Identifying the inherent problems of a monetary system

[IAchilleasI]

No. Because somebody, somewhere is having to mine the ores needed to make the metals to build the products. Modern electronics contain some of the rarest metals found on the planet, which requires an immense amount of man power to get them out of the ground and into a usable state.Then there's the design work, and test work, all done by people who will have spent years learning their trade. And the people who build the product, who will have to be at the top of their trades to build something with an infinite life.

 

The same process though takes place whether the material is rare or not, yet the price is vastly different. I can't imagine that a rarer metal is necessarily harder and more expensive to mine and refine. But imagine all the jobs that will vanish when the majority if not the whole process is automated.

 

Unless you scrap the whole idea of money (which you didn't list as one of your issues in your OP), then the more work involved in the design and production of a product, the more money it will cost to purchase.

 

Indeed, unless you scrap money, you remain with these problems.

 

The oil industry may well try and supress it, but I'm sure there will be many more people who manage to market such a product in a way that they can make money.

 

Do you see any government or corporate funded research for alternative energy sources? What happened to that electric car that GM developed in the 90s? Why is it that electric car related patents are owned by mega corporations like Chevron?

 

That's the thing about capitalism - big developments are very difficult to keep under wraps because there's always somebody wanting to steal even a fraction of your profits, and if there's something which competes and costs less, it will be produced.

 

Highly doubtful. There are always ways for the big players to supress dangerous competitors, whether its lobbying government or aggressively buying their stock or pricing them out of competition even if it results in temporary losses.

[IAchilleasI]

The big clue in my post was in my reference to collectivised areas of Spain rendering any further discussion about employers and employees redundant

 

Not really, the employer and the employee merely become the same person. They still need to sell their products to consumers and make a profit from them. Your point on collectivism also ignores my following arguments, namely technological unemployment, planned obsolescence and artificial scarcity.

[Longcol]

 

Do you see any government or corporate funded research for alternative energy sources? What happened to that electric car that GM developed in the 90s?.

 

There are plenty of electric cars on the market

 

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/cartech/ten-best-electric-cars-rated-49306038/

 

and they will become increasingly popular (and more affordable) as oil supplies dwindle.

[Tony]

Let's say hypothetically a technology is developed that renders fossil fuels obsolete and is so abundant that no company could charge for it, at least not as much as they charge for oil. Do you find it completely unfeasible that the oil industry would attempt to suppress it?

Before you worry about it being suppressed, how do you propose getting your hands on this free gratis perpetual motion machine?

[Tony]

Ever heard of the everlasting lightbulb?

 

It doesn't exist. Your point isn't helped by fantasy.

[IAchilleasI]

1. The company will use cheaper parts because the competition will be doing the same or to maximise profit. If there is no competition they can charge what the market will bear and making something affordable is not an issue. Where there is competition they have to charge the same or less to survive.

 

If there is no competition they can indeed charge what the market will bear, but they still want to be minimising their costs throughout every stage of production to maximise their profits. That is all shareholders care about; increasing share value.

 

2. The cost of production is often less than the cost of repair. That's because production is mechanised but repair is manual and the cost of labour is usually the biggest cost in the developed world.

 

If I extrapolate what you're saying, when mechanisation eventually replaces human labour, repairing will then be cheaper than replacing. Do you not think that would be detrimental to business?

 

Whilst you make some good points I think you are overthinking the problems and coming up with some ludicrous conspiracy theories when the reality is much much simpler.

 

I was wondering how long it would take before someone called me a conspiracy theorist. It seems to be the standard emotional response when people are confronted on their traditional, long-ingrained beliefs.

 

Let us spare a look at the definition of "conspiracy theory".

 

From Wikipedia:

A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

 

Where in my original post have I blamed the monetary system's inherent flaws on the plotting and colluding of some covert organisation? I can't realistically classify the seven billion people that are alive and everyone else that was alive during the history of this system as being part of this covert group and attribute their interest in survival as their motivation for plotting.

[Tony]

If there is no competition they can indeed charge what the market will bear,

So you just appear to be an old fashioned capitalist at heart, albeit with some unusual ideas about implementation.

[IAchilleasI]

There are plenty of electric cars on the market

 

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/cartech/ten-best-electric-cars-rated-49306038/

 

and they will become increasingly popular (and more affordable) as oil supplies dwindle.

 

I am very much looking forward to the day. What angers me is that despite the fact that the technology was in the streets in 1996, it has taken 25 years for us to be able to contemplate driving an electric car.

[Tony]

Fifteen years (by your date).

 

Few people care much about the propulsion system, they purchase for other reasons. To date, electric cars have not really been viable on either a standard individual or mass market scale. How does changing the monetary system alter that?

 

This thread is becoming a little surreal.

[IAchilleasI]

So you just appear to be an old fashioned capitalist at heart, albeit with some unusual ideas about implementation.

 

Huh? The phrase you quoted from me describes a monopolised market. Hardly a capitalist ideal.

 

I was agreeing with Jim that since the company has the monopoly, they can charge as much as the market allows. As in it is possible for them to do so. It doesn't mean that I condone the practise.