Merged: Money/inequalities - Part 3 / Poll - willing to work for free?

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

If you want more free stuff you have to have more people working free of charge then to abolish money.

People won't make more stuff when you remove any incentive to make stuff. They'll make less.

[Joecool]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

If you want to fight viruses you have to eliminate the money first because you have a lot to do with poisoning the world like selling carbonated drinks full of sugars. As long as you swallow poison your body will have a hard time fighting off any virus. Money is the culprit of all evil.

I know of some homeless guys with no money who caught viruses so you’re dead wrong as usual.

I took a break from this forum but I noticed that you are still pushing your no money lunacy even now.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Joecool

I know of some homeless guys with no money who caught viruses so you’re dead wrong as usual.

I took a break from this forum but I noticed that you are still pushing your no money lunacy even now.

And ignoring the rather explicit caution in post 2074 above as well. Same old same old.

[Joecool]

Originally Posted by bruto

And ignoring the rather explicit caution in post 2074 above as well. Same old same old.

Gaetan maintains that if everything was free, then the world would become some kind of Utopia. But it’s been shown with real life examples that there are some no money societies in existence now and they are basically primitive hunter and gatherer societies with very little modern conveniences.

An advanced society needs incentives to excel but gaetan can’t seem to grasp that concept.

[Little 10 Toes]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

If you want more free stuff you have to have more people working free of charge then [if you want] to abolish money.

* clarification added.

If you "have to have more people working" then it's not free.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by Joecool

I know of some homeless guys with no money who caught viruses so you’re dead wrong as usual.

I took a break from this forum but I noticed that you are still pushing your no money lunacy even now.

Don't forget you brought the verse when Jesus said it is criminal to use money.

[Little 10 Toes]

Evidence?

Edit: or is this another lie that you make up?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Don't forget you brought the verse when Jesus said it is criminal to use money.

Do you believe Jesus said that, or just that someone else made that ridiculous allegation?

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by bruto

Do you believe Jesus said that, or just that someone else made that ridiculous allegation?

Gaetan also claimed (in the post he's referring back to and which pretty much defies parsing) that Jesus always said the prophets were talking about him when they described the Messiah.

Now I have no dog in that particular fight (I have no fixed view on whether Jesus is a reference to someone who ever existed let alone whether the words attributed to Him are more than invention) but a moment's googling provides an abrupt "no" to the question of whether the biblical Jesus ever claimed to be the Messiah. (As well as any number of more florid answers which look as if they're trying to say "well, sort of".)

Anyway, the on-topic bit is that Gaetan seems to think Jesus said money is bad but he "explained" this in a paragraph from which I cannot extract logical sense.

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Ya but i' d rather to have it free of charge, not you?

Of course you do, because you are greedy. Your avarice outpaces what you can produce. You would be the very reason your system fails. You want more than you produce. You get enough of you, and the system crumbles.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Leftus

Of course you do, because you are greedy. Your avarice outpaces what you can produce. You would be the very reason your system fails. You want more than you produce. You get enough of you, and the system crumbles.

That's an excellent point and a very good way of looking at it.

Gaetan's work, whatever it is, is not of adequate value to trade for all the stuff that he wants. If it was, he could afford it all.

So he is an example of someone who wishes to take out more than he puts in. His system would immediately collapse if most people were like him.

His message is "stop counting how much I'm taking so I can take more than my share".

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Gaetan also claimed (in the post he's referring back to and which pretty much defies parsing) that Jesus always said the prophets were talking about him when they described the Messiah.

Now I have no dog in that particular fight (I have no fixed view on whether Jesus is a reference to someone who ever existed let alone whether the words attributed to Him are more than invention) but a moment's googling provides an abrupt "no" to the question of whether the biblical Jesus ever claimed to be the Messiah. (As well as any number of more florid answers which look as if they're trying to say "well, sort of".)

Anyway, the on-topic bit is that Gaetan seems to think Jesus said money is bad but he "explained" this in a paragraph from which I cannot extract logical sense.

I also have no dog in the "was Jesus real or not" fight, but I think if anyone makes a Biblical reference, it presumes that such references have useful meaning, and therefore it had damned well better be accurate. If you're going to use it, give us the chapter and verse or else drop it.

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

That's an excellent point and a very good way of looking at it.

Gaetan's work, whatever it is, is not of adequate value to trade for all the stuff that he wants. If it was, he could afford it all.

So he is an example of someone who wishes to take out more than he puts in. His system would immediately collapse if most people were like him.

His message is "stop counting how much I'm taking so I can take more than my share".

It doesn't need to be most people, just enough greedy people taking what they think they are owed.

Once, I took dollars out of the equation and just computed it into hours worked. Using a Tesla X as the hallmark, since that is what started this fantasy and if we assume a 15/hour minimum wage, we are talking 6566 hours needed, before taxes, to earn one. So we are talking 82 pay periods. Generally we are talking 26 pay periods in a year. So a minimum wage worker would be able to take 3 years worth of output in a matter of seconds. How many times can any economy take a hit like that?

There are roughly 400 thousand people working at minimum wage in the US. If they all did as Gaetan did, That's 2,626,400,000 hours of work rewarded but not performed. This is assuming that it's the people working that do this and not the unemployed doing the taking, in which case, you get into infinite numbers.

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by Leftus

It doesn't need to be most people, just enough greedy people taking what they think they are owed.

Just to expand on this a bit, let's take the poll as a representation of what would happen. 35% of the population is taking far more than they produce, 45% are net producers, and 20% are somewhere in the middle, let's just not worry about them. 35% of the population is taking 3 years of production in advance. But they want it now, so the 45% now has to work to make up for that.

So the 35% are extracting 6566 hours. The Us population is roughly 330 million. That's 758,373,000,000 hours extracted day 1. That leaves the 65% of us to produce 3536 hours of work in a year. Divide that by 80 and you get 44 pay periods. Well, that's more than a year. So let's divide it by 26 and you are working 136 hours a pay period, or 68 hours a week. FREEDOM!

And I'm giving the takers just one item. This is just for the Tesla. This doesn't count for everyone eating steak, drinking the finest wine, and wiping with virgin pulp triple ply.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Ya but i' d rather to have it free of charge, not you?

No. Not really.

Would you want a "free" job done on your home/car/computer/surgery/whatever where you paid nothing for a shoddy job that didn't actually work?

What recourse to compensation would you have? None.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by abaddon

No. Not really.

Would you want a "free" job done on your home/car/computer/surgery/whatever where you paid nothing for a shoddy job that didn't actually work?

What recourse to compensation would you have? None.

;You can just go down to the job center Gaetan favors, and yell out what you need. "Who here can do me a <root canal/steering knuckle replacement/hard drive rescue>?"

What could possibly go wrong?

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by abaddon

No. Not really.

Would you want a "free" job done on your home/car/computer/surgery/whatever where you paid nothing for a shoddy job that didn't actually work?

What recourse to compensation would you have? None.

Why are you getting anything repaired? Just go get a new one. It's Gaetanland after all.

[Joecool]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Don't forget you brought the verse when Jesus said it is criminal to use money.

In the Bible, Jesus used money and one of his disciples was the treasurer who held the money. There is no biblical reference where Jesus said using money was criminal.

If you really want a no money world, why don’t you go first and give away all of your money?

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by Joecool

In the Bible, Jesus used money and one of his disciples was the treasurer who held the money. There is no biblical reference where Jesus said using money was criminal.

Let's not go down this road again. Gaetan has tortured the English language and logic to the point it's better just to put it down than try to save it. He has a verse where Jesus reportedly said the word criminal and money in them, albeit not together, but it's there. Not in the context he purports either, hence the torture.

But even if he were right? So flippin' what? Most of the world aren't following Christianity, so it's an appeal to an authority that most people do not recognize as an authority in the field of economics.

Of course, Gaetan will now ignore my analysis of the hours spent and go off on a religious tangent that goes absolutely nowhere. Why? He has to avoid the facts that show his idea is so fundamentally flawed and based entirely in his personal avarice.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes

Evidence?

Edit: or is this another lie that you make up?

Luke 22 35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”

“Nothing,” they answered.

36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.

He said to take money to be seen as a criminal to comply with Isaïe 53.12

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

Once again, pronoun trouble. I've enhanced the word you glossed over in your desire to hide your avarice. The HE in that sentence referred to a person, not an inanimate object.

Now will you address my analysis as why YOU are the very problem in your system?

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

People won't make more stuff when you remove any incentive to make stuff. They'll make less.

Your local warlord will provide all the incentive you need to keep toiling in the fields.

[Little 10 Toes]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Luke 22 35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”

“Nothing,” they answered.

36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied.

He said to take money to be seen as a criminal to comply with Isaïe 53.12

Luke 22:35-37 from https://biblehub.com/luke/22-35.htm

Quote:

35) Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered.
36) He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
37) It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

From the https://biblehub.com/luke/22-37.htm it has a cross reference of Isaiah 53:12

Quote:

12) Therefore I will allot Him a portion with the great, and He will divide the spoils with the strong, because He has poured out His life unto death, and He was numbered with the transgressors. Yet He bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.

You are misquoting Isaiah 53:12. It does not mention what Jesus ("He", not "he") did to be counted among the transgressors. It does not mention which transgressions the transgressors did. Did they dishonor their fathers and mothers? Did they not free their slaves after the debt is paid off? Did they get all get wicked hammered and get matching tattoos? Did they eat bacon cheeseburgers on Friday?

Your own quote shows Jesus is cool with using money. In fact, Jesus directs his followers (I assume it's the Twelve Disciples) to "... sell your cloak and buy one [sword]."

Please comeback when you understand the Bible.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

He said to take money to be seen as a criminal to comply with Isaïe 53.12

I think you might well be the only person in the whole world who interprets it that way. Have you asked any bible scholars, or indeed any Christians, if they agree with your interpretation?

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes

Please comeback when you understand the Bible.

He would have to read it first. All of it.

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

I think you might well be the only person in the whole world who interprets it that way. Have you asked any bible scholars, or indeed any Christians, if they agree with your interpretation?

He knows that he stands alone in this reading, and has said as much. His justification for their non-belief? Satan. How does he, or anyone know that his views aren't of Satanic influence? Unclear.

But this is his standard method of avoiding criticism of his ideas. Address valid and well constructed analysis? No, cry Satan, change the subject, and pretend it didn't happen. It's a con job and he knows it.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes

You are misquoting Isaiah 53:12. It does not mention what Jesus ("He", not "he") did to be counted among the transgressors.

Isaiah 53.12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.


Jésus told the apostles to take money to be seen as a criminal to comply with Isaiah 52.12. Jesus always said he was sent by prophets and he made sure he complies with what they say. A cia member is not educated to understand the bible as i see you fellows.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Jésus told the apostles to take money to be seen as a criminal

No He did not. That's not what it says. After telling them to buy a sword, it says He reminded them prophecy said the messiah would be numbered among the transgressors.

Jesus was crucified as a transgressor alongside two other transgressors. So that conveniently fulfils the prophecy.

Was He convicted for taking money? No. Were any of His apostles charged with taking money? No.

Does anyone else on the planet agree with you about your interpretation? It's just a guess, but I'm going to assume the answer is no.

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Isaiah 53.12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.


Jésus told the apostles to take money to be seen as a criminal to comply with Isaiah 52.12. Jesus always said he was sent by prophets and he made sure he complies with what they say. A cia member is not educated to understand the bible as i see you fellows.

Again, ignoring analysis to misread scripture. Who is the he, which is the object of the sentence. I've, once again, highlighted the word you intentionally and dishonestly skip.

If you believe it's money, please diagram it out for us slow folks.

Also, your evidence here is saying that Jesus was a criminal. Which he was, but why would I follow a criminal?

Of course, this is all too predictable because you can't dispute the effect your greed and avarice will have on the system you want. The reason we can't have your system is you, and I proved it with math you can't dispute. Which is why you run to your fake bible verses and conspiracy claims of the CIA. Your unworkable idea doesn't need the CIA to disprove it. You aren't that important. Go get some sleep, take the pills if you must, but just relax in the idea that nobody is out to get you.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by Leftus

Again, ignoring analysis to misread scripture. Who is the he, which is the object of the sentence.

An object is it, he is Jesus Christ

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

An object is it, he is Jesus Christ

What is the Object of a Sentence? - Definition & Examples

Quote:

The object of a sentence is the person or thing that receives the action of the verb. It is the who or what that the subject does something to

So while the object of a sentence can indeed be a thing or "it" as you remark. It can also be a person, like the "he" in this case. Though, thank you for definitively asserting the the "He", and thus the object of the quoted scripture, is in fact Jesus Christ. So, as both Little 10 Toes and Jack by the hedge query, what was it that caused Jesus Christ to be "numbered with the transgressors"? Were in fact any of that number considered transgressors for simply using money? Gestas and Dismas, the two crucified alongside Jesus depending on the text used, being the most proximate amongst that number.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by The Man

What is the Object of a Sentence? - Definition & Examples




So while the object of a sentence can indeed be a thing or "it" as you remark. It can also be a person, like the "he" in this case. Though, thank you for definitively asserting the the "He", and thus the object of the quoted scripture, is in fact Jesus Christ. So, as both Little 10 Toes and Jack by the hedge query, what was it that caused Jesus Christ to be "numbered with the transgressors"? Were in fact any of that number considered transgressors for simply using money? Gestas and Dismas, the two crucified alongside Jesus depending on the text used, being the most proximate amongst that number.

Diversion, it doesn't change that he is Jesus Christ

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Diversion, it doesn't change that he is Jesus Christ

Diversion, that's not why you are wrong.

You're wrong because He was not crucified for using money, and you're wrong because nobody thought His disciples were bad people for using money, and you're wrong because there was no reason for anyone to think they were bad people for using money, and you're wrong because the thing He says about money and His disciples is a separate thing from the thing He later says about prophecy and transgressors and Himself.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Diversion, it doesn't change that he is Jesus Christ

Misunderstanding (perhaps deliberate) and avoidance (also, most likely deliberate), no one here has claimed that the "He" refereed to anyone but Jesus Christ. In fact a number of posters explicitly asserted that the "He" refereed to Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ is the object of the quoted sentence being the "He" that "was numbered with the transgressors".

So, once again, what was it that caused Jesus Christ to be "numbered with the transgressors"?

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

An object is it, he is Jesus Christ

And, notable, not money. Money is not the transgressor, not the criminal, but is in fact Jesus Christ?

Why should we follow the teachings of a criminal?

Since you know it's not money, why do you lie about it? Probably because you can't address the problems I've pointed out, mostly that you are the reason that your system won't work. You are too greedy. Your lust for goods and services will cause the system to collapse. But you won't address this, and just delete it from any reply, if you bother to reply. Because we can't let facts distract from fantasy.

[bruto]

Let us remember too that the choice of words was made by the translators, long long ago. Not only is their choice of words debatable, but the meaning they intended thereby might also be.

I think most interpreters consider the passage in question to be related to a prophecy that Jesus would enter the ordinary world of sinners (transgressors) and would, in such a situation, buy and sell as a common person does (and a holy man, one might presume, does not).

Some interpreters, I think, expand this to mean that Jesus will be treated as a common criminal and crucified as such.

It really doesn't have to mean anything to do with physical money, which Jesus clearly had little love for, but did not abhor. He did, after all, famously advise people to pay their taxes, to give money to those who need it, to be content with our pay, and (in Luke not too long before Gaetan's pickable cherry ripened) to make sure you have enough money to finish a project before you begin it. He and his disciples traveled with a number of women, some of whom supported them from their own means (another morsel from the fructiferous Luke).

In times like this it might be worthwhile to consult, not the Bible but the Bard:

“The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart.
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”

[Joecool]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

I use money because that's the way we do it here. It is a decision we have to take collectively, not only one on earth.

Money is the way we do things because it is the most efficient way to exchange good and services.

It may not be perfect but it beats hunting and gathering which is what no money societies do.

You are more than welcome to give up modern society and go join one of the groups in this world where they don’t use money. Somehow I doubt that you have even considered this as a plausible solution to your desires.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by Joecool

Money is the way we do things because it is the most efficient way to exchange good and services.

It may not be perfect but it beats hunting and gathering which is what no money societies do.

You are more than welcome to give up modern society and go join one of the groups in this world where they don’t use money. Somehow I doubt that you have even considered this as a plausible solution to your desires.

It is not because the society use the system of money that it is good to do so. It is a system that dictators and kings put in place to use their people as slave and take advantage of them. Now on rich use that system to do the same thing and profit from other people.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

It is not because the society use the system of money that it is good to do so. It is a system that dictators and kings put in place to use their people as slave and take advantage of them. Now on rich use that system to do the same thing and profit from other people.

Do people in your 'free world' who take 'free stuff' produced by the labor of others not "profit from other people"?

You use money yourself "to do the same thing and profit from other people". You claim it is out of necessity yet that necessity would still persist in your 'free world'. Even just by your own assertions that some people will need to work in order for their to be anything 'free' to get at all. Once again, we see that your solution (getting rid of money) doesn't and can't eliminate the problem you assert ("profit from other people").

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by The Man

Do people in your 'free world' who take 'free stuff' produced by the labor of others not "profit from other people"?

You use money yourself "to do the same thing and profit from other people". You claim it is out of necessity yet that necessity would still persist in your 'free world'. Even just by your own assertions that some people will need to work in order for their to be anything 'free' to get at all. Once again, we see that your solution (getting rid of money) doesn't and can't eliminate the problem you assert ("profit from other people").

In a system of no money people will feel in shame if not doing enough while in a system of money it is not taken under consideration.