discuss are real things, the value you put on something is an illusion.

So you're saying that Darcy's Law is an evil illusion? You're saying my shirt color (an arbitrary choice, made more so by the fact that it was dark when I put it on) is an illusion? You're saying that the fact that my bracelet is a 2-2 chain (an arbitrary choice--I make chain jewelry, so could have chosen any number of different weaves to wear) makes my bracelet an illusion?

Something that's abstract can still kill you. Freedom is an abstract concept--yet I doubt you'd be willing to submit to enslavement. Health is a rather abstract concept--yet I doubt you'd ignore a disease. Abstract and arbitrary doesn't equal illusury.

Quote:

I told you, what i point out in that book is the no money system

...which was shown to be false via quotes from the book. At this point, I can't imagine why you pretend your ramblings are true.

Quote:

and i said that this book was an advance compared with what we had in the world at the time the book was written,

No one at the time seems to agree with you. Something about the abject poverty, de facto enslavement of the population, etc.

Tomtomkent · 9th May 2012, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

I told you, what i point out in that book is the no money system and that's what we should adopt, and i said that this book was an advance compared with what we had in the world at the time the book was written, yes i would say that Thomas More was a spiritual leader in his period of time.

Gaetan, do you understand the question or not?

Let me try once more. Forget EVERYTHING you wrote above. All of it. Toss it out of your mind. It is worthless and in no way actually addressess the question I asked.

You are obsessed with talking about a "no money" system. The "No Money" system you describe bares no resemblance to what More described in his book.

When you said, and keep saying, More is a spiritual leader and we should follow his system do you mean it?

By that I do not mean do you want to get rid of money, or if it was in advance of its time. I mean the WHOLE SYSTEM. Do you think we should live in a society as More described in Utopia?

Do you understand the difference between the question you are answering and the one I actually asked? Do you even begin to understand how infuriatingly silly your habit of ignoring the question that is asked, only to answer something entirely different then REPEATEDLY claim you answered my question is? Do you understand how dishonest and decietful it makes you look?

Try it now. Answer the question I keep asking. Not the one you wish I asked. Not the one you think I asked. The one spelled out here:

When you said we should adopt the system More described did you mean it?

The whole system. Slaves, internal passports, lack of aid to other countries, self sufficiency, the whole shebang.

RoboTimbo · 9th May 2012, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Gaetan

I told you, what i point out in that book is the no money system and that's what we should adopt, and i said that this book was an advance compared with what we had in the world at the time the book was written, yes i would say that Thomas More was a spiritual leader in his period of time.

And it's still a looney thing to say. Utopia is not an advance unless you are evil and want to murder people, enslave them and steal babies from their mothers like they do in your "advance" society. This is why we don't let burger flippers determine economic policies.

2nd May 2012, 01:59 PM	#3041
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,160	Originally Posted by Gaetan Well with $2 a day it takes 2 years of hard work to buy a TV if you don't eat in that time, you can't see the problem by yourself. Under a no money system, it is free. You continue to demonstrate that you don't even have the most basic understanding of economics. Do you think TVs grow on trees?
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,160	__________________ It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan Last edited by AdMan; 2nd May 2012 at 02:41 PM.

2nd May 2012, 02:21 PM	#3042
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,906	Originally Posted by Gaetan Under a no money system, it is free. You're right, it won't cost anything--you can't buy what doesn't exist. And it's telling that your idea of poverty is "unable to buy a TV". Roman emporers were poor according to you.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,906	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

3rd May 2012, 02:47 AM	#3043
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,438	Originally Posted by Gaetan I put the statistic, just remember, 40% of the world population live with less than $2 a day, You can search on internet by yourself or look on the previous pages. No you didn't. You CLAIMED that 99% live in misery, and now you say it's 40%. Make up your mind.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

3rd May 2012, 02:48 AM	#3044
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,438	Originally Posted by Gaetan Well with $2 a day it takes 2 years of hard work to buy a TV if you don't eat in that time, you can't see the problem by yourself. Under a no money system, it is free. No. Under a no money system, it doesn't exist.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

3rd May 2012, 06:51 AM	#3045
Gaetan Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 1,333	Originally Posted by Tomtomkent You still dont understand why that is not true. Any resource is finite. If you pay for something, or get given it for free there are limited numbers. Not everybody gets one. Tvs, food, clean water, if there are no imports or exports, as in Utopia, nobody gets a TV... I get you, you say that only U.S. or U.K. people should have a T.V. because there is not enough ressources for everybody. Under a no money system we don't build something that is not recyclable 100% so there will be enough T.V. for everybody on earth as money profit won't be considered when we decide if we recycle or not.
Gaetan Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 1,333

3rd May 2012, 06:53 AM	#3046
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 21,831	Originally Posted by Gaetan I get you, you say that only U.S. or U.K. people should have a T.V. because there is not enough ressources for everybody. Under a no money system we don't build something that is not recyclable 100% so there will be enough T.V. for everybody on earth as money profit won't be considered when we decide if we recycle or not. No we should give everyone millions of dollars so that everyone would be wealthy. Why don't you want everyone to be wealthy?

3rd May 2012, 07:19 AM	#3047
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,173	Why is anybody still responding to Gaetano? Pointlessness of it should be obvious by now.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,173	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

3rd May 2012, 08:33 AM	#3048
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,438	Originally Posted by Gaetan I get you, you say that only U.S. or U.K. people should have a T.V. because there is not enough ressources for everybody. Under a no money system we don't build something that is not recyclable 100% so there will be enough T.V. for everybody on earth as money profit won't be considered when we decide if we recycle or not. Your post makes no sense.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

3rd May 2012, 08:34 AM	#3049
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,438	Originally Posted by Mark6 Why is anybody still responding to Gaetano? Pointlessness of it should be obvious by now. Your post makes some sense.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

3rd May 2012, 09:22 AM	#3050
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,906	Quote: I get you, you say that only U.S. or U.K. people should have a T.V. because there is not enough ressources for everybody. No. We say that a person should evaluate whether a TV is worth it. The more rare things are, the less you're likely to need them, and price is a great rule-of-thumb tool for such evaluations. Quote: Under a no money system we don't build something that is not recyclable 100% This is impossible. Do you have any idea what recycling IS? Aluminum cans can be recycled pretty easily. Paper is horrible to recycle (all KINDS of chemicals involved), and plastics cost more to recycle than to make new both in terms of cash and environmental consequences. And unless you're willing to eat a recycled radish, you KNOW this is impossible. Quote: so there will be enough T.V. for everybody on earth as money profit won't be considered when we decide if we recycle or not. First, the fact that you can recycle things doesn't mean there's an infinite amount. Gold is nearly 100% recycled. Does that mean we all have gold bars? Second, even if money profit isn't considered the expenditure of resources--including at minimum time and effort on the part of the person doing the job--MUST be considered. If the resources going in aren't replaced, you run out. Simple as that. And THAT is why your system will necessarily decend into barbarism and subsistance living.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,906	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

3rd May 2012, 09:52 AM	#3051
Gaetan Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 1,333	Originally Posted by Dinwar And unless you're willing to eat a recycled radish, you KNOW this is impossible. I don't talk about recycle an apple or because it grows by itself, all it needs is a little care. Quote: First, the fact that you can recycle things doesn't mean there's an infinite amount. Gold is nearly 100% recycled. Does that mean we all have gold bars? Second, even if money profit isn't considered the expenditure of resources--including at minimum time and effort on the part of the person doing the job--MUST be considered. If the resources going in aren't replaced, you run out. Simple as that. And THAT is why your system will necessarily decend into barbarism and subsistance living. That where we are going now: Barbarism. You maintain that not everybody shall have access to ressources because of lack of them, that's why there is a big hole inside your country and people who dies are swallow in hell, you don't ear people trying to save you. What i say is to not build something that can't be recycle 100%. The problem with money profit is that ressources are not profitable to be recycled and when it will be profitable there will be nothing left.
Gaetan Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 1,333

3rd May 2012, 10:03 AM	#3052
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,906	Originally Posted by Gaetan I don't talk about recycle an apple or because it grows by itself, all it needs is a little care. Natural apples aren't anything like what you'd want to eat. What we consider "normal" apples are actually highly hybredized and cultivated. If you just let an apple orchard go to seed, you'll never get enough apples for a decent pie. The fact that you think apples don't require care shows that you know nothing of agriculture. Quote: That where we are going now: Barbarism. No. If you thinks this current culture is barbarism you have no concept of barbarism. Quote: You maintain that not everybody shall have access to ressources because of lack of them, that's why there is a big hole inside your country and people who dies are swallow in hell, So....God doesn't put enough resources on Earth, then damns everyone who acknowledges that fact. I thought religion was off-topic? Quote: What i say is to not build something that can't be recycle 100%. And what I'm saying is that this is IMPOSSIBLE. It CANNOT BE DONE. Not even in theory. Quote: The problem with money profit is that ressources are not profitable to be recycled and when it will be profitable there will be nothing left. No, the issue is that many resources CANNOT BE RECYCLED. Those that can often involve recycling processes that are more damaging to the environment than production of the original materials. This has nothing to do with money, it has to do with resources and basic chemistry. If you bleach paper (a component of recycling it), that bleach has to go somewhere. It only has so many uses before it's used up.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,906	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

3rd May 2012, 11:16 AM	#3053
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,438	Originally Posted by Gaetan That where we are going now: Barbarism. As opposed to a no money system which necessarily leads to it ?
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

3rd May 2012, 12:17 PM	#3054
Joecool Muse Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Hawaii Posts: 932	Originally Posted by Gaetan That where we are going now: Barbarism. You maintain that not everybody shall have access to ressources because of lack of them, that's why there is a big hole inside your country and people who dies are swallow in hell, you don't ear people trying to save you. What i say is to not build something that can't be recycle 100%. The problem with money profit is that ressources are not profitable to be recycled and when it will be profitable there will be nothing left. You keep claiming that in a no money world, everything is free. It will never work, but lets run with it for the sake of discussion. Say I have a farm where I have livestock and fruit trees in abundance. I live in the midwest of the united states. Say there's a guy in Africa starving to death and lacking fresh water. How does he access my free livestock and apples?

3rd May 2012, 01:32 PM	#3055
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,200	Originally Posted by Gaetan I get you, you say that only U.S. or U.K. people should have a T.V. because there is not enough ressources for everybody. Under a no money system we don't build something that is not recyclable 100% so there will be enough T.V. for everybody on earth as money profit won't be considered when we decide if we recycle or not. What? That makes no sense. Making something that can be recycled means you can use it for something else AFTER you destroy the original. It does not mean you can somehow produce more at the same time. It does not in any way negate the issue of finite resources. Even if it were possible it would ONLY mean those resources could be recycled, not that they were infinite. Secondly: Utopia has no imports or exports. It doesn't matter if your TV is recyclable or not, you are in a land with no factories to produce silicone chips or plasma screens. Where do they come from Gaetan? Oh you will give them a factory to make them because of no money? Nope, no imports or exports, you have to be self sufficient. So where will you mine lithium in lands with no lithium? Forget TVs. I need medicines, but don't grow the right plants in my country. If we all follow spiritual leader Thomas Moore as you suggest, and make the nation self sufficient how do I get the medicines I need? They aren't and can't be made in my country. I cant import them. I have to let people die? You see, you talk about "everybody on earth", but ignore that the Utopian model is for self sufficient countries. You understand that? The country you want us to emulate says stuff made in nation X stays in nation X. The people of nation Y are ONLY allowed what can be produced in nation Y. There probably will be enough TVs for everybody in the world. But they are in Korea. No good for anybody else.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

3rd May 2012, 01:49 PM	#3056
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,906	Originally Posted by Tomtomkent Making something that can be recycled means you can use it for something else AFTER you destroy the original. This is an interesting point. The Earth does not gain or lose a significant mass over, say, geologic periods (with rare exceptions, such as teh Hadean). Thus, any mass that was around in the Eoarchean is around in the Miocene. We know life was around in the Eoarchean (3.9 ga is the oldest fossil I'm aware of, from Australia), and we know that life was around in the Miocene (land mammals, predatory birds, whales, and the like dominated the macrofauna). What Gaetan would have us believe is that because the Earth is, in terms of biomass, essentially a closed system, all life should remain the same throughout time. Only instead of life, he's saying technology, and instead of the biosphere he's referring to what could be described as the anthroposphere. Obviously that doesn't work--things change over time. And it must be noted that while bioMASS is essentially a closed system on Earth, the bioSPHERE is not--constant input from the Sun or the mantle is required to keep the two main types of ecosystems functioning. Both represent openings into the system, and both represent why you cannot have a perfectly closed system and live: it takes energy to live, and energy suffers entropic decay. The anthroposphere is a subset of the biosphere, and thus requires energy. That energy WILL NOT and CANNOT be recycled. Ever. Thus, Gaetan's idea will fail. It's pretty basic thermodynamics.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,906	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

3rd May 2012, 03:17 PM	#3057
MIKILLINI Incromulent Logic Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Illini State Posts: 2,869	Originally Posted by MIKILLINI Define misery Gaetan, and how miserable you are... Dear Gaetan Is this to difficult for you to explain?
	__________________ Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense. The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo Sylvia Browne is not a medium, she's a mediocre.

4th May 2012, 10:28 AM	#3058
Gaetan Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 1,333	Originally Posted by Tomtomkent What? That makes no sense. Making something that can be recycled means you can use it for something else AFTER you destroy the original. It does not mean you can somehow produce more at the same time. It does not in any way negate the issue of finite resources. Even if it were possible it would ONLY mean those resources could be recycled, not that they were infinite. Secondly: Utopia has no imports or exports. It doesn't matter if your TV is recyclable or not, you are in a land with no factories to produce silicone chips or plasma screens. Where do they come from Gaetan? Oh you will give them a factory to make them because of no money? Nope, no imports or exports, you have to be self sufficient. So where will you mine lithium in lands with no lithium? Forget TVs. I need medicines, but don't grow the right plants in my country. If we all follow spiritual leader Thomas Moore as you suggest, and make the nation self sufficient how do I get the medicines I need? They aren't and can't be made in my country. I cant import them. I have to let people die? You see, you talk about "everybody on earth", but ignore that the Utopian model is for self sufficient countries. You understand that? The country you want us to emulate says stuff made in nation X stays in nation X. The people of nation Y are ONLY allowed what can be produced in nation Y. There probably will be enough TVs for everybody in the world. But they are in Korea. No good for anybody else. I talk about that before, first my plan is to abolish borders and let people circulate freely. For beginning we could start with few countries having ressources than many others will joint us.
Gaetan Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 1,333

4th May 2012, 10:37 AM	#3059
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,906	Originally Posted by Gaetan For beginning we could start with few countries having ressources than many others will joint us. Fine. Please explain how you're going to get over that whole "entropy" issue I explained.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,906	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

4th May 2012, 12:43 PM	#3060
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,200	Originally Posted by Gaetan I talk about that before, first my plan is to abolish borders and let people circulate freely. For beginning we could start with few countries having ressources than many others will joint us. Ok... so when you said you wanted to live in a society as defined by Thomas Moore in Utopia did you ACTUALLY mean that at all? Yes or No. Is your proposal based on the book you claimed?
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

4th May 2012, 12:48 PM	#3061
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,761	About to say. He could have claimed his economy was based on The Shining or Goodnight Moon and it would have been just as valid.
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

4th May 2012, 01:25 PM	#3062
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,200	Originally Posted by JoeBentley About to say. He could have claimed his economy was based on The Shining or Goodnight Moon and it would have been just as valid. Well he wants us to follow a spiritual leader, except for the slaves. And borders. And Internal Passports. And limited resources... And.... So it breaks down: Do everything like in Utopia except for anything the book actually contains.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.

4th May 2012, 04:08 PM	#3063
Joecool Muse Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Hawaii Posts: 932	Originally Posted by Gaetan I talk about that before, first my plan is to abolish borders and let people circulate freely. For beginning we could start with few countries having ressources than many others will joint us. Okay, so you remove borders and people move about freely. So let's say that Mexicans can now enter the US freely and vice versa. I have a farm in the US with plenty of livestock and fruit trees. How does a starving guy in Africa get some of my "free" supplies?

5th May 2012, 03:05 AM	#3064
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,438	Originally Posted by Gaetan I talk about that before, first my plan is to abolish borders and let people circulate freely. For beginning we could start with few countries having ressources than many others will joint us. Ah, let the badguys just come right in !
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

5th May 2012, 10:02 AM	#3065
MIKILLINI Incromulent Logic Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Illini State Posts: 2,869	Originally Posted by MIKILLINI Dear Gaetan Is this to difficult for you to explain? Are you living in misery?
	__________________ Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense. The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo Sylvia Browne is not a medium, she's a mediocre.

6th May 2012, 05:17 PM	#3066
Joecool Muse Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Hawaii Posts: 932	Originally Posted by Belz... Ah, let the badguys just come right in ! That's okay. There's no theft if everything is "free" as Gaetan claims right?

6th May 2012, 06:43 PM	#3067
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 21,831	In case anyone was wondering, Gaetan hasn't sent me his money yet.

6th May 2012, 11:15 PM	#3068
MIKILLINI Incromulent Logic Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Illini State Posts: 2,869	Originally Posted by RoboTimbo In case anyone was wondering, Gaetan hasn't sent me his money yet. He likes being miserable.
	__________________ Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense. The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo Sylvia Browne is not a medium, she's a mediocre.

8th May 2012, 12:13 PM	#3069
Gaetan Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 1,333	Originally Posted by Tomtomkent Ok... so when you said you wanted to live in a society as defined by Thomas Moore in Utopia did you ACTUALLY mean that at all? Yes or No. Is your proposal based on the book you claimed? What i point out in the book of Thomas More is the system of no money.
Gaetan Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 1,333

8th May 2012, 12:16 PM	#3070
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 21,831	Originally Posted by Gaetan What i point out in the book of Thomas More is the system of no money. And what the book points out is that babies are taken from their mothers for redistribution, people who travel without permission are sold into slavery and the king does have money and so does the rest of the world. Did you have any rational arguments to make?

8th May 2012, 11:24 PM	#3071
MIKILLINI Incromulent Logic Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Illini State Posts: 2,869	Originally Posted by Gaetan What i point out in the book of Thomas More is the system of no money. Dear Gaetan: you proposed a system of no money/no equity based system, but haven't proved or provided anything tangible of how it would work the way you want it to. One word: Failure
	__________________ Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense. The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo Sylvia Browne is not a medium, she's a mediocre.

9th May 2012, 02:46 AM	#3072
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,438	Originally Posted by Gaetan What i point out in the book of Thomas More is the system of no money. Translation: "But I really really want a no money system to work without having to justify it. Come on, guys. Believe me. Pretty please."
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

9th May 2012, 07:40 AM	#3073
Gaetan Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 1,333	Originally Posted by MIKILLINI Dear Gaetan: you proposed a system of no money/no equity based system, but haven't proved or provided anything tangible of how it would work the way you want it to. One word: Failure We discussed about it before, equity is an abstract value because it depends of abstract factors. What i discuss are real things, the value you put on something is an illusion. So equity is just an evil illusion, stay in what is true.
Gaetan Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 1,333

9th May 2012, 07:44 AM	#3074
RoboTimbo Hostile Nanobacon Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Prosperity, AZ Posts: 21,831	Originally Posted by Gaetan We discussed about it before, equity is an abstract value because it depends of abstract factors. What i discuss are real things, the value you put on something is an illusion. So equity is just an evil illusion, stay in what is true. Evil is an abstract and an illusion. What you discuss are fantasy based on fiction books that you don't understand.

9th May 2012, 08:01 AM	#3075
Tomtomkent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Kent, United Kingdom Posts: 5,200	Originally Posted by Gaetan What i point out in the book of Thomas More is the system of no money. So when you called him a spiritual leader and told us we should adopt the principles of Utopia did you mean it at all? There are two possible answers. Yes or No.
	__________________ @tomhodden No animals were harmed in the making of this post.