621 replies to this topic

[wjfox]

You can't eliminate poverty.

Are you 100% sure of that? Ever heard of a resource-based economy?

[jjf3]

You can't eliminate poverty.

Ever heard of a resource-based economy?

I have and I don't think it can exist. We place value on too many things and there is no real transition period from capitalism to this system.

[wjfox]

Okay. So what happens when money becomes obsolete through technology?

[Prolite]

Okay. So what happens when money becomes obsolete through technology?

Money will never become obsolete. Money is a value system. I think your confusing money with today's value system. In today's economy, money buys things. In the future economy, money will buy ideas and intangible things, and perhaps even things. You can't exactly "print" a home. And would still need people/robots to build it. What about buying property? Or car insurance? Money will always exist as long as society exists. It's just that the value of money will continually change.

[jjf3]

Okay. So what happens when money becomes obsolete through technology?

Are you 100% certain that it will? Where are the trends that predict this exactly? The 3D printing process will get sold and re-sold just like anything else. I think that companies will put in their brands into the computer database and we would have to pay for the use of the brand. Say you want to get a coke or make a Dell Computer.

[Caiman]

Money will never become obsolete

In your opinion.

Are you 100% certain that it will? Where are the trends that predict this exactly?

Post Scarcity could happen and lead to the elimination of money.

[jjf3]

Money will never become obsolete

In your opinion.

Are you 100% certain that it will? Where are the trends that predict this exactly?

Post Scarcity could happen and lead to the elimination of money.

We would still have to make the nanobots or the material used to make everything. Actually this could be a very bad transition because if we place all of our process making into one substance, material or process what happens when the system breaks down???

As we have said before no resources are unlimited so you cannot create unlimited resources using a finite resource. It just doesn't work that way. Eventually that material will run out too and it will be back to the capitalist society or complete anarchy.

[Caiman]

We would still have to make the nanobots or the material used to make everything. Actually this could be a very bad transition because if we place all of our process making into one substance, material or process what happens when the system breaks down???

Who knows how we would reach such a point and what seismic shifts our society would have to go through to get there, but technology may well take us to that point eventually, you cannot rule it out.

As we have said before no resources are unlimited so you cannot create unlimited resources using a finite resource. It just doesn't work that way. Eventually that material will run out too and it will be back to the capitalist society.

By such a point, we would not be limited to resources on this planet. You talk about capitalism as if it is the crowning pinnacle of human economics and no other solution is possible or better. It works for humanity right now, but the landscape of the future will grow so unrecognisably different in the centuries ahead, it might not always be the most suitable.

[jjf3]

We would still have to make the nanobots or the material used to make everything. Actually this could be a very bad transition because if we place all of our process making into one substance, material or process what happens when the system breaks down???

Who knows how we would reach such a point and what seismic shifts our society would have to go through to get there, but technology may well take us to that point eventually, you cannot rule it out.

Wouldn't this be breaking some law of physics? Creating unlimited with limited? I do accept that anything could be possible with technology. Including humans bending the laws of physics and becoming omnipotent one day. Technology may displace money and society completely in about 10,000 years who knows? It's not going to happen anytime soon.

[Caiman]

It's not unlimited. Sure, huge amounts of work might be done to create the required output, but it's not unlimited. There's plenty of matter and energy out there to fulfil such a system. It's just reaching a point where we can harness it all. Anyway, we're kinda drifting from the topic of the thread here a little bit, aren't we?

[jjf3]

Yeah but its all the same really the occupiers are just debating the future of the economy are they not?

[mic of orion]

another reason to hate bankers even more now!! There's no end how low these scum will go!

Bank of America to charge $5 monthly debit card fee

http://money.cnn.com...t_fee/index.htm

[jjf3]

I think that was posted in the global economy section already

[Roh234]

Just throwing money at something is not the solution.

I am really pleased your family found the opportunities to get out of the trap and make life better. That doesn't change the fact that it is not possible for millions of others who are well below the line, no matter how hard they work and try. Yet still they do try, and all credit to them for doing so and especially those who make it. We can help, and if we spend a bit of money up front to help people become productive tax paying members of society, which the majority want to be, then maybe they won’t be a burden on the welfare and/or criminal justice system for the rest of their life.

What I ment is not just throwing money. Oppertunity creates wealth. Creating oppurtunity is mcuh better than just giving money. A better economy is the solution for crimes.

I like to rephase a quote:


"Give a man a fish and he'll have dinner. Teach a man to fish and he'll feed his family. Take him to the ocean and he'll feed his community."

[jjf3]

So again I ask how is this protest any different from the tea party? I bet this is one of the only liberal groups that can actually get some funding and grow into a huge voice in the democratic party. Just like the tea party did.

[Wesfky]

So again I ask how is this protest any different from the tea party? I bet this is one of the only liberal groups that can actually get some funding and grow into a huge voice in the democratic party. Just like the tea party did.

Because they are nowhere near far left.

edit: Didn't I answer this already?

[jjf3]

You did but no one else is. I want to hear what other people think about this comparison.

Evidence that they are not far left??? All I hear is revolution and arrest bankers something the left always want. Note: This is not necessarily bad. It's basically how Obama was elected on Hope and Change and revolution.

[wjfox]

Why does criticism of the bankers make somebody "far left"? These people aren't a bunch of communist revolutionaries - indeed many of them identify as centrists or even from the right. These are just normal folk who want better regulation and a fairer system. In other words, capitalism rather than the corporate kleptocracy that's currently in place.

The Tea Party, on the other hand, is blatantly a far-right extremist movement.

[Prolite]

Why does criticism of the bankers make somebody "far left"? These people aren't a bunch of communist revolutionaries - indeed many of them identify as centrists or even from the right. These are just normal folk who want better regulation and a fairer system. In other words, capitalism rather than the corporate kleptocracy that's currently in place.

The Tea Party, on the other hand, is blatantly a far-right extremist movement.

This issue must be segregated from people and ideas: The actual people who are leading this 99% movement are most likely far left individuals, since they're the only ones willing to get arrested for a movement that they truly believe in. Centrists and moderates are probably part of that crowd, but most likely are very few in numbers.

Secondly, the actual notion and reality of wallstreet bankers causing this great global economic recession as well as the banks themselves and federal regulators is a mainstream idea, and probably shared by most Americans, not just Wallstreet protestors.


PEOPLE vs. IDEA & REALITY

The People:
People who are innovators and leaders tend to stand very strongly towards certain beliefs. These are the Wallstreet protestors, whom are the far left.
Just look at their:
- clothing,
- hairstyles
- colors they wear,
- charactertures they follow: "zombie" attire.
- some of the things they say: "against capitalism" or "capitalism isn't working the right way."

Idea and Reality:
- the starters of the Wallstreet movement, the original protesters, start the tipping point by bringing in the early majority and the majority. The mainstream follows soon after. And this is why Wjfox perceives the Wallstreet movement as NOT being a far-left movement, and he's right. It's the people that started the movement that are far left, but not the actual movement itself. Here's why:

[truthiness]

Why does criticism of the bankers make somebody "far left"?

Because this isn't Europe. This is America. Over here, the libertarian idea that society does best under a "survival of the fittest" Darwinian capitalism is so heavily entrenched that it is effectively the center. To the left of that are the social democrats who push for the existence of some kind of social safety net. The far left consist of those who have the nerve to criticize capitalist excess. Actual criticism of capitalism itself is just about tantamount to treason.