Explaining money and work to children

[Dew Chains]

If this is the way you look at modern society,the answer is simple..

Dont have kids:rant:

this way you dont have the responsibility of teaching them how to earn a living and get along in life.

Bit contrary really if you think about it,how are you posting on here in the first place:confused:abacus and carrier pigeon:huh: who do you think supplies the computer and internet service you use to air your views:loopy:

 

I'm finding it difficult to reply to this post, such erudition and intelligence always overwhelms me.

 

To Cyclone and others - again you are superimposing this system onto my suggested one, without money/slave (waged) labour. Why would I need to exchange a chair for a bucket of water when collectively we maintain through modern technologies ample water supply (how many people are needed to maintain such technologies at the moment for example)? Why shouldn't I ask the chairmaker for a lesson on how to make my own chair? Why would there be chairmakers in the first place - unless you mean someone who has a passion for woodwork/turning and decides in my non-monetary system to devote his/her time to making chairs - which is absolutely fine. That person living in a harmonious society would no doubt be thrilled to think of all the people who are making use of his finely crafted items - as I have when I have made and given something to friends/family/or for charity without charge (without even thinking for one second about any sort of reward for that matter).

 

Are you so cynical and hardbeaten you cannot for a second imagine a society where people work for and with each other for common benefit? If, for example, ten or so people were asked to manage a farm for a year (say a tv reality type show) can you not imagine them working together and saying "well guys, we need constant water supply so how do we go about arranging this so everyone has access without unnecessary labour (something the human mind is very good at doing)? Or would you prefer for one of the members to say - "well guys, I've got bigger muscle's than you so ALL THE WATER IS MINE, you're gonna have to pay me if you want some?" If that did happen btw I'm sure the other 9 would speedily address the issue.

 

Anyway, I've argued with many people over the years who assume your "everything's fine as it is" stance - and I've, generally speaking, given up the ghost...there's little point in arguing for the sake of it. Someone here said I belonged to the 5% of the dissatisfied - I think current politics and uprisings in Europe highlight it is much higher than 5% - but even if it was I am proud to belong to it. It has always been the minority that initially pressed for change because they could see through the "official smoke screen" - Socrates, Copernicus, Gallileo - or as has been pointed out, those who campaigned for gay rights, aboloshiment of slavery, enfranchisement of women etc...forgive if this sounds condescending but it usual takes a bit of time for the rest with their entrenched views to catch up. rather than continuous arguing I'm more interested in discussing ideas with like-minded people, or listening to people who are at least interested and want to know more.

 

To Altus - how can people want a greater share of resources when there is no such thing as property/money etc? What would be the point of owning or trying to own such things, which in described system would actually be a burden (security/managing distribution/logistics etc - all the operations that that person would have to organise in isolation because the majority are organising for the group). I agree with Hammer that environment plays a large factor in the moulding of the individual - but I also believe there are those who are naturally predisposed to selfishness, greed etc. But remember, just as a bully needs a victim and vice versa, so an egomaniac needs followers - if people are infinitely better educated (as so well explained by Hammer - agree with you so much there) how could they attract followers? If someone persists in such behavior I imagine they would naturally be ostracised by the group and would soon realise that working for rather against each other is the better way - and rewards the individual in the process.

 

And as for the pc I am using (a strange point brought up several times)- it was given to me by a friend who upgraded. But again - do you really think the early pioneers of computing technology - check out Charles Babbage for example - thought to themselves "Oh imagine all the money I will make when I invent a computer"? Or were they more interested in developing computers because they have a human brain which never settles, always strives, always seeks to improve, create and develop new technologies. Money, to be honest, actually limits human progression - imagine what sort of transport we could be using if we removed planned/percieved obsolescence and the profit motive...

 

To Hammer - I agree with a lot of what you say, apart from the evolution bit - I'll post a reply later, think I've probably said too much already on this post...

[altus]

To Altus - how can people want a greater share of resources when there is no such thing as property/money etc? What would be the point of owning or trying to own such things, which in described system would actually be a burden (security/managing distribution/logistics etc - all the operations that that person would have to organise in isolation because the majority are organising for the group).

 

Why would they need security for their extra resources if everyone else is content with what they have? Now you're guilty of imposing current thinking into your brave new world.

 

Greedy people just want more anyway and for some of those no amount of education will change that. If you need an example with a reason attached to it - what happens when there's a food shortage? Can you see why someone might want more than their share then?

 

I agree with Hammer that environment plays a large factor in the moulding of the individual - but I also believe there are those who are naturally predisposed to selfishness, greed etc. But remember, just as a bully needs a victim and vice versa, so an egomaniac needs followers - if people are infinitely better educated (as so well explained by Hammer - agree with you so much there) how could they attract followers?

A bully might need a victim but greedy, selfish people don't need followers. If anything, they'd prefer none as the more greedy people, the less extra resources there'd be for them.

 

If someone persists in such behavior I imagine they would naturally be ostracised by the group and would soon realise that working for rather against each other is the better way - and rewards the individual in the process.

Or they'd be more subtle about their greed and hide it so people don't realise they are taking more than their fair share.

[tinfoilhat]

snippety snip snip snip

 

Anyway, I've argued with many people over the years who assume your "everything's fine as it is" stance - and I've, generally speaking, given up the ghost...there's little point in arguing for the sake of it. Someone here said I belonged to the 5% of the dissatisfied - I think current politics and uprisings in Europe highlight it is much higher than 5% - but even if it was I am proud to belong to it. It has always been the minority that initially pressed for change because they could see through the "official smoke screen" - Socrates, Copernicus, Gallileo - or as has been pointed out, those who campaigned for gay rights, aboloshiment of slavery, enfranchisement of women etc...forgive if this sounds condescending but it usual takes a bit of time for the rest with their entrenched views to catch up. rather than continuous arguing I'm more interested in discussing ideas with like-minded people, or listening to people who are at least interested and want to know more.

 

 

Cripes this is hard work on an iPhone ! I'm not sure why you think you're right on this, let alone with putting yourself in the same bracket as history's great thinkers!!!! They didn't change the world, we still have greedy power hungry people like we did then. Short of watching a few episodes of star trek I'm not sure what think can change it. You talk about greed as though it's something that happens to other people? People try and sell the extra flooglebinder do they can get that nicer house in the nicer area so the kid goes to a better school to go to university to get the better job and so on. They might not work for an evil multinational it could be the Nhs - the same applies. Without sounding presumptive but you aren't writing this from a council flat, you've had a go at climbing the greasy pole yourself. Greed or ambition.

 

Have you thought of self employment ? That can be empowering. You see everything up close and personal.

[Cyclone]

I'm finding it difficult to reply to this post, such erudition and intelligence always overwhelms me.

 

To Cyclone and others - again you are superimposing this system onto my suggested one, without money/slave (waged) labour. Why would I need to exchange a chair for a bucket of water when collectively we maintain through modern technologies ample water supply (how many people are needed to maintain such technologies at the moment for example)? Why shouldn't I ask the chairmaker for a lesson on how to make my own chair? Why would there be chairmakers in the first place - unless you mean someone who has a passion for woodwork/turning and decides in my non-monetary system to devote his/her time to making chairs - which is absolutely fine. That person living in a harmonious society would no doubt be thrilled to think of all the people who are making use of his finely crafted items - as I have when I have made and given something to friends/family/or for charity without charge (without even thinking for one second about any sort of reward for that matter).

I used a very simple example in order to illustrate why there's any need to barter or use a token based exchange as being more convenient.

Being in an advanced society doesn't alter that. Unless you're a big fan of communism and would like the state (society) to supply everything.

To do without money though you have to have passed beyond scarcity, and we're a very long way from doing that.

Are you so cynical and hardbeaten you cannot for a second imagine a society where people work for and with each other for common benefit?

I can imagine it in a commune, and indeed, that happens. I can't imagine it on a global scale, which is how it would have to work to be realistic.

If, for example, ten or so people were asked to manage a farm for a year (say a tv reality type show) can you not imagine them working together and saying "well guys, we need constant water supply so how do we go about arranging this so everyone has access without unnecessary labour (something the human mind is very good at doing)? Or would you prefer for one of the members to say - "well guys, I've got bigger muscle's than you so ALL THE WATER IS MINE, you're gonna have to pay me if you want some?" If that did happen btw I'm sure the other 9 would speedily address the issue.

An example lacking any specialisation of skill or surplus that can be redistributed... Imagine now that they grow too much, can you imagine that they'd be happy to just give it away.

Which brings me to another problem, the lazy. If society is going to allocate everything equally, then why bother training hard to become a brain surgeon (society needs them BTW) when the rewards for all those years of effort will be absolutely nothing you couldn't have got by sitting at home drinking cider.

 

Anyway, I've argued with many people over the years who assume your "everything's fine as it is" stance - and I've, generally speaking, given up the ghost...there's little point in arguing for the sake of it. Someone here said I belonged to the 5% of the dissatisfied - I think current politics and uprisings in Europe highlight it is much higher than 5% - but even if it was I am proud to belong to it. It has always been the minority that initially pressed for change because they could see through the "official smoke screen" - Socrates, Copernicus, Gallileo - or as has been pointed out, those who campaigned for gay rights, aboloshiment of slavery, enfranchisement of women etc...forgive if this sounds condescending but it usual takes a bit of time for the rest with their entrenched views to catch up. rather than continuous arguing I'm more interested in discussing ideas with like-minded people, or listening to people who are at least interested and want to know more.

Trying to equate your proposed eutopic ideas with the desire for equality is IMO not valid.

 

To Altus - how can people want a greater share of resources when there is no such thing as property/money etc?

No property, where will you live?

But resources describe lots of things, maybe some people just want to eat more cake than you...

What would be the point of owning or trying to own such things, which in described system would actually be a burden (security/managing distribution/logistics etc - all the operations that that person would have to organise in isolation because the majority are organising for the group). I agree with Hammer that environment plays a large factor in the moulding of the individual - but I also believe there are those who are naturally predisposed to selfishness, greed etc. But remember, just as a bully needs a victim and vice versa, so an egomaniac needs followers - if people are infinitely better educated (as so well explained by Hammer - agree with you so much there) how could they attract followers? If someone persists in such behavior I imagine they would naturally be ostracised by the group and would soon realise that working for rather against each other is the better way - and rewards the individual in the process.

 

And as for the pc I am using (a strange point brought up several times)- it was given to me by a friend who upgraded. But again - do you really think the early pioneers of computing technology - check out Charles Babbage for example - thought to themselves "Oh imagine all the money I will make when I invent a computer"?

Well obviously not, because they couldn't at that time explain what a computer was. Many inventors are driven or at the very least enabled by the ability to make money from their ideas though.

Or were they more interested in developing computers because they have a human brain which never settles, always strives, always seeks to improve, create and develop new technologies. Money, to be honest, actually limits human progression - imagine what sort of transport we could be using if we removed planned/percieved obsolescence and the profit motive...

Imagine if there was no market place which helped to select the good ideas from the bad. The computer would never have received any funding, and we wouldn't be discussing this online.

Capitalist economics is a very efficient way of allocating scarce resource, and no matter what you might wish, as a society, our resources are limited.

[DerbyTup]

At what age do you think we should explain the concepts of "money" and "work" to our children?

 

At what point should we explain to our children that money is actually debt and that the essence of debt is slavery?

 

At what point should we explain to our children that life, after state and private propaganda institutions have "educated" them, is essentially about wage slavery, followed by a brief period of ill health on subsistence pensions?

 

At what point do we explain to them that the work they will be forced to do will not benefit society or the natural environment, neither will it contribute to mental wellbeing, but only serves to enrich a cabal of elite "rulers" - their masters?

 

At what point do we explain to them that they have been born into slavery?

 

If I were you mate I'd definitely not have any children with an outlook like that. You're going to breed some very unhappy people if you do.