Identifying the inherent problems of a monetary system

[spooky3]

...

People committed suicide en masse at an Apple factory recently...

 

LOL, recently! He was always a slave driver since way back when, just watch any documentaries. But those events have been rife for years, they have virtual towns based around these factories, providing and controlling everything. Only would they fall for that in a purposefully naively educated socialist society (and not not the whole of China, etc)

[Cavegirl]

So are you saying a system based on physical money is different to one based on trade, that was your debacle!

 

I never said anything of the sort, I said a resource based economy was preferable to a monetary economy. It's you who's waffled nonsense about trade and money.

 

Your quote suggests that the manorial system relied upon taxation (obligations) being paid to the lord through labour rather than money. In return the peasants were allotted land from which they could make a living. Your wiki page also says it "was slowly replaced by the advent of a money-based market economy and new forms of agrarian contract". So it was essentially a money-less society.

[spooky3]

Cyclical consumption promotes addictive patterns of behaviour and does not lead to happiness, rather to status anxiety and, in extreme cases, depression. See here:

 

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2117508?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=47698781860217

 

 

 

You're right it wasn't the best description. Planned obsolescence is a significant problem however, because it wastes resources and generates excess rubbish that must be dealt with. It only really benefits the producer.

 

 

 

It's funny that you use the car as an example of reliability here because it was the car manufacturers that started planning obsolescence into their products first:

 

from G.Slade's 'Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America'

 

 

 

Automation brings as many problems as it does solutions particularly in a world that is suffering from resource depletion and where corporations are not forced to clean up their mess once their companies go bust or out-source. A world where you end up with scenes like this:

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=baku+oil+fields&num=10&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=lLi&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=np&biw=1280&bih=801&tbm=isch&tbnid=v9xUcZ56ZIkQXM:&imgrefurl=http://www.huismarseille.nl/en/collection/3&docid=-8_FLi-9W-pLtM&imgurl=http://www.huismarseille.nl/uploads/collection/9731f4497dc86f2cad9f6356c01721008dcfaaa6.jpg&w=964&h=768&ei=pa9oT--LGsry8QPGqPWGCQ&zoom=1

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=large+car+scrapyard&start=104&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=N32&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=np&biw=1280&bih=801&tbm=isch&tbnid=s1FEfHGVM7S0DM:&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/aqualite/favorites/%3Fview%3Dlg&docid=Ua0TRG8fYBJM5M&imgurl=http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3457/4563763223_7bcaf53b2e_z.jpg&w=640&h=436&ei=NLBoT7H3GIeC8gP0lNn9CA&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=499&sig=116433732969088314240&page=5&tbnh=144&tbnw=199&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:104&tx=143&ty=75

In the short term it definately benefits the producers more than the workers it displaces though in the long term, they do tend to readjust.

 

 

 

I agree that competition provides more restraint today than any ethical consideration- but to be honest, that's the main problem because where competitive restraint doesn't exist (due to the presence of a monopoly or other similar situation), there's usually still no ethical restraint and these tend to be the situations that cause the most damage to people's lives. People committed suicide en masse at an Apple factory recently...

 

Your list of problems there form a list of why it works (when running smoothly), things are created, used, disposed, and now that we recognise the facts of what is wrong with the existing state of the world, the use of more recycled materials or newly produced materials, etc.

[Cavegirl]

Your list of problems there form a list of why it works (when running smoothly), things are created, used, disposed, and now that we recognise the facts of what is wrong with the existing state of the world, the use of more recycled materials or newly produced materials, etc.

 

We're talking about ethically corrupt practices here Spooky3- the purposeful production of goods to become obsolete after just a few months/ years when we have the technology to build things that last a lifetime. Is it really better for you to have to keep throwing out your old computers rather than upgrading them or fixing them?

 

And where exactly do you propose we find the extra energy that it would take to recycle all of this waste on a global scale when prices are already at record highs because supply isn't meeting demand? Who will pay for it to be done? It's certainly not commercially viable at the moment in the UK- a lot of our technological waste (TV's, computers etc) ends up in landfills in Africa picked over by children with terribly infected hands and feet. Many items can't even be recycled because of the mix of materials in them.

[IAchilleasI]

Why is this listed as a problem?

 

Cyclical consumption isn't a problem in and of itself. It becomes a problem when coupled with, say, technological unemployment. In the current system, people have to consume at a rate that can maintain enough employment. If the consumer stops being an employee, having been replaced by a machine, he cannot continue consuming and the money stops circulating.

 

I don't think the description is very good. The design and manufacturing could be state of the art without conflicting with planned obsolescence.

 

If design and manufacturing are state of the art, which I assume means the application of the best methods and materials possible, then planned obsolescence cannot exist. The best methods and materials need to adhere to the principles of preservation and long lasting, low maintenance strategies, regardless of cost. If they fail to do this, they are not the best.

 

There's nothing to say that when the item is upgraded it can't be sold onto to a market with lower expectations or purchasing power. Planned failure is more pernicious, but competition between companies should help to reduce that (you buy a car with a reputation for reliability, not for high maintenance costs).

 

What competition also does is enforce the cost efficiency mechanism which dictates the minimisation of cost throughout all stages of production and distribution. To do this, they need to keep limiting resources in order to remain competitive, regardless of their intent. If a company was to build an item that lasted as long as possible, that was strategically planned for upgradeability and was completely recyclable, it simply wouldn't be able to make a profit from it whilst remaining competitive. Since the methods and materials required for this are too expensive to maintain profitability, cost efficiency is inversely proportional to technological inefficiency. There is no way that a system based on cost efficiency is ever going to produce the best of anything.

 

Automation is a good thing, it might cause short term disruption as jobs are replaced, but in the long term everyone benefits, it's not a problem of a monetary economy.

 

Throughout the history of human labour, new sectors have been invented due to the displacement of humans by technology, the service sector being the current one. However, there is virtually no labourer in the service sector that could not be replaced by automation, now or in the future. Can you name a sector capable of absorbing such a massive workforce? Can you or anyone else foresee the emergence of any sector in the future that could fill the gap created by the loss of millions upon millions of jobs?

 

Far more important than any ethical restraint to this is the competitive restraint. If company A is artificially limiting the production of widgets, then company B can get in there and grab some market share. The patent system and/or monopolies limit the competitive angle sometimes, but generally not for very long, look at the iPad or the iPhone for example.

 

I'm glad you brought up Apple's products. Here's the market share for the iOS: http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/09/ios-marketshare-up-from-26-in-q3-to-43-in-octnov-2011/. Currently, iOS holds 43% of the market share against its main competitor, Android, at 47%. The iOS rose 17% during a single financial quarter. The crucial detail here is that iOS is exclusively limited to Apple products and charges a fee for every upgrade, unlike Android which can exist in a myriad of devices produced by many different companies and is open-source, hence free. iOS also requires a fee paid for anyone that wishes to produce applications for it, unlike Android which is, again, free . Bearing in mind that the technical specifications and capabilities of these operating systems are nearly identical, how is it that Android isn't trouncing the iOS? How is this even possible, if what you're saying is true? May I also remind you that Apple is one of the most blatant practicers of planned obsolescence and has been recognised as such. If the public is aware of this, why aren't they all flocking to alternative products?

 

Perceived scarcity probably plays the biggest role in this. If an item is made to look obsolete, even when it technically isn't, by advertising and other manipulating tactics, the general public will be convinced to replace what they already have. For those who say "It's stupid people's fault for falling into this trap and companies have a right to exploit them", then thinl again. The resource depletion and environmental waste that is created as a result of this harms everyone, not just the stupid people.

[IAchilleasI]

Only would they fall for that in a purposefully naively educated socialist society (and not not the whole of China, etc)

 

And of course, the wise, well educated capitalist society went ahead and fully exploited their cheap labour, superiour beings that they are. Meanwhile, the wise, well educated capitalist society is gasping for jobs, the same jobs it saw fit to export to naive, socialist countries.

[spooky3]

...

Is it really better for you to have to keep throwing out your old computers rather than upgrading them or fixing them?

 

To be quite honest, yes! The differences are too great. But my old computer that I sell eventually the parts could end up either being your next dvd recorder or recycled and used much more efficiently.

 

 

...

And where exactly do you propose we find the extra energy that it would take to recycle all of this waste on a global scale when prices are already at record highs because supply isn't meeting demand? Who will pay for it to be done? It's certainly not commercially viable at the moment in the UK- a lot of our technological waste (TV's, computers etc) ends up in landfills in Africa picked over by children with terribly infected hands and feet. Many items can't even be recycled because of the mix of materials in them.

 

Very true and knowing a bit about it, it is awful! Especially when you can watch videos on YouTube on how to recycle the gold and such. Here though you do have regulations in force which require extra building foundations to ensure incidents are contained, then there is hazardous material handling safety gear, storage, extra on the transport, etc... it all adds up, but I still think it's worth it all round.

 

Isn't this something Remploy was involved in? Sorting and redistributing parts, if you go to the rrfc.co.uk computer fair (1st Sun every month in Sheff, Don Valley) you can pick up bits at next to nothing, what was new a few years ago and costing £500+, you can now build for £50 or less... then start buying in bulk and ...

 

 

 

oh, as to the energy, change to more sustainable forms of fuel, say, maybe not totally green, but sustainable bio fuels we can grow?

[spooky3]

And of course, the wise, well educated capitalist society went ahead and fully exploited their cheap labour, superiour beings that they are. Meanwhile, the wise, well educated capitalist society is gasping for jobs, the same jobs it saw fit to export to naive, socialist countries.

 

Thought someone would take such a track... but fairs fair in a way in a developing world but China was never really naive or ill educated, quite the contrary, superior in fact, but it's gap between rich and poor was / is immense as is / was it's methods of enforcing discipline.

 

 

More likely that a few higher up the evolutionary ladder (lol, debatable ) and so inclined from one side worked with similar on the other side and they all got on great doing whatever it is they were doing to other people before they joined forces and went international. Socialists, Capitalists, whoever, there will always be some going one way and others going another, there will always be some form of trade of values.

[IAchilleasI]

Socialists, Capitalists, whoever, there will always be some going one way and others going another, there will always be some form of trade of values.

 

When it comes to the point that some are heading towards a humane, sustainable future and others to economic and social disintegration, I would like to think the latter would wish to join the former. In the end, this is what it will come down to. Nature is a dictatorship, you either adapt your system to be in accordance with it or you die.