Tony Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Once again, I am not arguing capitalism, I am arguing the monetary system. A monetary system can exist in various political structures, whether its capitalism, communism, fascism, feudalism etc. PS. 1 billion people living in chronic hunger would disagree. Prophylactics can solve that problem within a generation. No robots needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Surely one of the reasons wages have risen sharply in this country is the booming taxation system to fund public services. As more money is demanded in taxes so more money is required in wages. Half the money I earn already goes in tax. If I didn't have to pay tax I could offer my labour much more cheaply and my employer would be much more competitive. Countries like India don't have expensive public services but if they did they would be less competitive. It seems to me we either cut the cost of the public sector to make us more competitive or we export the NHS to India and let them cope with that expensive burden. Undoubtedly we need some public services but not at the expense of making the country uncompetitive in the world. The alternative is to stop trying to compete on cost and develop new products and services. That requires an education system fit for purpose. No, it is down to pure corporate greed and to make profit for greedy shareholders. Right now, the Civil Service is being slashed, so we're going to see reduced prices in the shops? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 No, it is down to pure corporate greed and to make profit for greedy shareholders. Right now, the Civil Service is being slashed, so we're going to see reduced prices in the shops? I think not. So you're saying wages are going UP to make profits for greedy shareholders? The civil service is being slashed because it costs more than we earn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 The flaws in the monetary system reflect the flaws in our characteristics as human beings. Good luck with changing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 So you're saying wages are going UP to make profits for greedy shareholders? The civil service is being slashed because it costs more than we earn. No it doesn't and answer my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAchilleasI Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 If very stupid people want to rush out and get the new iPad because it's a conversation piece I don't think that's a problem of global corporate greed. It's just exploiting stupidity. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with exploiting people, right. I will buy the idea that fashion in all things drives much of business and it is very wasteful of resources but that's not a problem of capitalism. Not arguing capitalism. We are conditioned to that medium of exploitation - there will be no revolution against that particular brand of capitalism Not arguing capitalism. You are not truly debating the point of your OP. If I'm not debating my OP, its because I've been led on all sorts of irrelevant tangents on conspiracy theories and capitalism. You are looking for support, not critique. I think we all appreciate a bit of support for our ideas, makes us feel less lonely, no? Your argument is that large corporations are perpetuating a monetary system for their own gain. Well, I'm either a terrible communicator or you're a terrible reader. Let me condense my argument as much as possible: the monetary system is a free-for-all. Individuals, NOT corporations, perpetuate their own survival in order to secure their place in a world of scarcity. Those Individuals don't necessarily conspire with one another, but sometimes they share common interests and will take similar actions to fulfill them. They don't get together and gather in a dark room and twiddle their fingers, in fact they could be living in opposite corners of the world and not even be aware of each other's existence. Sometimes their actions will result in benefiting the wider populace, other times they will be damaging. All I'm pointing out is how they are damaging. Before monetary exchange, we had the barter system. In the barter system people would trade goods, rather than money. A limitation of that system is that if I have 300 tons of hay and someone tries to sell me more hay in exchange for milk, I will naturally deny. He might need it to feed his kids, but I need to trade the milk for clothes. See how I am perpetuating my own survival without having engaged in conspiracy? Since the monetary system is just an evolution of the barter system, you can extrapolate my example accordingly. The OP appears to have recently mugged up on a theory that they think explains everything to everybody and is promoting in with the fervour of the newly converted. I can spend a lifetime addressing every single point of anecdotal evidence you bring up, but I prefer to look at the bigger picture. I think the fervour with which you are denying every single point I make is more of an indicator of who's trying to cling onto a decadent and obsolete system they are emotionally attached to. You won't even accede that technological unemployment will eventually decimate the concept of having to work for a living, when there is a mountain of evidence that points at exactly that direction. So, there is little point in trying to reason with the self-appointed guardians of what has effectively become the religion of money. The flaws in the monetary system reflect the flaws in our characteristics as human beings. Good luck with changing that. Modern psychological and sociological study has found that human actions are subject to environmental input. The behaviours that are rewarded by the culture also tend to be perpetuated. For example, it is commonly considered a "moral" issue when a corporation deliberately pollutes the environment to save money. Many claim that the corporation's people must be "corrupt" for allowing this. The flaw, however, exists in the assumption. If we exist in a system that allows us to save money and hence survive by being exploitative, abusive or indifferent to the world around us, why should we not expect it to be the norm, especially in a system based on competition where gaining advantage is the goal? Corruption is being reinforced. The solution cannot be more laws to try and stop this behavior but to create a social system that doesn't reward such behavior at all. Laws are patchwork that act against the internal logic of the system. I would like some answers to these questions. Do you consider the monetary system to be an effective incentive for people to contribute towards improving mankind's living standards? Do you consider the monetary system to be the apex of our socioeconomic evolution? Do you see us using money until the end of time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Nothing wrong with exploiting people, right. How is giving people stuff that they choose to have any sort of exploitation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Watched the Secret of Oz last night (can be found on youtube). Interesting documentary on the monetary system, but i struggled with the loose connections to Oz. Not sure it was necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Greetings everyone This is going to be a rather long post (which I apologise for and have done my best to be as succinct as possible) so take your time with it. I would rather not indicate who I am or which organisations I advocate because it would immediately spark prejudicial judgements, but some of you already know so I'll just go ahead and do it. I am a member of the Occupy Movement and the Zeitgeist Movement. Before you start calling me names, please read what I have to say. I was invited by a member of this forum to post my ideas of what an alternative system to our current socioeconomic system would entail. As a precursor to that, I would like to highlight several inherent problems within our current system which you will have to acknowledge if you are to be open to a solution outside the box. To clarify, the monetary system is an economic structure that facilitates the distribution of goods and services through the use of money. Money, whether in the form of paper, plastic or digital, is the primary medium of exchange. It is not to be confused with capitalism or the free market, since it describes economic functions rather than political ones, regardless of the effects one might have on the other. I will list these problems below: First of all the monetary system survives on the basis of cyclical consumption. The cycle consists of the employer, the employee and the consumer. The employee exchanges his labour for a wage with the employer, while the employer sells the good or service produced by that labour to the consumer for a profit. Both the employer and employee also operate as consumers, using the profit or wages they respectively acquired to purchase their every day necessities. This relates to the following issues. Planned obsolescence in design is the practise of, deliberately or not designing and manufacturing a product with out-dated methods and materials for the purpose of maximising profit. Nothing physically produced can ever maintain a lifespan longer than what can be endured in order to maintain the need for cyclical consumption. In other words, a product has to break down or technically expire within a set amount of time to force the consumer to buy a new one, supporting the circulation of purchasing power and sustaining the economy, in spite of the excess waste created as a result. Therefore, Cost efficiency = Technological inefficiency. Technological unemployment is a term used to describe the replacement of human workers by machines or artificial intelligence. One of the major objectives of companies, and often a target for high ranking employees, is to minimise input costs, such as the cost of human labour. The inclination to replace human labour with mechanised labour is an innate attribute of industry. Human labour is expensive, inconvenient (for the organisation) and less productive than automation. A machine does not sign a labour contract, is not paid a wage or pension, does not require health insurance or claim benefits, does not take breaks or vacations and is not a member of a trade union, making certain that it will not be making any demands in the future. Who can blame a business for aspiring towards maximising profit whilst perceivably advancing technological progress? The majority of the workforce in developed countries exists in the service sector. It is only a matter of time before the service sector becomes automated. Currently, no other sector exists that is capable of absorbing such a massive workforce. Artificial scarcity is the result of a practice of intentionally maintaining or increasing the scarcity of a product or service. in simpler terms, it is when the technological capability and productive capacity exist, but are deliberately limited in order for it’s value to remain profitable, either by keeping the value stable or bloating it. The opposition to the concept of artificial scarcity as an inevitability in industry claims that social and ethical responsibilities will restrain business from pursuing such practices. However, as history has shown, businesses are never willing to sacrifice themselves or put their survival at risk in favour of preserving their integrity. Layoffs and redundancies are some of the ultimate forms of social and ethical irresponsibility, yet they are rampant today in an economic recession that threatens bankruptcy for those willing to maintain a clean conscience. These are but some of the identifiable problems that exist today. I could add more, but this post is long enough. I look forward to your feedback. So to summarise: Cyclical Consumption is a crock. It may apply to some electronic consumer goods but little else. Planned Obsolecence is a crock. It may apply to consumer goods but little else. Technological Unemployment is a crock. Mechanisation has it's limits but there will always be a need for people and the real way to stop unemployment is to stop making more people than jobs. Artificial Scarcity is a crock. There is absolutely no evidence for it. So it appears there are no serious inherent problems with the monetary system. Just as well as it's the only system there is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 So it appears there are no serious inherent problems with the monetary system. Just as well as it's the only system there is. Do you really believe that Jim? There are no serious inherent problems with our monetary system? If i go to the bank tomorrow, to get a business loan, i have to pay that bank a percentage of interest, most likely 5-10% over base rate. Where does the bank get that money from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.