NationStates Jolt Archive

I think that money is generally highly overrated. Yes, I know this is nothing particularly orignal, but perhaps I can elaborate on this...

So I'm usually not particularly good at saving money unless I have some specific goal in mind to save for. I don't really put much value in having a lot of money and I would generally rather spend money going out and doing something with my friends or buying something nice for myself (or perhaps as a gift) than hoarding it in my bank account.

I also see certain professions as being mildly unethical for their attitudes towards money. For instance, stockbrokers, I feel, contribute absolutely nothing useful to society. All they do is make people's investments bigger... making more money for the rich essentially. I don't consider this to be a valuable profession, in fact, I think that garbagemen are infinitely more useful than stockbrokers because they actually do something that is useful and important to society.

I also think that the amount of money some people have is absolutely absurd. Who the hell seriously needs to own more than one car per driver in one's family? Or multiple houses?

In general, the fact that so many people are so obsessed with the accumulation of wealth combined with the fact that so many people take this obsession to the point of not caring whether anyone else has anything are absolutely appalling and really... it's depressing that this sort of behaviour is almost encouraged.

For instance, stockbrokers, I feel, contribute absolutely nothing useful to society.

Except hold the economy together.

Except hold the economy together.
How do they hold the economy together?

I don't get how this is at all important in general either... maybe the economy shouldn't depend on money... maybe it should depend more on resources and ideas instead of random bits of paper that are usually just represented electronically anyways.

How do they hold the economy together?


It's complicated, but trust me you need them.


I don't get how this is at all important in general either... maybe the economy shouldn't depend on money... maybe it should depend more on resources and ideas instead of random bits of paper that are usually just represented electronically anyways.

Hmmm...Could you be a lit more specific? What would replace money? Or would there be no money, and people all have equal worth (like communism)?

I'm studying to be a financial analyst...:p

I find money important because it represents potential. Money, if used wisely, can be turned in to virtually anything in the world, and it represents a lot of opportunities that would not be available if you didn't have it. It's not the most important thing, but it is pretty damn important for us to achieve what we want with our lives.

Communism does not work that's why money exists.

or maybe...

communism doesnt work BECAUSE money exists....aaaaah something to mull around in the ole noggin

It's complicated, but trust me you need them.
It just seems like they just serve to give people who already have too much money even more of it.

Hmmm...Could you be a lit more specific? What would replace money? Or would there be no money, and people all have equal worth (like communism)?
I don't really have it worked out entirely. I definitely think that no money, everybody has equal worth is generally good... I also think that time, energy and resources should be spend on things that are useful to humanity and further our knowledge as a species rather than trying to figure out new ways to get rich via killing our planet, exploiting the less fortunate and leaving the whole thing as a mess for our (hypothetical) children to clean up.

I need my money to buy my drugs. :p

It just seems like they just serve to give people who already have too much money even more of it.


Well without them business would be tiny and there would be hardly any jobs. Thus people would be poorer.


I don't really have it worked out entirely. I definitely think that no money, everybody has equal worth is generally good... I also think that time, energy and resources should be spend on things that are useful to humanity and further our knowledge as a species

Money gives people incentive to do work that is useful for humanity, people wont just willingly work for nothing other then ideals.


rather than trying to figure out new ways to get rich via killing our planet, exploiting the less fortunate and leaving the whole thing as a mess for our (hypothetical) children to clean up.

I don't think killing the planet is inherently capitalist. Also, exploitation is a pretty meaningless term IMO.

Well without them business would be tiny and there would be hardly any jobs. Thus people would be poorer.
If everyone's poorer or if there are a lot of small businesses instead of a few large businesses is this really a bad thing?

Money gives people incentive to do work that is useful for humanity, people wont just willingly work for nothing other then ideals.
I'd work for nothing other than ideals if I didn't need some money to get by in this society.

I don't think killing the planet is inherently capitalist. Also, exploitation is a pretty meaningless term IMO.
So benefiting from the suffering of others is meaningless?

If every one's poorer or if there are a lot of small businesses instead of a few large businesses is this really a bad thing?


Well, yeah.


I'd work for nothing other than ideals if I didn't need some money to get by in this society.


You maybe, but not enough people.


So benefiting from the suffering of others is meaningless?

Well it depends what you are talking about. I'm not sure if outsourcing is benefiting from the suffering of others, because it is actually making them less poor then they were before. Other dodgy things that used to happen in big businesses don't tend to happen anymore, since stricter government regulations etc...

I think that money is generally highly overrated.

Haven't i previously said that you are the embodiment of a perfect woman? Well you, saying that money is overrated and so forth, further proves that point.

A woman that isn't obsessed with money...Quick call the press!:D:p

Well, yeah.
How so? Many small businesses should be able to have as many combined employees as one or two large ones. Plus the consumers have the additional benefit of more choices.

You maybe, but not enough people.
If everyone didn't have to worry about putting food on the table or a roof over their heads, I think you'd find a lot more people willing to work for ideas or for the general benefit of humanity.

Well it depends what you are talking about. I'm not sure if outsourcing is benefiting from the suffering of others, because it is actually making them less poor then they were before. Other dodgy things that used to happen in big businesses don't tend to happen anymore, since stricter government regulations etc...
I"m not so sure that dodgy things that happen in businesses don't happen just because the government has regulated it. Especially in places where big businesses effectively own the government and control its policies. Generally the rich get richer poor getting poorer sort of deal though.

Haven't i previously said that you are the embodiment of a perfect woman? Well you, saying that money is overrated and so forth, further proves that point.

A woman that isn't obsessed with money...Quick call the press!:D:p
I doubt that more women (as a %) are obsessed with money than men. The obsession just tends to manifest itself in different ways (on average).

Money might well be the sole most divisive force on the planet, however, it is so central to the form western civilisation has assumed that it is unlikely to lose its appeal soon.

Money serves many functions but one of its essential qualities is that its the easiest way to reward individual merit and work.

There is no easier way to reward a person for hard work or to make segements of society move into a certain segment of industry or commerce.
A large demand for skilled or unskilled labour means more pay which again will be perfectly countered by the amount of people that sign up for the job which will ensure that there is a balance achieved.

How else will you solve these issues above? With a 5 year economy plan? By giving people exactly the same rations based on need? Although perhaps the last solution would for some people make morally sense it also kills the incentive for many people to work hard. (Why work hard when my co-worker, who does a half assed job gets exactly the same.)

We have to face the fact that a fast car, a bigger house and a gold toilet are ways to ensure that people maximize their skills and abilities. People who work hard just out of the goodness of their heart are few and far between.

As for stockbrokers, in one way they make sure the stockmarket works as efficient as possible. The use of stockmarkets? There are few beter solutions to make the market more specialized and pool the resources of many individuals together in a single corperation. Ofcourse there are more benefits but thats the two I can think of from the top of my head.

Money is given in exchange for your work, services, or goods. You can buy work,services, or goods with it. It is what we use instead of a trade and barter system. If we got rid of it, we would go back to trade-and-barter, unless your talking a Utopian society.

Money is given in exchange for your work, services, or goods. You can buy work,services, or goods with it. It is what we use instead of a trade and barter system. If we got rid of it, we would go back to trade-and-barter, unless your talking a Utopian society.

Even in a utopian society, there would be some kind of measure of value; people might base currency on, say, creative potential or reputation.

money is, at best, useful, but incredibly socially and morally dangerous. even if we are going to keep using it, in no way should we encourage it.

If everyone didn't have to worry about putting food on the table or a roof over their heads, I think you'd find a lot more people willing to work for ideas or for the general benefit of humanity.

Ha! That idea is laughable. Even under our system where people have to earn money through work in order to survive, many people try to exploit the smaller, more limited forms of this socialism (through questionable disability claims, fraud, etc.).

It is what we use instead of a trade and barter system.

no it isn't. nobody uses barter internally but cultures that already have money - mainly on the periphery of them or where the monetary system has collapsed.

I need my money to buy my drugs. :p

In a perfect society, drugs would be rationed out according to everyone's need for drugs and everyone's ability to provide them. :p

(Hopefully my post will go through this time...)

I think money's incredibly useful, because:

1) If there's something you don't want to do, money is what gives you a true, viable option of getting someone else to do it--without having to marry them, become their friend, or otherwise add social baggage to what should be a simple transaction!

It's the universal fixer of people's broken give-a-damns, the thing that cuts through a lot of needless baloney, and generally a great all-around thing to get people to do things they otherwise couldn't be arsed to.

2) It brings perspective: Money's a great hammer against superficial barriers like race. Many racist types will STFU and deal, rather than see a decent amount of money disappear to the business next door. The ones who won't, don't tend to stay in business long, at least not around here.

3) Even if someone spends their money on something silly, like diamond-encrusted Dasani bottles, someone is getting something good out of it (namely whoever made and sold the bottles, the trucking company, the store, etc.). The only way money does NO good, is if it's left to sit somewhere. And even then, eventually the hoarder will die, the relatives will get ahold of it, and THEN it'll do some good.

I really can't think of a bad thing to say about money itself!!

What some people do with their money...eehhhh, I could think of better investments...but that's not the money's fault, it's those particular people's fault.

If everyone didn't have to worry about putting food on the table or a roof over their heads, I think you'd find a lot more people willing to work for ideas or for the general benefit of humanity.The thing is, a lot of the generally beneficial stuff is boring as hell, or is a sucky job to do, and even with money it's hard to get people to keep doing it!

Without money, you can pretty much bet that there wouldn't be nearly enough: Garbage collectors, dishwashers, waiters/waitresses, burger-flippers, inventory-takers, shelf-stockers, people willing to drive stuff across the country (or sail it halfway around the world), flight attendants, parts-assemblers, or people willing to do anything else that amounts to what is currently known as a low-level job.

Lots of people dream of "helping humanity" in some "meaningful" way, but it's people doing the CRAP JOBS every day, day in and day out, that are what keep a society from generally sucking on a day-to-day basis...not the glamorous PhD stuff. Even the obviously-helpful non-PhD stuff like building houses is backed by a bunch of crappy, unseen, low-level manufacturing and/or materials-processing positions for each part that's used.

Not being drowned in trash or sewage, and not having to drive 500 miles to get something that "Joe" makes, are things people take for granted. But in a money-less society, I doubt you'd find 10 unpaid volunteers per area willing to do what it takes to maintain that condition EVERY DAY (rather than on some feel-good 1-weekend volunteer event).

Money is important for one very real reason. It gets you options. The more money available to you the more options you have.

It gets you better food, better housing, better clothing, better education, better health care - all these are important.

The less money you have, the fewer options you have and the less desirable these options are.

For example:

With no money - I might not graduate from high school
With little money - I might graduate from high school
A little more money - I may get to community college or vocational training.
A little more - I can choose between community college and a state university.
Even more - I can go to a more highly rated state school - say the difference between California State University at San Bernardino and UCLA
Lots of money - I can go to Stanford, Yale, Harvard, Oxford and I can go to the prep schools and hire the tutors that will help me qualify for these schools.

Like it or not, money is important. If you have it, you may not be able to buy happiness, but your chances of being happy increase because you have more choices. Of course, you can still make bad choices.

The only people who say that money isn't important are those who have enough of it.

Money is a second-order exchange of pleasure.

Money doesn't buy happiness,... but it sure helps alot.

Everyone should be able to live in a Utopian society as long as they send me all their money they won't be using

I think that money is generally highly overrated. Yes, I know this is nothing particularly orignal, but perhaps I can elaborate on this...

So I'm usually not particularly good at saving money unless I have some specific goal in mind to save for. I don't really put much value in having a lot of money and I would generally rather spend money going out and doing something with my friends or buying something nice for myself (or perhaps as a gift) than hoarding it in my bank account.

I also see certain professions as being mildly unethical for their attitudes towards money. For instance, stockbrokers, I feel, contribute absolutely nothing useful to society. All they do is make people's investments bigger... making more money for the rich essentially. I don't consider this to be a valuable profession, in fact, I think that garbagemen are infinitely more useful than stockbrokers because they actually do something that is useful and important to society.

I also think that the amount of money some people have is absolutely absurd. Who the hell seriously needs to own more than one car per driver in one's family? Or multiple houses?

In general, the fact that so many people are so obsessed with the accumulation of wealth combined with the fact that so many people take this obsession to the point of not caring whether anyone else has anything are absolutely appalling and really... it's depressing that this sort of behaviour is almost encouraged.
i pretty much agree with you

edit: but i am something of a pragmatist these days. money is integral to our economy and society as it stands today. there are many uses for it as a means of exchange, value, and others. but i would certainly agree that there are a lot of unhealthy and damaging attitudes towards money that are either encouraged or are accepted in the western world.
Except hold the economy together.

that and contribute massively towards inflation uncertainty in the city.

and they hold the economy - as we know it - together. there was a time before the stock market, y'know. and it was imported from the dutch largely for the government to operate beyond the economy's PPF. by its nature its turbulent, unustainable and can only contribute to growing inequality.

I think that money is generally highly overrated. Yes, I know this is nothing particularly orignal, but perhaps I can elaborate on this...
To borrow a cliche, money is like air: it's no big deal, until you haven't got any.

If you get rid of money, you'll just find people hoarding pigs and whatnot in order to get power over people instead. Money isn't the problem - greed is, and greed is something that will never go away.

Most of it is virtual these days IE Credit cards,stock and shares etc.
Lets get back to bartering services in exchange for good etc. We could all work for a week worth of groceries and pay a couple of cabbages a week towards our mortages and school fees
At least everyone in the world would have the same monetary system

Money isn't the problem - greed is, and greed is something that will never go away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgQToMKIiSo

there was a time before the stock market, y'know.
There was a time before antibiotics too.

People need to stop pretending share markets are something special. It's just ownership in companies being bought and sold. Unless you're gonna somehow prevent company ownership from changing hands (meaning that there is no more ownership), share markets will exist.

And how do you reckon share trading causes inflation uncertainty?

and it was imported from the dutch largely for the government to operate beyond the economy's PPF. by its nature its turbulent, unustainable and can only contribute to growing inequality.
You mean to say "to shift the economy's PPF". It's different.

As for its nature, I can understand the turbulence, afterall prices there are much less sticky than in virtually any other setting. I don't see how it's unsustainable (that word gets thrown around a lot these days, doesn't it).

And as for inequality...well, in a way. Given equal skill at trading shares, a rich person is likely to make more money than a poor person, simply because the sum invested initially is greater.

But if the poor are getting richer and the rich are getting richer a bit quicker, then is the resulting inequality really something bad? I mean, no one loses anything.

The ethics of the stock market are an interesting topic... on the one hand the stock market is a great idea for cooperations to raise money. But it looks scary on a big scale so I show it on a lower one: Xanjit and Sedeb have a small widget company WidgetWorks. They want to expand but do not have the money for it. Lianji could help the company but why would he? He can become a third owner of the company. This means He pays money to WidgetWorks for a share of the decision right and a share of the profits (since they are divided, they are called dividends). With the new money, Xanjit, Sedeb and Lianji make more profit, sell better widgets or sell their widgets to more people, maybe they'll employ more workers as well.

Now Lianji needs money. Maybe his grandma needs an expensive operation or his daughter an education, but he needs money and needs it now. He can now sell his ownership of WidgetWorks to someone else, say Koieke. Koieke profits from this, Lianji profits from this and the company does not have detrimental effects from it.

The stock market is now what brings WidgetWorks and Lianji together and what brings Lianji and Koieke together for their transactions.

Fergi America;12929531']The thing is, a lot of the generally beneficial stuff is boring as hell, or is a sucky job to do, and even with money it's hard to get people to keep doing it!

Without money, you can pretty much bet that there wouldn't be nearly enough: Garbage collectors, dishwashers, waiters/waitresses, burger-flippers, inventory-takers, shelf-stockers, people willing to drive stuff across the country (or sail it halfway around the world), flight attendants, parts-assemblers, or people willing to do anything else that amounts to what is currently known as a low-level job.

what you mean to say is that without gross inequality, all this shit is so sucky that nobody could be persuaded to do it, even part time. in so far as that is true, it is really more of an indictment against the system of gross inequality than anything else. we want shit done that we wouldn't do, so instead of making the shit to be done as pleasant and automated and rewarding as possible, we have made it so that there is a class of people for which doing the sucky shit-work is their best option. we use inequality to coerce people into doing things they wouldn't do voluntarily. and because of that same inequality, and the fact that the shit we want done gets done, we don't work on making that work as pleasant and automated and rewarding as possible.

If you get rid of money, you'll just find people hoarding pigs and whatnot in order to get power over people instead. Money isn't the problem - greed is, and greed is something that will never go away.

but we can turn our various inclinations against the accumulation of wealth and power. we know this because we have seen societies where this is the case.

money is pretty important to me, if people didn't have money I wouldn't have a job. I like money, it's something I can control, I can shift this bit to that account and that bit to that mutual fund, and it's great. Having money means that for most of life's curveballs I have a plan, and for the rest of them I have a down payment on a plan. It means my kids can get a good education, that I can pay cash for all our tuition, and that I can avoid debt (which I hate).

Money doesn't buy happiness,... but it sure helps alot.

Money doesn't buy happiness... but it buys an excellent imitation. :p

As usual, what Vetalia said.

money is pretty important to me, if people didn't have money I wouldn't have a job. I like money, it's something I can control, I can shift this bit to that account and that bit to that mutual fund, and it's great. Having money means that for most of life's curveballs I have a plan, and for the rest of them I have a down payment on a plan. It means my kids can get a good education, that I can pay cash for all our tuition, and that I can avoid debt (which I hate).

so money is important within a system that makes money important?

what you mean to say is that without gross inequality, all this shit is so sucky that nobody could be persuaded to do it, even part time. in so far as that is true, it is really more of an indictment against the system of gross inequality than anything else. we want shit done that we wouldn't do, so instead of making the shit to be done as pleasant and automated and rewarding as possible, we have made it so that there is a class of people for which doing the sucky shit-work is their best option. we use inequality to coerce people into doing things they wouldn't do voluntarily. and because of that same inequality, and the fact that the shit we want done gets done, we don't work on making that work as pleasant and automated and rewarding as possible.Ehhh...nice spin, perhaps you should consider becoming a politician... but no that's not at all what I was trying to say :p

But as for making the shit-work "as pleasant and automated and rewarding as possible" that's like trying to put air freshener on literal shit. It's still shit. And as for automation, the factory-workers don't want that, because it'd make 'em redundant. I've been shushed at more than one factory for saying that a machine ought to be doing "X"...


...gross inequality...

The "equality" angle falls flat with me. Appeasing the base jealousy of the masses is not something a society should be aiming for. A society should help its members attain their fullest potential, not trap them at some artificial barrier lest they become "too" rich. And, society should try to motivate its lesser members to do better, rather than trying to put a ceiling on the ones who ARE doing better! "Equality by hedge-trimmer" isn't real equality, it's injustice.

Also, no matter what system is used, someone still has to pick up the trash and do all those other rotten-but-necessary jobs that make a civilization run. If no one signs up to do those jobs, people will have to be drafted into them, and then it becomes slavery.

(I'm going to be offline for a few hours now, since I haven't gone to bed yet!)

How so? Many small businesses should be able to have as many combined employees as one or two large ones. Plus the consumers have the additional benefit of more choices.


But everyone would still be much poorer (which is bad), also for todays planet where the population of cities is huge, it is just not practical.


If everyone didn't have to worry about putting food on the table or a roof over their heads, I think you'd find a lot more people willing to work for ideas or for the general benefit of humanity.


Hahahahahahahah!!! Now that is wishful thinking.


I"m not so sure that dodgy things that happen in businesses don't happen just because the government has regulated it. Especially in places where big businesses effectively own the government and control its policies. Generally the rich get richer poor getting poorer sort of deal though.

That really doesn't tend to happen.

There are plenty of things wrong with the capitalist system, its grossly inefficient for one, its results in exploitation and in crimes being committed by corporations at the expense of human welfare. The combination of capitalism with a general socialist bent is the best the human race has managed to achieve. Its a precarious balancing act.

I find it faintly ridiculous that one is forced to make money, what is at best paper/information with a value put on it, in light of the fact that it is socially proscribed that you have to or face punishment in the form of poverty. Unless you're skills are valued you are somewhat fucked. And you might be very talented but if its not commercially viable there are very few routes to financial support. If people allow the market to dominate all areas of life, which to me seems to be a growing trend, actual creativity and worth gets sacrificed.

Capitalism attempts to pass itself off as an extension of the perceived way in which things work in nature. To some extent it reflects nature on a superficial level-you cant get something for nothing, however I find that a more efficient system of transformation ie work for benefit- is possible, which would drastically reduce the exploitation and servitude which is a by product of capitalism.

Also its insane for people to invoke their understanding nature as a legitimation for an economic system ie people are selfish, there are no selfless acts etc therefore capitalism=good. Which is bollocks because if evolution has taught us anything its that people are also social creatures so they must be latent communists too (which is equally as ridiculous!). Imo its a bit pointless to work to further ones bank balance and just for that only, theres much more to life than an artificial human construct. Im sure a better replacement for capitalism is possible, we need to evolve larger brains first though. If our understanding of medical science advances we could do that in the next 500 years.

There are plenty of things wrong with the capitalist system, its grossly inefficient for one, its results in exploitation and in crimes being committed by corporations at the expense of human welfare. The combination of capitalism with a general socialist bent is the best the human race has managed to achieve. Its a precarious balancing act. I think you will have to justify the "gross inefficiency" claim, as capitalism has been one of the most successful systems at causing sustained growth and effective incentives in human history. The claim of exploitation is also often flimsy as it often compares to some notion of the ideal wage rather than a real world consideration. Finally, for the crimes argument to be used, it must be argued that the inefficiency of corporate crimes exceeds the possible crimes done by a government or some other entity with similar power. Best at what though? I will assume that you speak from a utilitarian angle, but really, what alterations are necessary, why are they necessary, and why are you correct on those alterations. Not only that but if the balance is precarious, what makes you think a democracy is capable of maintaining the balance?

I find it faintly ridiculous that one is forced to make money, what is at best paper/information with a value put on it, in light of the fact that it is socially proscribed that you have to or face punishment in the form of poverty. Unless you're skills are valued you are somewhat fucked. And you might be very talented but if its not commercially viable there are very few routes to financial support. If people allow the market to dominate all areas of life, which to me seems to be a growing trend, actual creativity and worth gets sacrificed. How is it actually ridiculous? Your claim seems ridiculous to me that people should value that which is not valuable to them. Why should talents that few people consider to be talents be paid as if they were? I might be able to play music with my armpits but that doesn't give me the right to prosperity, pleasing my fellow man gives me that right. Not only that but how is creativity diminishing? If anything we have more abundant creativity than the past with thousands of artists working to our very whims rather than in past societies where we have the few working for the wealthy.

Capitalism attempts to pass itself off as an extension of the perceived way in which things work in nature. To some extent it reflects nature on a superficial level-you cant get something for nothing, however I find that a more efficient system of transformation ie work for benefit- is possible, which would drastically reduce the exploitation and servitude which is a by product of capitalism. People work for benefit though. I don't get your criticism, what are you comparing capitalism to? Serfdom? Communism? We must have a base level for comparison, and compared to past systems we find significantly more freedom under capitalism.

Also its insane for people to invoke their understanding nature as a legitimation for an economic system ie people are selfish, there are no selfless acts etc therefore capitalism=good. Which is bollocks because if evolution has taught us anything its that people are also social creatures so they must be latent communists too (which is equally as ridiculous!). Imo its a bit pointless to work to further ones bank balance and just for that only, theres much more to life than an artificial human construct. Im sure a better replacement for capitalism is possible, we need to evolve larger brains first though. If our understanding of medical science advances we could do that in the next 500 years.
How does evolution teach us anything of that nature? Not only that but I am not sure you understand the capitalist system even though you criticize it. Many capitalists already do acknowledge that people have selfless traits, but really, that does not mean that communism is a working system as the attack on communism is a bit deeper than altruism vs egoism but rather extends into a debate of individualism vs communalism. Most people can agree that people have some altruistic characteristics, but that does not diminish our nature as individuals and thusly does not diminish the need for an individualistic system.

There are plenty of things wrong with the capitalist system, its grossly inefficient for one, its results in exploitation and in crimes being committed by corporations at the expense of human welfare. The combination of capitalism with a general socialist bent is the best the human race has managed to achieve. Its a precarious balancing act.


I agree with bolded part. But what the fuck? Capitalism is by far the most efficient system the world has ever produced, even scandinavian style capitalism mixed with socialism is only succesful because of the wealth being increased by capitalism.


I find it faintly ridiculous that one is forced to make money

You are forced to work, if humans didn't work the world would be fucked. So it's rather rational actually.

so money is important within a system that makes money important?

Substitute resources for money. It's the same thing. Those who have resources, or the ability to get resources, thrive. Those who don't have resources, and no way to get them, die.

The whole of human existence has been focused on resources - getting them, hoarding them, using them. The system isn't what makes resources important, survival is what makes them important.

Fergi America;12930331']And as for automation, the factory-workers don't want that, because it'd make 'em redundant. I've been shushed at more than one factory for saying that a machine ought to be doing "X"...

and in the system we live in, they are right to despise automation - they already find themselves in the position of being forced to do the shit work, and now you want to take away even that from them, without addressing their position at all. which just serves as a way to highlight that the system itself is the problem.

Fergi America;12930331']The "equality" angle falls flat with me. Appeasing the base jealousy of the masses is not something a society should be aiming for.

you say base jealousy, i say fundamental human drive towards justice. and since the motivation at work is objectively demonstrable to not be anything like what we call jealousy under other circumstances, justice wins.

Fergi America;12930331']A society should help its members attain their fullest potential, not trap them at some artificial barrier

indeed, which is why the inegalitarian system has got to go as a matter of practical necessity. you can have one of two things. you can either have gross disparities of wealth and power or you can have a society where all members of that society are aided and allowed to attain their fullest potential. these two things are mutually exclusive. if you have gross disparities of wealth and power, the vast bulk of people will be artificially restricted from attaining their full potential - it cannot be any other way.

Fergi America;12930331']Also, no matter what system is used, someone still has to pick up the trash and do all those other rotten-but-necessary jobs that make a civilization run. If no one signs up to do those jobs, people will have to be drafted into them, and then it becomes slavery.

you want something done that you don't want to do yourself and can't get anyone else to volunteer for, so your solution is to actively create a class of people who have no other choice but to do it for you. come on, that just fails the basic principles of justice.

Substitute resources for money. It's the same thing. Those who have resources, or the ability to get resources, thrive. Those who don't have resources, and no way to get them, die.

The whole of human existence has been focused on resources - getting them, hoarding them, using them. The system isn't what makes resources important, survival is what makes them important.

except that there are many ways to distribute resources, and under those other ways personal access to money or resources in general matters to varying lesser degrees

I also think that the amount of money some people have is absolutely absurd. Who the hell seriously needs to own more than one car per driver in one's family? Or multiple houses?


You should read The Affluent Society by John Kenneth Galbraith. It's about a rich private America but a poor public one, a little like what you're saying.

Money is a measure of value, instead of relying on informal barter economies, money permits the easing of economic transactions between individuals. Money is the good of universal value, that you can trade for anything.

you say base jealousy, i say fundamental human drive towards justice. and since the motivation at work is objectively demonstrable to not be anything like what we call jealousy under other circumstances, justice wins.



I think some put much to high a worth on mutable concepts such as justice, when in reality comfort is all that people really desire. The ability to be guaranteed in your own personal survival, and to feel good.

Hardly, the hearts of the so-called 'working class' are not driven out of a sense of what the left perceives to be justice, rather they are driven by greed, lust for the comforts of the wealthy and the perception of their ease of life, and so on and so forth. They want what they see on E! News Live, not justice.

I think some put much to high a worth on mutable concepts such as justice, when in reality comfort is all that people really desire. The ability to be guaranteed in your own personal survival, and to feel good.

Hardly, the hearts of the so-called 'working class' are not driven out of a sense of what the left perceives to be justice, rather they are driven by greed, lust for the comforts of the wealthy and the perception of their ease of life, and so on and so forth. They want what they see on E! News Live, not justice.

It's truly a rare person who wants justice for his country or his world. Most just want to have a decent life, as you say.

in reality comfort is all that people really desire

this is false

Money and all material possessions are what keep me happy.

Money doesn't buy happiness...

Nonsense! Buy a puppy!

Money and all material possessions are what keep me happy.

Same for me. Paradoxically, I find that to be incredibly sad.

With no money - I might not graduate from high school
With little money - I might graduate from high school
A little more money - I may get to community college or vocational training.
A little more - I can choose between community college and a state university.
Even more - I can go to a more highly rated state school - say the difference between California State University at San Bernardino and UCLA
Lots of money - I can go to Stanford, Yale, Harvard, Oxford and I can go to the prep schools and hire the tutors that will help me qualify for these schools.
Interestingly enough, all those examples of why money opens up options for you is entirely dependent on the wealth of your parents, something you have no control over.

Civilized countries have free university anyway.

this is false

Oh get real.

Fine, bring about your revolution, but see what happens ten minutes after this mythical 'upper class' is overthrown: Squabbling over who gets the houses in Beverly Hills, that's what.

Oh get real.

no, you get real. we know for an objective fact that people are motivated by all sorts of things besides comfort. in fact, a number of these motivations run directly contrary to personal comfort. come on, this isn't mysterious.

Fine, bring about your revolution, but see what happens ten minutes after this mythical 'upper class' is overthrown: Squabbling over who gets the houses in Beverly Hills, that's what.

'mythical upper class'? really?

Nonsense! Buy a puppy!

... if you didn't cut the end of my post,... you'll find that having money helps alot,... by buying a puppy. :)

no, you get real. we know for an objective fact that people are motivated by all sorts of things besides comfort. in fact, a number of these motivations run directly contrary to personal comfort. come on, this isn't mysterious.


Can I ask what motivations these are, which arn't ultimately means to greater comfort?

no, you get real. we know for an objective fact that people are motivated by all sorts of things besides comfort. in fact, a number of these motivations run directly contrary to personal comfort. come on, this isn't mysterious.

What motivations might these be, may I ask?



'mythical upper class'? really?

It's the leftist bogeyman, just like Islamists for George Bush and Jews for Nazis, to get people riled up you need to juxtapose them against some big bad mean 'other' that is floating out there in the ether.

It's the leftist bogeyman, just like Islamists for George Bush and Jews for Nazis, to get people riled up you need to juxtapose them against some threat that is the 'other'.
Dude. Are you serious?
Fist of all, just because something is used as a scapegoat doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Islamists for instance.

Second of all, what the fuck? There are plenty of people who quite visibly posses a greater amount of wealth than the average person could ever dream of.

Dude. Are you serious?
Fist of all, just because something is used as a scapegoat doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Islamists for instance.

Second of all, what the fuck? There are plenty of people who quite visibly posses a greater amount of wealth than the average person could ever dream of.

I'm just being belligerent for belligerency's sake. An old habit of mine.
After all, "I hope you realize that I'm just playing games for my own sick entertainment, no hard feelings. It's bedtime for me. Goodnight." is part of my signature.

I've argued an awful lot of things on these boards just because I felt like it, oftentimes I either don't have a position on the matter, or I hold the opposing position.

I just wound up biting on something I really cannot prove.

The point I should have been trying to make is that the upper class is overhyped as a threat and a problem by the left. It's not some horrifying gaggle of successful bandits wearing top hats, plotting and planning at every turn to deprive the workers of their livelihood, rather it's something that is barely tangible and fluctuates. It doesn't have near the power or capability that some on the left ascribe to it and yadda yadda yadda. I need to go clean my car. Blast.

Can I ask what motivations these are, which arn't ultimately means to greater comfort?

reproduction, for one. honor, pride, and duty, for a few more. addiction. recognition. and yes, justice. and there are, of course, more.

Oh get real.

Fine, bring about your revolution, but see what happens ten minutes after this mythical 'upper class' is overthrown: Squabbling over who gets the houses in Beverly Hills, that's what.

I'm no anarchist like FS, in fact I'm a dirty conservative capitalist pig-dog, but how the hell is the upper class a myth?

reproduction, for one. honor, pride, and duty, for a few more. addiction. recognition. and yes, justice. and there are, of course, more.

For most of human history reproduction was closely linked with improvements in material comfort and personal survival.
Recognition is closely linked with increased personal comfort.
Addiction is a chemical alteration of the human brain.
Concepts of honor, pride, duty and justice are all linked because they are all externally conditioned by society, and are not universal in the human experience.

For most of human history reproduction was closely linked with improvements in material comfort and personal survival.

not for women. not for anybody, really. it is easier to provide for yourself than to provide for yourself and children.

Recognition is closely linked with increased personal comfort.

or dying heroically. or pointedly decreasing personal comfort. or becoming infamous. etc.

Addiction is a chemical alteration of the human brain.

so?

Concepts of honor, pride, duty and justice are all linked because they are all externally conditioned by society, and are not universal in the human experience.

and?

not for women. not for anybody, really. it is easier to provide for yourself than to provide for yourself and children.
Hardly, throughout the era of subsistence agriculture the more kids you had, the more could tend to the farm, because the marginal gain brought about by the presence of that extra, unpaid farm hand was far greater than the cost. Furthermore, women were kept in check by keeping them constantly pregnant, or under threat of domestic violence.


or dying heroically. or pointedly decreasing personal comfort. or becoming infamous. etc.
Issues of powerful social conditioning, belief (esp. religious), or defensive response to threat, a survival issue.

so?



and?

My argument is that there is a single, innate drive, and that is for personal survival and comfort. None of these are innate. Furthermore, these behaviors can go extinct, and are rarely represented in only a tiny minority of the overall population.

Furthermore, these concepts are conditioned to be associated with increased pleasure and comfort, just like a dog salivating when a bell rings thinking that food will come shortly.

My argument is that there is a single, innate drive, and that is for personal survival and comfort.

well then evolution itself says you are wrong

well then evolution itself says you are wrong

And how may that be?

Sure, perhaps we're hardwired to have certain responses to individuals with certain head-to-body size ratios, essentially to protect, but overall our single most important evolutionary impulse is to survive, and while doing so, increase the comfort of our lives, push ourselves as far away from personal extinction as possible.

Rarely but through intense dehumanizing regimes can an individual summon the focus to sacrifice himself. Dehumanizing regimes such as military training. Regimes designed to knock the individual out of you.



But I see no evidence of a innate sense of duty, honor or justice. Merely socially conditioned factors.

are you saying that a person has to be less of an individual to become self sacrificing?

cause i'm pretty sure that if we were all just living base drives we'd be pretty much the same....

personally i'm one of those stupid idealists that work hard because it's the right thing to do, not cause i'll get any recognition for it (cause i won't) and would step in front of a gun wielding maniac in an attempt to save a stranger, but that's just who i am. i've got a hero complex. but that makes me more unique than someone sitting in a chair trying to find a way to make more money

but overall our single most important evolutionary impulse is to survive, and while doing so, increase the comfort of our lives, push ourselves as far away from personal extinction as possible.

really? are you sure about that?

indeed, which is why the inegalitarian system has got to go as a matter of practical necessity. you can have one of two things. you can either have gross disparities of wealth and power or you can have a society where all members of that society are aided and allowed to attain their fullest potential. these two things are mutually exclusive.That's a false dilemma; it's not an either/or situation. And, I think you have it backwards anyway.

If society's members are allowed to function to their fullest potential, then the fact that some members really don't have much potential becomes clear--and, necessarily, results in gross disparities of wealth and power. Naturally, overall, cream rises, and sludge sinks. When that doesn't happen, that's where injustice has settled, not the other way around.

Having everything "equal" isn't justice--it's artificially keeping sludge from sinking as low as it should, while keeping cream from rising as high as it should!

Even if its intentions were taken at face value, egalitarianism = the societal equivalent of Procustes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes), who stretched all the short people, and cut the legs off all the tall ones.

Fergi America;12932496']If society's members are allowed to function to their fullest potential, then the fact that some members really don't have much potential becomes clear--and, necessarily, results in gross disparities of wealth and power.

What kind of "fullest potential" fulfillment necessitates "gross disparities of wealth and power"?

really? are you sure about that?

Pretty damn sure, you got an alternative theory?

Pretty damn sure, you got an alternative theory?

yep. evolution doesn't care at all about comfort and personal survival except in so far as they benefit your reproductive success. the genes that made a creature that was only concerned with its own comfort and survival would not have as much reproductive success over time compared to genes that made a creature be concerned with reproductive success even to the detriment of comfort and personal survival (when such sacrifices do in fact lead to greater reproductive success on average). which is precisely what we see in the world.

yep. evolution doesn't care at all about comfort and personal survival except in so far as they benefit your reproductive success. the genes that made a creature that was only concerned with its own comfort and survival would not have as much reproductive success over time compared to genes that made a creature be concerned with reproductive success even to the detriment of comfort and personal survival (when such sacrifices do in fact lead to greater reproductive success on average). which is precisely what we see in the world.

In the instance of humanity, though, reproductive success is achieved through individual survival, and comfort is merely a side effect of going the extra mile to ensure individual survival.

As in: If I die, I cannot reproduce, as such, I will seek to maximize my likelihood of survival. Achieving comfort is maximizing your likelihood of survival.

If anything, if you have available largess, you'll be able to support more mates and more offspring.

In the instance of humanity, though, reproductive success is achieved through individual survival

which explains why we never hear about people running into danger to save their children...

Money only creates sorrow. It does not matter how much you earn, or how much you hoard away. You obsess about what might happen to your money, or how to get more of it, instead of focusing on living.

What kind of "fullest potential" fulfillment necessitates "gross disparities of wealth and power"?

i'm interested to know this as well

The only people who say that money isn't important are those who have enough of it.
No, I totally don't have nearly enough of it and I wish this wasn't a problem.

money is pretty important to me, if people didn't have money I wouldn't have a job. I like money, it's something I can control, I can shift this bit to that account and that bit to that mutual fund, and it's great. Having money means that for most of life's curveballs I have a plan, and for the rest of them I have a down payment on a plan. It means my kids can get a good education, that I can pay cash for all our tuition, and that I can avoid debt (which I hate).
I'm just saying that we should be able to have all that without the money itself. Children should be able to get a good education regardless of their parents' finanacial status, everyone should have homes and the necessities of life, not just those who can afford them.

What kind of "fullest potential" fulfillment necessitates "gross disparities of wealth and power"?
Well, I think he presupposes that the fulfillment of development requires that people will get the fruits of these developments in terms of wealth. I can't see how potential can be separated from power, unless you think that the fool will get his say against the debater or scholar, that the loner will be loved as much as the lovely, or that the productive man will be esteemed as highly as he who cannot do so much. The size of our society is where the grossness comes in, but disparity is a natural occurrence.

I'm just saying that we should be able to have all that without the money itself. Children should be able to get a good education regardless of their parents' finanacial status, everyone should have homes and the necessities of life, not just those who can afford them.
Only a limited amount is necessary. Really though, should those who refuse to do society good have good done to them in turn? This isn't to say that individuals shouldn't be kind but government is a different beast with a different nature to what morality it should carry. Money is actually underrated by society because too many people don't fully recognize the trade-offs that are in reality.

I'm just saying that we should be able to have all that without the money itself. Children should be able to get a good education regardless of their parents' finanacial status, everyone should have homes and the necessities of life, not just those who can afford them.

should is such a big word though......should according to whom?

Well, I think he presupposes that the fulfillment of development requires that people will get the fruits of these developments in terms of wealth.

That's an entirely different argument... especially since the "fruits" in this case amount to incentives.

Allowing people to fulfill their fullest potential and bribing them into fulfilling your idea of their potential are not at all the same things... especially if the latter comes at the expense of the former by depriving some people of the resources they need to reach their fullest potential.

unless you think that the fool will get his say against the debater or scholar,

Of course not. But this is not "power." I can choose to listen to the fool or to the scholar. If I decide to listen to the scholar, it is my choice; I do not give the scholar power, nor do I deprive the fool of power. I merely exercise my own.

Society may decide to make the scholar rich and powerful, and the fool poor and powerless... but this is not natural law or essential to the way societies work.

that the loner will be loved as much as the lovely,

Undoubtedly not. But this has nothing to do with economic and political equality.

or that the productive man will be esteemed as highly as he who cannot do so much.

"Esteem" is neither wealth nor power.

I'm just saying that we should be able to have all that without the money itself. Children should be able to get a good education regardless of their parents' finanacial status, everyone should have homes and the necessities of life, not just those who can afford them.

but the vast majority of people in the US have a free education, a place to live and the necessities of life.

we have more homeless people than we should but the long term homeless are a very hard problem to address.

but the vast majority of people in the US have a free education, a place to live and the necessities of life.

we have more homeless people than we should but the long term homeless are a very hard problem to address.
Oh, so nearly everyone in the US can afford to go see the doctor and buy necessary medications? And in a time when most decent jobs require a university education... most people can afford it without being burdened by debt for years afterwards?

pfffft that is hardly the same as "affording the necessities".

yeah, if you want more than the basics you are going to have to work for it.
Being able to see a doctor and buy necessary medications aren't necessities?!

And in this world, having a university education is almost necessity.

Oh, so nearly everyone in the US can afford to go see the doctor and buy necessary medications? And in a time when most decent jobs require a university education... most people can afford it without being burdened by debt for years afterwards?

pfffft that is hardly the same as "affording the necessities".

yeah, if you want more than the basics you are going to have to work for it.

Being able to see a doctor and buy necessary medications aren't necessities?!

And in this world, having a university education is almost necessity.

you have no idea.

if everyone has to live like a king then everyone needs to work very hard to get there.

What business is it of yours what others earn, and do with their money?

That's an entirely different argument... especially since the "fruits" in this case amount to incentives. Only because in your mind they are separate and in his they are the same. I am not sure he is working off of the basis of incentives so much as the idea that the "fruits" naturally belong to the person who creates them. If I started a company that sold chicken nuggets because I loved chicken nuggets and I got a lot of money because of it, then the money isn't the incentive, the love of chicken nuggets was, the money was a result though. He assumes that by me starting a successful company I get some of the fortune of it, you don't make that assumption, which is why you speak past each other on this matter.

Allowing people to fulfill their fullest potential and bribing them into fulfilling your idea of their potential are not at all the same things... especially if the latter comes at the expense of the former by depriving some people of the resources they need to reach their fullest potential. Except that it isn't his argument. You have taken his argument away from his assumptions and inserted it into yours, which doesn't work. Not only that but you both work with a different assumption of who deserves the fortunes in the first place, if it belongs to us all then it is taken away, if it belongs to individuals then there cannot be considered to be a loss as the bribe is freely given.

Of course not. But this is not "power." I can choose to listen to the fool or to the scholar. If I decide to listen to the scholar, it is my choice; I do not give the scholar power, nor do I deprive the fool of power. I merely exercise my own. Doesn't the capitalist make the same claim about his system? You can choose to pay Nike or Adidas, it is your choice. You are not giving power but rather exercising your support. It really doesn't make a significant difference here, all else equal, one will be chosen and the other not, one will become loved for wisdom and the other not and there will be inequality, you merely state that power derived from intellectual capital is just while physical capital is less so, they are both capital as one may spend time accumulating money while the other books. The fool will likely despise the scholar for being chosen as Adidas may hate Nike for taking its customers.

Society may decide to make the scholar rich and powerful, and the fool poor and powerless... but this is not natural law or essential to the way societies work. I never mentioned wealth. The scholar will be powerful because he is a scholar though, his intellectual capital will allow him to intellectually dominate his opponents and promote his will. If argued against PhD economist Todd Schmircheck(made up person), I will inevitably lose as I lack the knowledge and processing to beat him, Dr. Schmircheck will be listened to and I regarded as the fool for opposing him. Even if no argument takes place, if the Dr. is well regarded I will still likely lose because of the respectability capital gained by him for being a man of knowledge. We can cover this up with choice, but libertarian capitalists call their system one of choice as well, and perhaps strangely I do not see the difference in these variants of what appears to me to be capital.

Undoubtedly not. But this has nothing to do with economic and political equality. It absolutely has to deal with political and social power. Economic power is only a variant of political and social power, and it is the variant you focus on the most, but that doesn't make it holier. Power structures have to deal with more than money as they can exist in absence of a monetary relation. I really think that money is just another dimension to power structure rather than the entirety. Perhaps I think a bit on Harrison Bergeron or the driving impulse of Fahrenheit 451 which pushes me to think inequality and distress over it relates to more than money, but rather anything that one can feel jealous about. Perhaps it is also because I don't buy into wage slavery as much as you do and see a more divided power structure in economics than you do with a less divided one in academia and politics, which I see as driven very much by pride, and exertion of power over others.

"Esteem" is neither wealth nor power.
Esteem is ABSOLUTELY power. The well-esteemed triumph over those who lack this esteem. The politically connected triumph over those without the connections. Heck, if one looks at a classroom setting, one still sees power plays without the economic element, there are still the popular children who are beloved by their classmates and the unpopular who skulk in the corner and perhaps not by choice but rather deficient social abilities. To put it succinctly is a demagogue truly powerless? Absolutely not. Perhaps I jump off of a cliff intellectually, but I think not.

If I started a company that sold chicken nuggets because I loved chicken nuggets and I got a lot of money because of it, then the money isn't the incentive, the love of chicken nuggets was, the money was a result though.

And if I take away some of your money, I have not prevented you from fulfilling your potential. Especially since you would have started the company anyway.

Except that it isn't his argument.

No, true; it is your interpretation of his argument.

I simply asked in what sense fulfilling potential necessitated disparities in wealth and power.

Doesn't the capitalist make the same claim about his system? You can choose to pay Nike or Adidas, it is your choice.

The scholar and the fool offer their advice freely--or, at least, that is a way society could function. As long as they offer their advice freely, as long as no condition is set upon listening to the advice, they have no power.

you merely state that power derived from intellectual capital is just while physical capital is less so

Quite the contrary.

When intellectual capital is used to make contingent exchanges--when the scholar in your example, for instance, sells her advice--then it is indeed a source of power, and perhaps of unjust power inequity.

But preventing the sale of advice (for example) does not prevent the scholar from fulfilling her potential. It merely prevents her from accumulating wealth.

Similarly, physical capital is a source of power when it is offered in exchange for other things. If it is offered freely, it is not.

Power structures have to deal with more than money

Indeed they do. I have never said otherwise.

Esteem is ABSOLUTELY power.

It can be; there is a sense in which people have cultural or social power. But this sort of "esteem" has nothing to do with the fulfillment of human potential.

Being able to see a doctor and buy necessary medications aren't necessities?! Who defines necessities? It really seems as if necessity seems to change over time, which really denies it a quality of absoluteness. This only means that we are pulling from a vague cloud.

And in this world, having a university education is almost necessity.
The statement says nothing on value, optimal college graduates for economic efficiency, capability of potential students, or even a good analysis on all aspects of college. Because of that I am not sure it is useful.

And if I take away some of your money, I have not prevented you from fulfilling your potential. Especially since you would have started the company anyway. And that goes into the issue of rights and ownership. If that money is taken to be the same as the labor, depriving the man of that money is an injustice against him for it is stealing that which is his, and that which he has given to himself for his fulfillment. Really though, the entire notion of rights and all of that is a void that is impossible to make statements on. I would argue that I own that which I create, and that it by being my labor is thus a part of me and my history and thus view this as an infringement of liberty. Such a statement though is one of premises and values, I do not think you would shake those away.


No, true; it is your interpretation of his argument.

I simply asked in what sense fulfilling potential necessitated disparities in wealth and power. I simply stated his likely premises and the premises reveal why his argument is taken as true.


The scholar and the fool offer their advice freely--or, at least, that is a way society could function. As long as they offer their advice freely, as long as no condition is set upon listening to the advice, they have no power. But there does not have to be condition. If the scholar is listened to and the fool not and the scholar effects change by his action of advice and the fool does not then the scholar has power and the fool does not as power is often defined as acting to cause change.


Quite the contrary.

When intellectual capital is used to make contingent exchanges--when the scholar in your example, for instance, sells her advice--then it is indeed a source of power, and perhaps of unjust power inequity. I disagree as not all advice or desire is monetary. If I give my advice freely in order to enact change then I use my power as well. Let's just put it this way: if I can create an intellectual argument for them that will likely stump my opponents and I give it freely to help corn subsidies and sell it to help tobacco because I care about the former and not the latter, then I view the money as being as valuable as corn subsidies, because my aid to corn subsidies is to enact change, and I define power as the ability to enact change whether it is soft or hard power and the advice is just as costly to me for both causes, then the change I effect with the help to corn subsidies is as much as the power of the money to me.

But preventing the sale of advice (for example) does not prevent the scholar from fulfilling her potential. It merely prevents her from accumulating wealth. Except if one views wealth as a part of values, if one values wealth then the denial of the ability to attain wealth is oppression just as any other denial of action is. All prevention of action is in a way oppression in this manner as even though it is not unfair to have mutual exchange, it is certainly unfair to ban a crime without a victim. If my dream is to attain a pigfarm for my own personal use, then I must have private wealth. I don't think that there is a lack of dreams for physical ownership, whether or not these are just a part of the current culture doesn't have much meaning to me as it is still a sign of the value of individuals.

Similarly, physical capital is a source of power when it is offered in exchange for other things. If it is offered freely, it is not. Except that nobody would deny a scholar's ability to offer the capital to the causes he/she supports while physical capital has no similarity.

Indeed they do. I have never said otherwise.
I never stated you did, but to ignore them does not seem to justly take in the entire picture. If abolishing one form of power still leaves a significant amount of other powers then we cannot judge the current system vs a egalitarian utopia but rather against a system that is inegalitarian in different ways.

It can be; there is a sense in which people have cultural or social power. But this sort of "esteem" has nothing to do with the fulfillment of human potential.
If one dreams of it then it must be recognized in any analysis of value. All fulfillment of potential is individualistic and derived from the goals of the individual. For some of these dreams a higher amount of power is necessary, for others less is, but power is still a part of it. Even if it is the abilities necessary to attract a mate, or the outstanding desire to fundamentally touch all lives.

you have no idea.

if everyone has to live like a king then everyone needs to work very hard to get there.
I am so fucking glad I live in a country where medical care isn't a luxury.

And that goes into the issue of rights and ownership. If that money is taken to be the same as the labor, depriving the man of that money is an injustice against him for it is stealing that which is his,

Yes, yes, I know. But this has nothing to do with fulfilling human potential.

Fulfilling potential requires protection from compulsion and the resources for genuine opportunity. It does not require external benefits for that fulfillment. That justification must be sought elsewhere.

Perhaps economic inequality is useful for efficiency, or justice, or whatever, but it is not the source of the freedom required for human development and the fulfillment of potential; indeed, as Free Soviets pointed out, its primary function in that respect is not to aid but to impede.

But there does not have to be condition. If the scholar is listened to and the fool not and the scholar effects change by his action of advice and the fool does not then the scholar has power and the fool does not as power is often defined as acting to cause change.

The scholar has power if his advice is privileged; if the culture is such that his advice is awarded a priority beyond its merits.

If not, then his advice stands on its own. Yes, he has acted, and as a consequence, change has occurred, but the responsibility is not really "his"; the advice stands on its own.

I disagree as not all advice or desire is monetary. If I give my advice freely in order to enact change then I use my power as well. Let's just put it this way: if I can create an intellectual argument for them that will likely stump my opponents and I give it freely to help corn subsidies and sell it to help tobacco because I care about the former and not the latter, then I view the money as being as valuable as corn subsidies, because my aid to corn subsidies is to enact change, and I define power as the ability to enact change whether it is soft or hard power and the advice is just as costly to me for both causes, then the change I effect with the help to corn subsidies is as much as the power of the money to me.

You are mistaking the attainment of value for power.

The fact that I find a million dollars on the ground does not make me powerful. The fact that I can extract a million dollars from someone in return for a service does make me powerful. The values I receive in both cases are equivalent, but in one case, there is a power relation, and in the other, there is not.

Except if one views wealth as a part of values, if one values wealth then the denial of the ability to attain wealth is oppression just as any other denial of action is.

Well, yes. Actually this was precisely my point.

The only sort of "potential" gross disparities in wealth and power are necessitated to fulfill is the "potential" to be wealthy and powerful... but by the same logic, democracy restricts the "potential" to be dictator, and laws against murder restrict the "potential" to be a murderer, and so on.

For the fulfillment of potential to be a right, its scope must be at least to a reasonable degree private; otherwise it interferes with the capability of others to fulfill their potential. Both wealth and power are necessarily public.

I never stated you did, but to ignore them does not seem to justly take in the entire picture. If abolishing one form of power still leaves a significant amount of other powers then we cannot judge the current system vs a egalitarian utopia but rather against a system that is inegalitarian in different ways.

No... a system that is inegalitarian in some of the same ways, but much more egalitarian in many others.

And some of the inequalities unconnected (or only indirectly connected) to money--patriarchy, racism, heterosexism--can and should be challenged by any movement oriented towards a more equal society.

I am so fucking glad I live in a country where medical care isn't a luxury.

im sure you are

and if nationalized medicine was the point of society providing the necessities of life it might make your point

although since you seemed to be claiming that society WASNT providing the necessities i guess that nationalized medicine cant be your point or you would have claimed that canada covers the necessities nicely.

all western industrialized countries cover the necessities of life for the vast majority of their people. they all have a place to live, the possibility of ample nutritious food, decent clothing, free education and (if you insist) health care that is provided when it is absolutely needed.

im sure you are

and if nationalized medicine was the point of society providing the necessities of life it might make your point

although since you seemed to be claiming that society WASNT providing the necessities i guess that nationalized medicine cant be your point or you would have claimed that canada covers the necessities nicely.

all western industrialized countries cover the necessities of life for the vast majority of their people. they all have a place to live, the possibility of ample nutritious food, decent clothing, free education and (if you insist) health care that is provided when it is absolutely needed.
Except that you have things like a million canadians who can't afford to have both a roof over their heads and eat. They can afford to do one or the other, but not both. The necessities are available, technically... but there are a large number of people who can't afford to have them.

which explains why we never hear about people running into danger to save their children...

I believe we've strayed from what I was originally attempting to argue: That the basic reason for social change is because people want more stuff.

None of the reasons you've listed have ever spawned a bottom-up revolution.

Except that you have things like a million canadians who can't afford to have both a roof over their heads and eat. They can afford to do one or the other, but not both. The necessities are available, technically... but there are a large number of people who can't afford to have them.

hmmm lets see

1 million out of 300 million....

.3%

not a small number of people for sure but hardly a symptom of huge failure

hmmm lets see

1 million out of 300 million....

.3%

not a small number of people for sure but hardly a symptom of huge failure
Look, as far as I'm concerned there shouldn't be a single person who has to choose between starving and freezing to death.

What business is it of yours what others earn, and do with their money?

it's my business if i can't afford food for my family


and yet some little rich kid blows over 2 million dollars on a weekend shopping spree

something is SERIOUSLY fucked up with that

Look, as far as I'm concerned there shouldn't be a single person who has to choose between starving and freezing to death.

exactly


that .3% may seem like a small number on paper, UNLESS you're one of them


then it's HUGE

I think that money is generally highly overrated. Yes, I know this is nothing particularly orignal, but perhaps I can elaborate on this...

So I'm usually not particularly good at saving money unless I have some specific goal in mind to save for. I don't really put much value in having a lot of money and I would generally rather spend money going out and doing something with my friends or buying something nice for myself (or perhaps as a gift) than hoarding it in my bank account.

I also see certain professions as being mildly unethical for their attitudes towards money. For instance, stockbrokers, I feel, contribute absolutely nothing useful to society. All they do is make people's investments bigger... making more money for the rich essentially. I don't consider this to be a valuable profession, in fact, I think that garbagemen are infinitely more useful than stockbrokers because they actually do something that is useful and important to society.

I also think that the amount of money some people have is absolutely absurd. Who the hell seriously needs to own more than one car per driver in one's family? Or multiple houses?

In general, the fact that so many people are so obsessed with the accumulation of wealth combined with the fact that so many people take this obsession to the point of not caring whether anyone else has anything are absolutely appalling and really... it's depressing that this sort of behaviour is almost encouraged.

I couldn't agree with you more. I've tried to explain this to my parents, they still don't quite get it.

I couldn't agree with you more. I've tried to explain this to my parents, they still don't quite get it.

http://www.frostfox.com/blogpics/freshprince.jpg

Parent's just don't understand!

Money's awesome. It lets me have stuff I want.

Children should be able to get a good education regardless of their parents' finanacial status, everyone should have homes and the necessities of life, not just those who can afford them.

Teh ebil commenizt! :D
But seriously, even north of the border that's pretty radical thinking. :(

hmmm lets see

1 million out of 300 million....

.3%

not a small number of people for sure but hardly a symptom of huge failure

The population of Canada, which is the country referenced here, is approximately 33 million, which makes the percentage about 3%.

Teh ebil commenizt! :D
But seriously, even north of the border that's pretty radical thinking. :(
Doesn't make it evil or anything to be sad about.

*snip*

AH! :) Populist economics.

Like sandpaper on my brain.

Look, as far as I'm concerned there shouldn't be a single person who has to choose between starving and freezing to death.

are you saying that canada doesnt have food assistance for poor people?

are you saying that canada doesnt have food assistance for poor people?
If by that you mean food banks, then those do exist, but they're perpetually short on food except around the holidays (so much for charitable donations keeping people fed, huh?).

If by that you mean food banks, then those do exist, but they're perpetually short on food except around the holidays (so much for charitable donations keeping people fed, huh?).

no.

in the US we have a program called food stamps that provides money for food (and only food) to anyone poor enough to qualify even if they dont qualify for "welfare".

we also have a program called WIC that provides extra food to pregnant women and children under 5.

canada doesnt have something like that?

no.

in the US we have a program called food stamps that provides money for food (and only food) to anyone poor enough to qualify even if they dont qualify for "welfare".

we also have a program called WIC that provides extra food to pregnant women and children under 5.

canada doesnt have something like that?
I haven't heard of anything like that.

I haven't heard of anything like that.

oh

that does make a difference.

how much subsidized housing do you have so that low income people can rent a modest apartment for less than market rates?

oh

that does make a difference.

how much subsidized housing do you have so that low income people can rent a modest apartment for less than market rates?

The wait for subsidized housing is often years (depending upon where you live). In my area of Ontario, you're looking at anywhere between 1-7 years to get into subsidized housing (according to Niagara Regional Housing employees).

I'm not sure how many actual units are available.

The wait for subsidized housing is often years (depending upon where you live). In my area of Ontario, you're looking at anywhere between 1-7 years to get into subsidized housing (according to Niagara Regional Housing employees).

I'm not sure how many actual units are available.

im starting to see where dakini is coming from.

are welfare payments so high that they cover rent, food and utilities?

what do y'all do about the working poor who are just getting by?

http://www.frostfox.com/blogpics/freshprince.jpg

Parent's just don't understand!

http://www.ewsonline.com/biggie/pics/images/biggie002.jpg

what you need to do is explain how the more money you come across, the more problems you see

are welfare payments so high that they cover rent, food and utilities?
I don't know, I've never been on welfare, but I imagine it depends where you are trying to live.

what do y'all do about the working poor who are just getting by?
Apparently let them choose between eating and paying rent unless they can hit up the foodbank while it still has food in it.

im starting to see where dakini is coming from.

are welfare payments so high that they cover rent, food and utilities?

what do y'all do about the working poor who are just getting by?

Welfare is generally not enough to cover everything.

I'm not sure about other provinces, but a single adult will get around $500/month total for rent, food and utilities combined. Rent in a complete dump will run you at least $400/month.

Two adults living together will get around $900/month, each child adds around $100-$150, I believe.

For people with children, we have provincial/federal monthly benefits that help, around $350/month for those with low income.

There are food banks, and other charities, but not much to aid the working poor around here.

i dont know what to make of that. its not like canada is infamous for having people freeze or starve to death.

not that it can always be prevented but thats mostly due to unusual circumstances that cant be anticipated.


do y'all have free hot lunches for kids in school? in this town there are so many poor kids that they give out free breakfast and lunch even in the summer so kids only have to go hungry (bad parents) on the weekends. and school holidays.

i dont know what to make of that. its not like canada is infamous for having people freeze or starve to death.
I'm pretty sure that Toronto has a lot of homeless shelters that usually don't quite accomodate everyone in the winter... I'm not sure if the situation is the same in every major city though. I'm guessing that there's not enough money to build shelters for everyone.

do y'all have free hot lunches for kids in school? in this town there are so many poor kids that they give out free breakfast and lunch even in the summer so kids only have to go hungry (bad parents) on the weekends. and school holidays.
I've never been to an public or secondary school that gave free lunches of any kind. Well, neither elementary school I went to even had cafeterias, you had to bring your own lunch. I think there are some private schools that include lunches with the tuition, but that doesn't exactly help the poor and I've gotten free food from university functions, but I pay them a pile of money so they'd better be giving me free food every onec in a while, imo. (I also have friends who have lived off nothing but peanut butter sandwiches and free pizza from school [mostly by attending events that were mostly not related to them such as philosophy career nights when they're in bio] for weeks on end)

do y'all have free hot lunches for kids in school? in this town there are so many poor kids that they give out free breakfast and lunch even in the summer so kids only have to go hungry (bad parents) on the weekends. and school holidays.

I'm not sure if there are any specifically for children. There was a daily hot lunch served at the Knights of Columbus Hall across the street from me at a previous address. When I was in school there were no free lunches available, but it's been over ten years since I graduated high school, so I'm not sure about now (though upon thinking back, my high school did offer free cold breakfast, iirc). My son is only six months old, so it will be a while before he's in school.

I'm pretty sure that Toronto has a lot of homeless shelters that usually don't quite accomodate everyone in the winter... I'm not sure if the situation is the same in every major city though. I'm guessing that there's not enough money to build shelters for everyone.


I've never been to an public or secondary school that gave free lunches of any kind. Well, neither elementary school I went to even had cafeterias, you had to bring your own lunch. I think there are some private schools that include lunches with the tuition, but that doesn't exactly help the poor and I've gotten free food from university functions, but I pay them a pile of money so they'd better be giving me free food every onec in a while, imo. (I also have friends who have lived off nothing but peanut butter sandwiches and free pizza from school [mostly by attending events that were mostly not related to them such as philosophy career nights when they're in bio] for weeks on end)


its probably not as bad as you think it is but im beginning to agree with you.

in my opinion it is especially important for a society to do its best by its children. to make sure that they grow up knowing that they will have a place to live, food to eat, an education there for the taking. its hard to keep parents from spending the family money on drugs and alcohol or other foolish things but there should be at least the opportunity for children to thrive.

in my opinion it is especially important for a society to do its best by its children. to make sure that they grow up knowing that they will have a place to live, food to eat, an education there for the taking. its hard to keep parents from spending the family money on drugs and alcohol or other foolish things but there should be at least the opportunity for children to thrive.
Well, I also include post secondary education as education that should be freely available to everyone... and I believe that psychiatric care should be provided freely for everyone who needs it... and medications... and housing... and there's more I'm sure...