follow the money
- Thread starter JohnRoberts
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
T
tands
Guest
http://www2.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol-6_2/v6-2-baudrillard80for80.html
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Walentin_Serow_Kroenung_Zar_Nikolai_II_anagoria.jpg
bluebird
Well-known member
Andy Peters said:
Andy, thank you for your informative and personal post. I have a 12 year old and I know how difficult it is to have a career and be involved in your child's life enough to give them the emotional and intellectual stability it takes to survive this world. "Walking the walk" in your case is a very difficult thing to do.
My daughter goes to a public school that is primarily kids from poorer families. A lot of those kids have serious problems and some of the things my daughter tells me they say to her is jaw dropping. One of her best friends is a girl who's dad is in jail and she is mainly raised by her grandmother. It can be very stressful to see your child becoming a teenager in this environment. Her mother wants her in a private school. I have to say if I could afford it (I can't) I would put her in a better environment. Then out of fear, I become part of the segregation problem. I subconsciously equate poverty with danger, low life, dirty people. Its shameful.
I think thats the main problem I have with capitalism, is how it makes people isolationists, fearful. Gotta protect whats mine! People become fearful or adversarial towards others on different socioeconomic levels. I blame a lot of this on advertising which is essential to capitalism. An advertisement is ultimately a message of fear. Scare people into thinking that they are "less than" if they don't buy the product being advertised. This is being pumped into our brains 24/7...your less than, you don't have it, your vulnerable without it, you look stupid without it. Its hard enough to get by these days without being told how worthless you are by bill boards and building size murals of beautiful people with beautiful things looking down on you.
No wonder there is an opiate epidemic going on now. Its just getting to be too much.
But hey, thanks for being brave Andy and trying to be part of the solution. Much respect.
Ian
Phrazemaster
Well-known member
Seriously money does nothing in the world of human interactions, except to regulate it, and make it easier for some to get power and control others. It also creates a heartless system as it's "dog eat dog" and "every man for himself" - actual good will gets suppressed as the masses run the treadmill of survival.
What would it be like if money was taken out of the equation? Think about almost any aspect of human endeavor - more than likely anything you think about will either be hindered by, prevented by, or seriously compromised by, money.
When money is at the heart of a system, then everything everyone does has the purpose of gaining these artificial "credits." Therefore integrity is not at the heart of it - gaining more little fake credits drives the system. So it actually corrupts every single aspect of our society. There is nothing that money has not damaged or corrupted or compromised.
And please - when people say that money is necessary to create incentives for people to work or to act, that's the biggest hoax and joke of all. Do you still get out and do things on your day off? Even though you probably don't make money when you do it? Do you go places, do things, interact with others - in other words - do you really LIVE and thrive and create and act when you have time off or when you are on vacation? Yet, we can agree, money is not what motivates you here.
We, at the core, are not motivated by money - we are motivated by our interests and desires. No money required.
What if people just gave freely, when they wanted to, and didn't, when they didn't want to? What if when you went to the doctor, he or she sincerely only wanted to heal you - nothing like selling a drug or pushing a surgery. And behind that, what if the people making the drugs had no monetary gain at heart - but only sincerely wanted to create a substance to help. Then if a drug was found to kill or maim or create terrible side effects, they would be immediately pulled from the market - unlike the horror stories you may have heard wherein drugs known to kill or harm have stayed on the market for years after the danger was discovered.
Do you think herbs would then be recognized and used more abundantly? Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that herbal remedies used for thousands of years would be dismissed with a wave of the hand as rubbish, and that the FDA refuses to test them - primarily because there is no money to be made by such tests? And also because if herbs were found to be effective, then drug sales might flag? Doesn't anyone find it suspicious that no one can tell you what an herb does, because that's illegal, and no one can claim an herb helps to heal something - because that is also illegal? But drugs can? Doesn't anyone find it suspicious that herbs known for millennia to help a condition are suppressed in favor of costly drugs that often have devastating side effects? Money, money, money!
The usual claptrap about scientific rigor cannot be followed with herbs due to their varying potencies is of course pure rubbish - concentrations can be standardized easily enough.
If money were not at the core of our systems, then every system would have at it's heart, it's own mission, solely. Not a need to generate fake credits at any expense - but only to create the best results possible for that system because the people doing it did it because they simply wanted to.
All of the greatness comes from within, and none of it requires money to draw it forth. Everything in society would still get done.
Think about your own life. I'm sure there are things you hate doing for yourself or others, but they are necessary. You don't get paid if you do them, but you gotta do them. So what do you do? You do them. The same would happen in our society. Things that piled up would get attended to, simply because not to do them would result in unpleasantness (such as trash collection, waste management, etc).
Again, money doesn't make the world go 'round. People do. And we don't have to have a society that is corrupted at the core due to this system.
What do you guys think? I'm not trying to attack anyone's beliefs or say anyone else is wrong. I'm genuinely curious what you feel about what I shared, if you want to share.
Mike
What would it be like if money was taken out of the equation? Think about almost any aspect of human endeavor - more than likely anything you think about will either be hindered by, prevented by, or seriously compromised by, money.
When money is at the heart of a system, then everything everyone does has the purpose of gaining these artificial "credits." Therefore integrity is not at the heart of it - gaining more little fake credits drives the system. So it actually corrupts every single aspect of our society. There is nothing that money has not damaged or corrupted or compromised.
And please - when people say that money is necessary to create incentives for people to work or to act, that's the biggest hoax and joke of all. Do you still get out and do things on your day off? Even though you probably don't make money when you do it? Do you go places, do things, interact with others - in other words - do you really LIVE and thrive and create and act when you have time off or when you are on vacation? Yet, we can agree, money is not what motivates you here.
We, at the core, are not motivated by money - we are motivated by our interests and desires. No money required.
What if people just gave freely, when they wanted to, and didn't, when they didn't want to? What if when you went to the doctor, he or she sincerely only wanted to heal you - nothing like selling a drug or pushing a surgery. And behind that, what if the people making the drugs had no monetary gain at heart - but only sincerely wanted to create a substance to help. Then if a drug was found to kill or maim or create terrible side effects, they would be immediately pulled from the market - unlike the horror stories you may have heard wherein drugs known to kill or harm have stayed on the market for years after the danger was discovered.
Do you think herbs would then be recognized and used more abundantly? Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that herbal remedies used for thousands of years would be dismissed with a wave of the hand as rubbish, and that the FDA refuses to test them - primarily because there is no money to be made by such tests? And also because if herbs were found to be effective, then drug sales might flag? Doesn't anyone find it suspicious that no one can tell you what an herb does, because that's illegal, and no one can claim an herb helps to heal something - because that is also illegal? But drugs can? Doesn't anyone find it suspicious that herbs known for millennia to help a condition are suppressed in favor of costly drugs that often have devastating side effects? Money, money, money!
The usual claptrap about scientific rigor cannot be followed with herbs due to their varying potencies is of course pure rubbish - concentrations can be standardized easily enough.
If money were not at the core of our systems, then every system would have at it's heart, it's own mission, solely. Not a need to generate fake credits at any expense - but only to create the best results possible for that system because the people doing it did it because they simply wanted to.
All of the greatness comes from within, and none of it requires money to draw it forth. Everything in society would still get done.
Think about your own life. I'm sure there are things you hate doing for yourself or others, but they are necessary. You don't get paid if you do them, but you gotta do them. So what do you do? You do them. The same would happen in our society. Things that piled up would get attended to, simply because not to do them would result in unpleasantness (such as trash collection, waste management, etc).
Again, money doesn't make the world go 'round. People do. And we don't have to have a society that is corrupted at the core due to this system.
What do you guys think? I'm not trying to attack anyone's beliefs or say anyone else is wrong. I'm genuinely curious what you feel about what I shared, if you want to share.
Mike
Spiritworks
Well-known member
bruno2000 said:
YUP, and stop being envious of those who have things you don't.
You all are communicating using machines and software made by giant capitalist corporations. If you hate capitalism so much, give it all up. Go back to being hunter-gatherers, wearing animal pelts for clothes. Because, guess what? Everything you are eating/wearing/using today was produced from some capitalist entity hoping to profit . NEEDING profit to continue. There is nothing wrong with profit.
Do you have a job? Your salary is your profit. Your favorite sports hero is a capitalist, profiting from his/her talent. Why don't we begrudge a Lebron James the millions he makes but we begrudge an Exxon Mobil? How much did Lady Gaga profit last year? Is her profit OK, but not AT&T?
Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Zuckerberg, the guy from Amazon - Guess What? They're all Capitalists. WE worship at their alter every time we use one of their products or services. Oh, and somebody mentioned Mozart and Tesla. They were capitalists also - they sold their art/creation/ideas with the hope of making a living, making a profit so they could do better. If they died broke, that's life.
It's all about Class Warfare and jealousy. That person must be evil because he has more than me. Why do we hate the guy driving down the street in a Ferrari when all we have to drive is a beat-up Honda Civic?
The problem is not the system, it's how some people choose to use it. Human nature is at fault. Empathy comes from the heart, not from the wallet. Some people use their treasure for helping others, some don't. So what? What you do with yours is what matters.
Do any of us really think we would have any of the recording gear or instruments we love so dearly if there was no profit involved anywhere? WTF, we wouldn't even have our cell phone that we're so addicted to. Think about it.
No money? Money is a medium of exchange, nothing more, nothing less. Could be paper with ink on it, or sea shells. Or Bit Coins.
Society isn't corrupt because of the system - it's corrupt because of human nature. And human nature will still be there regardless of which system is in place.
What seems obvious to some is not to others. I do not have the time or energy for a full rebuttal but will try to hit a few highlights.
@ Spiritworks a bit harsh on the new crew of millennials but contains much truth (IMO).
@ Phrazemaster (Mike) "what would it be like if money was taken out of the equation?"... We kind of know from before money was developed. Either we bartered (goods for goods), or used force where biggest and strongest just took whatever they wanted. Money is just a medium of exchange that facilitates "equitable" trade between individuals and now nations.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs does not have money or wealth on it at all, but the base of his pyramid is "food,water, warmth, and rest" that for most of us requires money or something to exchange. Next up is "security,safety" that wealth can surely help provide also. Wealth can also play into self-image, etc.
All of the employees that I have supervised over several decades were motivated in some part by money. My job as a manager was to find other ways to motivate them also, because money is always a limited resource. I told my employees then, like I post here... find some way to create value for the organization if you want the organization to value you.
@ Bluebird (Ian) (I liike this real names use.) Integration is a powerful tool to dissipate racism that is perpetuated by ignorance. Many kids are taught to hate by their parents (not the exemplary parents posting here of course), and then learn otherwise from direct contact with the races in school. The military has been integrated longer than schools and other public institutions but even that was relatively recently (after WWII). I never noticed a shred of racial tension serving in the 1970 military, the public was(is) still catching up. I've seen changes (improvement) in the deep south in the several decades I have been living here, while the older generation as expected still have their issues.
No the opiate epidemic is not caused by capitalism... Doctors either lied to themselves or us that opiate painkillers weren't addictive and created a wave of addicts beginning with prescription medicine pain killers. When these new addicts get cut off by the medical system,, they find their fix elsewhere. Either from pill mills, or illegal substitutes (like Fentanyl ). I recently saw a picture of Chinese military burning 5 metric tons of seized fentanyl (tons of a drug where a drop will kill you), but that is only a fraction of the supply still getting through. Drug dealers these days use websites and mail or fedex to deliver the drugs. The senate version of the new health bill sets aside $45B for OUD, but this is arguably little and late. The medical community (including regulators) is responsible (IMO) for their careless handling of legal addictive painkillers.
@tands ??? wha
@benb There are many forms of wealth creation that are not zero sum. Write a hit record... the compensation for that certainly exceeds the value of the vinyl pressing, or these days digital bandwidth to deliver. Create a successful studio product and sell it for more than value of the components and labor to build it. Even trade creates value as a boat load of bananas here is worth more than it was in south america where the boat was loaded. While this created wealth goes preferentially to those who directly created it, the hit song writer doesn't stuff all his money in his mattress.. much of it flows through the economy and raises the QOL for others. There is currently a lot of debate about how much the creators of wealth should be allowed to keep, and how much should be transferred by government force to those who don't create wealth. (continue to argue among yourselves about that). (I also expect a rehash of communist means of production screed in response to this).
@DMP While I don't disagree with your list. "Great people" is purely subjective and being wealthy is considered a negative factor these days. George Washington was a great man but through a modern cultural filter he has black marks (was wealthy landowner with business interests and owned slaves). Look at how wealth was used against Romney when he ran for office, and also against President Trump less successfully. IMO the united states is great nation in large part because of the economic power it created over only a few centuries. Were it not for this economic power (and strength of character) we could not have persevered and ultimately won WWII, or backed down the USSR during the cold war. Some think the US and it's power is a bad thing (not me).
@Bruno2000 yup, YMMV, stuff happens, etc.
@Andy Peters (a very old friend, no he's not very old, just we've know each other around the interwebs for several decades). The statement "John, and I honestly wonder about your experience and empathy"... While we agree pretty much completely about matters electronic, we have diverged politically. Lapsing into personal attack is all too common in the current adversarial political climate. Since this doesn't promote thoughtful discussion or willingness to accept new ideas, I guess it just makes the people saying stuff like that feel better about themselves...
You question my "experience", and I have probably shared too much already, I don't enjoy reading these me,me,me, screeds, but my father died when I was younger than your son, so he already has a better deal than I did (and I'm glad for him). I learned a great deal from my single parent mother who IMO raised us well. I see way too many kids today who don't have what I had or what Andy's children have (good parents). The breakdown of the nuclear family is already a well established trend that will be hard to reverse. Especially if we don't try.
"how do you become an engineer" .... by taking apart everything so you can to see how it works. By fixing things other say can't be fixed. By solving problems. School can give you the basic vocabulary and fundamental tools, but these days it's easier than ever to pick these up for free. I am a college dropout and manage to pick up my soldering iron using the correct end (the cool one).
======
My apologies to anyone I ignored, and flame suit is locked and loaded.
JR
@ Spiritworks a bit harsh on the new crew of millennials but contains much truth (IMO).
@ Phrazemaster (Mike) "what would it be like if money was taken out of the equation?"... We kind of know from before money was developed. Either we bartered (goods for goods), or used force where biggest and strongest just took whatever they wanted. Money is just a medium of exchange that facilitates "equitable" trade between individuals and now nations.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs does not have money or wealth on it at all, but the base of his pyramid is "food,water, warmth, and rest" that for most of us requires money or something to exchange. Next up is "security,safety" that wealth can surely help provide also. Wealth can also play into self-image, etc.
All of the employees that I have supervised over several decades were motivated in some part by money. My job as a manager was to find other ways to motivate them also, because money is always a limited resource. I told my employees then, like I post here... find some way to create value for the organization if you want the organization to value you.
@ Bluebird (Ian) (I liike this real names use.) Integration is a powerful tool to dissipate racism that is perpetuated by ignorance. Many kids are taught to hate by their parents (not the exemplary parents posting here of course), and then learn otherwise from direct contact with the races in school. The military has been integrated longer than schools and other public institutions but even that was relatively recently (after WWII). I never noticed a shred of racial tension serving in the 1970 military, the public was(is) still catching up. I've seen changes (improvement) in the deep south in the several decades I have been living here, while the older generation as expected still have their issues.
No the opiate epidemic is not caused by capitalism... Doctors either lied to themselves or us that opiate painkillers weren't addictive and created a wave of addicts beginning with prescription medicine pain killers. When these new addicts get cut off by the medical system,, they find their fix elsewhere. Either from pill mills, or illegal substitutes (like Fentanyl ). I recently saw a picture of Chinese military burning 5 metric tons of seized fentanyl (tons of a drug where a drop will kill you), but that is only a fraction of the supply still getting through. Drug dealers these days use websites and mail or fedex to deliver the drugs. The senate version of the new health bill sets aside $45B for OUD, but this is arguably little and late. The medical community (including regulators) is responsible (IMO) for their careless handling of legal addictive painkillers.
@tands ??? wha
@benb There are many forms of wealth creation that are not zero sum. Write a hit record... the compensation for that certainly exceeds the value of the vinyl pressing, or these days digital bandwidth to deliver. Create a successful studio product and sell it for more than value of the components and labor to build it. Even trade creates value as a boat load of bananas here is worth more than it was in south america where the boat was loaded. While this created wealth goes preferentially to those who directly created it, the hit song writer doesn't stuff all his money in his mattress.. much of it flows through the economy and raises the QOL for others. There is currently a lot of debate about how much the creators of wealth should be allowed to keep, and how much should be transferred by government force to those who don't create wealth. (continue to argue among yourselves about that). (I also expect a rehash of communist means of production screed in response to this).
@DMP While I don't disagree with your list. "Great people" is purely subjective and being wealthy is considered a negative factor these days. George Washington was a great man but through a modern cultural filter he has black marks (was wealthy landowner with business interests and owned slaves). Look at how wealth was used against Romney when he ran for office, and also against President Trump less successfully. IMO the united states is great nation in large part because of the economic power it created over only a few centuries. Were it not for this economic power (and strength of character) we could not have persevered and ultimately won WWII, or backed down the USSR during the cold war. Some think the US and it's power is a bad thing (not me).
@Bruno2000 yup, YMMV, stuff happens, etc.
@Andy Peters (a very old friend, no he's not very old, just we've know each other around the interwebs for several decades). The statement "John, and I honestly wonder about your experience and empathy"... While we agree pretty much completely about matters electronic, we have diverged politically. Lapsing into personal attack is all too common in the current adversarial political climate. Since this doesn't promote thoughtful discussion or willingness to accept new ideas, I guess it just makes the people saying stuff like that feel better about themselves...
You question my "experience", and I have probably shared too much already, I don't enjoy reading these me,me,me, screeds, but my father died when I was younger than your son, so he already has a better deal than I did (and I'm glad for him). I learned a great deal from my single parent mother who IMO raised us well. I see way too many kids today who don't have what I had or what Andy's children have (good parents). The breakdown of the nuclear family is already a well established trend that will be hard to reverse. Especially if we don't try.
"how do you become an engineer" .... by taking apart everything so you can to see how it works. By fixing things other say can't be fixed. By solving problems. School can give you the basic vocabulary and fundamental tools, but these days it's easier than ever to pick these up for free. I am a college dropout and manage to pick up my soldering iron using the correct end (the cool one).
======
My apologies to anyone I ignored, and flame suit is locked and loaded.
JR
![Electronics Soldering Iron Kit, [Upgraded] Soldering Iron 110V 90W LCD Digital Portable Soldering Kit 180-480℃(356-896℉), Welding Tool with ON/OFF Switch, Auto-sleep, Thermostatic Design](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41gRDnlyfJS._SL500_.jpg)
Phrazemaster
Well-known member
So you believe the only reason we do things is for profit? The only reason people would get together and organize and create music equipment that you love, or computers you use, or communications devices, is to make money?Spiritworks said:
Have you ever made something really cool even though you knew you wouldn't be making money off it? Ever done a project with buddies that actually cost you more to do, but you did it anyway, because you wanted to?
The fundamental flaw in your argument is that people, individually or collectively, only create things for themselves or others because of a profit motive.
While that can be the motive, it is only A motive. We humans have a variety of motivations for action, profit being but one of them. It's looking at the system and saying, "since this system of capitalism is what produced your goods, would you then like to give up all those goods and go back to being a cave man" - again the erroneous conflation of capitalism with useful products. It's a circular argument: "Since this system produced what I like, this is the only system capable of producing what I like." - Why?
I get your point, but I don't think you're seeing the larger, and more honest, picture, which is that while capitalism has produced useful things, it is not the only way for us humans to produce useful and cool things.
To your point that corruption is part of human nature - absolutely spot on. But, this system encourages it and in fact those who are corrupt seem to game the system the most. You'll never stamp out corruption, but capitalism encourages it and brings out the worst in people.
And the other side of this coin is the incredible extremes capitalism creates. The destitute and the filthy rich, with the middle class now shrinking and becoming the new de facto poor.
Why? Because you have to have "money" to eat, and money to do anything in the system. Again look at that - money does nothing here but hinder or prevent people from doing things.
Money itself does nothing. People do.
Have a look see. I'm not the only crazy loon who thinks our system may not be the pinnacle of civilization:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00GYXGY52/ref=oh_aui_d_detailpage_o07_?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Phrazemaster
Well-known member
I see this as an exchange of ideas - not a place to put people down. I welcome your and everybody's ideas, because often y'all have taught me things I hadn't considered.
Just to point out what I feel is a bit of a flaw in your argument -
So we humans are not capable of sharing things, unless we get something in return?
I know that's the most ridiculous idea ever posited, but seriously, it's good to look at the fundamental assumptions, and this one is deep, deep deep...
Really it's playground philosophy, childishness. Kids playing in a sandbox - "Give me that!" "OK, but then you have to give me THIS!"
Can we grow up as a species, and consider a different paradigm?
I think at the heart of the concern is being taken advantage of. We don't want to just give our time and labor and efforts to others without SOMETHING in return. And that SOMETHING may not be what everyone assumes it must be.
I think that SOMETHING may be as simple as recognition, finding value and meaning in the effort, and appreciation. Funny how employers have discovered that employees value praise even above raises in some situations, from a study I read. Job satisfaction is not a direct function of renumeration.
If you knew that everyone was sharing their best with you, and you shared your best with them too - it becomes a CULTURAL exchange rather than an INDIVIDUAL exchange. Then you do your best just because you love what you are doing, and they do their best because they love what they are doing, and everyone gets what they need, want, and more.
Here's a book called A Vision of a World Without Money: https://www.amazon.com/Vision-World-Without-Money/dp/0963920456/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1498939256&sr=8-1&keywords=a+vision+of+a+world+without+money
Just some thoughts.
Just to point out what I feel is a bit of a flaw in your argument -
That phrase "most of us requires money or something to exchange" is the assumption.JohnRoberts said:
So we humans are not capable of sharing things, unless we get something in return?
I know that's the most ridiculous idea ever posited, but seriously, it's good to look at the fundamental assumptions, and this one is deep, deep deep...
Really it's playground philosophy, childishness. Kids playing in a sandbox - "Give me that!" "OK, but then you have to give me THIS!"
Can we grow up as a species, and consider a different paradigm?
I think at the heart of the concern is being taken advantage of. We don't want to just give our time and labor and efforts to others without SOMETHING in return. And that SOMETHING may not be what everyone assumes it must be.
I think that SOMETHING may be as simple as recognition, finding value and meaning in the effort, and appreciation. Funny how employers have discovered that employees value praise even above raises in some situations, from a study I read. Job satisfaction is not a direct function of renumeration.
If you knew that everyone was sharing their best with you, and you shared your best with them too - it becomes a CULTURAL exchange rather than an INDIVIDUAL exchange. Then you do your best just because you love what you are doing, and they do their best because they love what they are doing, and everyone gets what they need, want, and more.
Here's a book called A Vision of a World Without Money: https://www.amazon.com/Vision-World-Without-Money/dp/0963920456/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1498939256&sr=8-1&keywords=a+vision+of+a+world+without+money
Just some thoughts.
T
tands
Guest
Well, I'm not opposed, Phrazemaster. I do think money is a symptom mainly, the reason it has such negative effects is because of the ways it can be used, rather than it itself. I think changing those ways is a more practical effort than directing one's efforts against money itself. You have to take on the ideas, and the actors, rather than their manifesations imo. People like money, particularly people who have power, but also those who don't. I think you would enjoy a book by LeGuin called, The Disposessed, it's pretty good. 
https://twitter.com/telesurenglish/status/880807504879529984
https://twitter.com/emmettrensin/status/880941404431818752
https://twitter.com/dwdavison9318/status/880612620646199297
.
https://twitter.com/telesurenglish/status/880807504879529984
https://twitter.com/emmettrensin/status/880941404431818752
https://twitter.com/dwdavison9318/status/880612620646199297
.
That has been my life experience since I left home in my late teens. I did get free room and board while I was in the army but that was hardly free.Phrazemaster said:
Depends on what you mean by "sharing". The "sharing economy" (ride-sharing, residence-sharing, etc) all have payments intrinsically involved. I routinely borrow and share tools with my neighbors because doing so does not diminish the value of the returned tools (as long as they return them... why is it nobody returns borrowed books?).
In some cultures (Japanese I think) If you openly admire somebody's possession while a guest in their home they may feel obligated to gift it to you. But there is also a longer term quid pro quo involved. Note: the concept of quid pro quo is so old it's written in latin.
I do not routinely share my groceries (that I purchased at the store for money) with my neighbor. One time I bought a rib-eye for one neighbor because he jokingly asked me to pick one up for him as I was leaving for the store and asked if he needed anything. In season when I have excess pecans on the ground, I give some to neighbors, and just last week another neighbor gave me some fresh blueberries that they had excess of.
I nice thing about sharing knowledge is that at the end of the exchange two people possess the same knowledge so you have literally created more knowledge. 8)
well studied by child psychologists.
We have been considering different paradigms for centuries. Many have been tested and failed, but keep trying.
Just say no, if you believe you are not compensated adequately for your work, don't work. I never quit a job because I didn't like the pay, but I have not taken jobs before because I felt the pay was inadequate. I generally quit for other reasons, money was never paramount, but I've been lucky and I now live where it is relatively cheap to get by.
Last job I quit was because I was arguing with the guy whose name was on all the buildings. Back in the 70's I quit my 2nd job at MIT. When I was drafted I was working on a Navy rescue submarine. By law they had to hire me back at equivalent pay/position when I got out of the army, but they put me into a different engineering group working on inertial navigation for guided missiles, not my idea of fun. It only took me weeks to find a job I liked better, that purely by chance was in audio.
Remuneration? I mentioned before that managing workers involves motivating them beyond just what they are paid (there is never enough money). I understand managing kids today is a new ball game that luckily I do not have to play. I read one article about large companies recruiting millennials with smartphone app interviews and not even considering resumes. I would not get hired today since I don't own a smartphone.
It isn't about employees doing their best... it is about them creating value commensurate with what you have to pay them. I have had to demote workers before (at a larger company) because they were not up to the task. It didn't matter if they were trying 200%. The job was not getting done.
One of Hartley's favorite old aphorisms was that Peavey was like a big fruit sorter, where the fruit bounces around inside until it finds the right hole that it fits through. Not a great analogy but he had the luxury of running a large enough business that he could move around substandard workers and give them several opportunities before finally giving them the boot.
Star Trek's (Gene Roddenberry's) moneyless future is IMO optimistic science fiction, but good science fiction and many things therein were worth considering.
JR
PS according to econ 101 money is
A) a store of value
B) a medium of exchange
C) a unit of account (how we figure what stuff is worth).
Phrazemaster
Well-known member
Thanks tands and JR for your considered thoughts.
I appreciate it.
I appreciate it.
T
tands
Guest
Spiritworks said:
http://www2.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol-6_2/v6-2-baudrillard80for80.html
gltech
Well-known member
Spiritworks said:
Thanks for posting what people with no time to post would like to say. Western culture is overwhelmed with adolescence right now. Nice to hear an adult say something.
Phrazemaster
Well-known member
It seems to me that people who take time to think and share their opinions about what could be - rather than the crappy status quo - deserve at least a hearing. Nothing changes - until it does. Those willing to imagine something better are the ones who help to create it. I pay my taxes, and my bills. I'm responsible, and at almost 50, I think I'm an adultgltech said:
.I see a system in crisis, and a world in crisis, and part of that is due our socio-economic systems that do not value human life, but only "progress." I choose to believe, and help create a world, that is better, different, and worthy of us. Our current systems are not worthy of us or our potentials.
bluebird
Well-known member
Wait a minute, this seems smart but it seems a little inhumane. Basically your saying "it is how it is, get over it".
#3. Some folks are "luckier" than others." covers all the other statements. I personally would like to see the lucky ones help the unlucky ones more.
#1. There's "working hard" and "working smart". There's also working dishonest and cheating. Under a capitalist system cheating is working "smart" but I don't think that is ok.
#2. Some folks are "smarter" than others. So does that mean people who are smart deserve to suffer less than people of average intelligence?
# 4. If you can't afford to have kids, don't. When I had my daughter I was a struggling musician and didn't have a penny. I wasn't married and the pregnancy was not planned. Me and the mother got married, I got a legit job and now I am a homeowner in Los Angeles paying taxes and contributing to society, in a stable 2 adult relationship. Wow.
Capitalism is just a system, a framework. Human empathy determines how well a system will work for the greater good. I would like to think there is a better system, but I'm afraid that the problem is we need better people. Communism would work just fine if everyone was awesome. But everyone isn't awesome and never will be. Like I said before, there is some evolving we need to do as a species before a new system could work. Unfortunately I think capitalism represents where we are morally and spiritually as a whole population. The system doesn't change who we are, we change what the system is according to who we are.
So Bruno, maybe your right, it is how it is (for now), get over it...
Ian
T
tands
Guest
http://www.ianwelsh.net/one-deep-reason-why-the-usa-does-not-have-a-sane-way-to-pay-for-health-care-for-all/
Phrazemaster
Well-known member
You may be onto something. Perhaps the systems reflects who we are as a society at the moment. But some of us (sum of us?) see beyond, and can be beyond, the norm. Humanity is cracking and straining at the tresses under this system, and if we don't evolve and develop more empathy, compassion and FairPlay, we will not survive as a species. They say it's always been a small group of passionate people that have changed the world. Who's in?bluebird said:
T
tands
Guest
Most people are in, man, you're in good company!
http://www.salon.com/2017/01/14/americans-overwhelmingly-support-bernie-sanders-economic-policies-so-howd-we-end-up-here/
http://inthesetimes.com/article/19816/progressives-are-the-new-silent-majority
http://www.salon.com/2017/01/14/americans-overwhelmingly-support-bernie-sanders-economic-policies-so-howd-we-end-up-here/
http://inthesetimes.com/article/19816/progressives-are-the-new-silent-majority
