Continuation Money/inequalities - Part 4

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Hellbound

So, if I’m understanding this, the basic idea is you can’t lose if no one keeps score?

That’s as bit…ignorant.


No, sorry, that’s a lot ignorant.


Sent from my volcanic island lair using carrier pigeon.

Fundamentally, Hellbound, don't even try to solve any problems. Just make it easier for people to screw each other over while just getting rid of any controls or accounting that might prevent or just let you know how badly you're going to get screwed.

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Yes but you don't want to try new things, let's abolish money durind one year and if it doen't work we'll put the old money system back on. How would you know if we don't try if it doesn't work we can always back off.

Originally Posted by Gaetan

If you have a system that makes it easy to do that like money it is worse.

Originally Posted by Gaetan

I don't abolish trade, it just makes it easy as you don't have a system to track money since it doesn't exist any more.

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Exactly the system of money is a system to screw your neighbours

Originally Posted by Gaetan

That's people who screws their neighbour but if you have a system of money that makes it easy it is worse. Who is the judge of the price of goods? As you have wealth and poverty it is a proof of the inequalities of the system and that such system doesn't work. If Gates got billions of dollars, he got it by stealing of customer, the money system is a system that allows it. The system of gift is a better system because it is voluntary, you work on what you want and you benefit of the work your neighbour wanted to do, nobody gets screw up. In a system of money you are a slave, good if you like what you do and make enough money but for the majority of people this is not the case, you do what you can, not what you want.

Ah, but can any pleasure life offers compare to the satisfaction of off-loading a particularly massive amount of crap?

Not only the fleshly body, but the very soul dances away from the throne, feeling lighter and more free. The emancipated spirit soars upwards, into the sunlit pastures of possibility!

[bruto]

Gaetan, you keep saying abolishing money does not abolish trade but unless you replace money with barter (which is still currency but not fungible) that is exactly what you do. It is by definition what you do. Trade requires trading. You cannot have trade if you don't trade something. Trade is not an abstraction. It is a transaction, and it is, specifically, a transaction of value for value.

Once upon a time, if a hunter wanted eggs, he might trade a piece of meat for some eggs, and maybe traded another piece of meat, or a bone or something, for a basket to put them in, and so forth. That doesn't work if what you have is skill in mathematics and what you need is brake rotors and what the guy with brake rotors needs is to pay for his kid's dentist, and so on.

If there is to be trade at more than the level of economy one might find in a stone age village, money is the only way to achieve it. You confuse the misuse of money with its very existence.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by bruto

Gaetan, you keep saying abolishing money does not abolish trade but unless you replace money with barter (which is still currency but not fungible) that is exactly what you do. It is by definition what you do. Trade requires trading. You cannot have trade if you don't trade something. Trade is not an abstraction. It is a transaction, and it is, specifically, a transaction of value for value.

Once upon a time, if a hunter wanted eggs, he might trade a piece of meat for some eggs, and maybe traded another piece of meat, or a bone or something, for a basket to put them in, and so forth. That doesn't work if what you have is skill in mathematics and what you need is brake rotors and what the guy with brake rotors needs is to pay for his kid's dentist, and so on.

If there is to be trade at more than the level of economy one might find in a stone age village, money is the only way to achieve it. You confuse the misuse of money with its very existence.

You trade your work for the work of others without making account

[Little 10 Toes]

So then I trade 0.000000000001% work for someones 100%

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

You trade your work for the work of others without making account

And who decides what I can take or give, if there is no accounting for value? Will you trade a car for a dog collar? If not, then there is accounting done whether you see it or not. All you accomplish is to make trading more complicated, more argumentative, and more dependent on the ability of the powerful and clever to bamboozle others.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

You trade your work for the work of others without making account

What happens to you if you have nothing anyone else wants?

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Exactly the system of money is a system to screw your neighbours

No. The opposite is true. Your idea of "take as much as you want of whatever you want because nobody's keeping score" is a system to screw over your neighbours.

Money is only a way of counting the value of how much you take and how much you give.

You tell us people want to take as much as they can and give back as little as they must. Right? But you think if you just let everyone do that, they won't do it. Why not?

[bruto]

In case you missed it before, Gaetan, I will put it in a slightly different form:

You have a car for sale. I have a dog collar. I say I'll trade the dog collar for the car. In your scenario, what, other than perceived value, could you give as a reason to reject the trade?

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

You trade your work for the work of others without making account

Be wary, friend Gaetan, of speaking to freely, for
until the Masters, the
Lawmakers, and their spies
learn that their castles are built on sand, and
see that they are kneeling to false gods,
Heaven on earth is denied to all.
I beg of you, friend Gaetan,
take care.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

No. The opposite is true. Your idea of "take as much as you want of whatever you want because nobody's keeping score" is a system to screw over your neighbours.

Money is only a way of counting the value of how much you take and how much you give.

You tell us people want to take as much as they can and give back as little as they must. Right? But you think if you just let everyone do that, they won't do it. Why not?

That you work more than another you can't complain because you did what you set out to do

Don't forget that the world of no money is like:

Mt 20 “The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard

Mt 20.13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

That you work more than another you can't complain because you did what you set out to do

Don't forget that the world of no money is like:

Mt 20 “The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard

Mt 20.13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

Careful now, friend Gaetan,
remember my warnings about the Masters
and their Minions.
Protect yourself, I beg, against an angry checkmark!

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

That you work more than another you can't complain because you did what you set out to do

Don't forget that the world of no money is like:

Mt 20 “The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard

Mt 20.13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

It amazes me...oh wait, no it actually doesn't amaze me at all even though it should...that you can use a parable that is expressly about the payment of wages in money as an example of what the "world of no money is like."

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by bruto

It amazes me...oh wait, no it actually doesn't amaze me at all even though it should...that you can use a parable that is expressly about the payment of wages in money as an example of what the "world of no money is like."

The parable means that in the Kingdom of haven there is no injustice because the work you do is the work you agree to do then if you work more than another it is because you agree to do so. The dinero just means the reward, No matter what job you do the reward is the same than the one who work less and it's fair because you chose your job and the time and effort you put into it, there can be no injustice in the Kingdom of God as in the world of no money.

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

The parable means that in the Kingdom of haven there is no injustice because the work you do is the work you agree to do then if you work more than another it is because you agree to do so. The dinero just means the reward, No matter what job you do the reward is the same than the one who work less and it's fair because you chose your job and the time and effort you put into it, there can be no injustice in the Kingdom of God as in the world of no money.

My oh my, friend Gaetan again
offers up a unique, and thought-provoking arguement. But (like a ticked-off bloodsucking insect) I would
reiterate my prior warning-
E.G:

Originally Posted by junkshop

Be wary, friend Gaetan, of speaking to freely, for
until the Masters, the
Lawmakers, and their spies
learn that their castles are built on sand, and
see that they are kneeling to false gods,
Heaven on earth is denied to all.
I beg of you, friend Gaetan,
take care.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

That you work more than another you can't complain because you did what you set out to do

Really? How did they know they would be doing more work than others beforehand?

So if specifically working more than others wasn't "what you set out to do" then the situation is unjust and they can complain?

By your standard and the parable cited people who make less money can't complain because they got paid what they agreed to receive for their work.

Originally Posted by Gaetan

The parable means that in the Kingdom of haven there is no injustice because the work you do is the work you agree to do then if you work more than another it is because you agree to do so. The dinero just means the reward, No matter what job you do the reward is the same than the one who work less and it's fair because you chose your job and the time and effort you put into it, there can be no injustice in the Kingdom of God as in the world of no money.

Again, without a common system of valuation you can't "agree" to anything. You have no scale to measure the value of your work or the work of others so you can not "agree" to something you have no knowledge of or method of determining.

In the parable the workers agreed to a wage and were paid that wage. If that parable is an exemplar of justice and fairness then that makes a world of money both just and fair as that very example.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by The Man

In the parable the workers agreed to a wage and were paid that wage. If that parable is an exemplar of justice and fairness then that makes a world of money both just and fair as that very example.

The money was the reward they agree for their labor and is the same than people who didn't work so much, there is no injustice because people agree. This is the samething in a world of no money, nobody force you to do anything and you don't have to because everything is free of charge, there is no injustice, there can't be injustice in the Kingdom of Haven. In a world of money, there are injustice because you must work for reward. The money system you are forced to work, in the no money it is freedom, there is no injustice because you do what you agree.

[Jack by the hedge]

So the lesson is that people who work harder realise that it's unfair and complain about the injustice that they get no greater reward than idle people. So in future they will know not to work so hard because it doesn't directly benefit them. Soon everyone knows they barely need to lift a finger because they're getting rewarded anyway, and no useful work gets done at all. So everyone starves and dies of hunger while blaming everyone else.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

So the lesson is that people who work harder realise that it's unfair and complain about the injustice that they get no greater reward than idle people. So in future they will know not to work so hard because it doesn't directly benefit them. Soon everyone knows they barely need to lift a finger because they're getting rewarded anyway, and no useful work gets done at all. So everyone starves and dies of hunger while blaming everyone else.

No one starve in the kingdom of Haven and you are better off over there than here, i don't want to keep that slavery system, you do.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

The money was the reward they agree for their labor and is the same than people who didn't work so much, there is no injustice because people agree.

Great so there is then no injustice in a system of money as people agree to be paid the wages they receive.

Originally Posted by Gaetan

This is the samething in a world of no money, nobody force you to do anything and you don't have to because everything is free of charge, there is no injustice, there can't be injustice in the Kingdom of Haven. In a world of money, there are injustice because you must work for reward. The money system you are forced to work, in the no money it is freedom, there is no injustice because you do what you agree.

Again, people currently get paid what they agreed to receive, just like in the parable. So by your standard there is no injustice either in the parable and a system of money, since such a system is used in that very parable.

If just money or needing to work is inherently unjust then your parable and "Kingdom of Haven" you assert it exemplifies are likewise unjust.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

No one starve in the kingdom of Haven and you are better off over there than here, i don't want to keep that slavery system, you do.

So if people don't produce food or even enough food, no one will starve?

You evidently just don't want any system.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by The Man

Great so there is then no injustice in a system of money as people agree to be paid the wages they receive.

You are forced to agree, what you really agree is to be paid one million of dollar an hour to wash dishes.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

You are forced to agree, what you really agree is to be paid one million of dollar an hour to wash dishes.

No you aren't, I've turned down plenty of job offers. You can't agree "to be paid one million of dollar an hour to wash dishes" if no one is making such an offer. Similar I've had my requested pay turned down by plenty of perspective employers. No one is forced to hire me at a pay they consider unfair and I'm not force to work for anyone at a wage I consider unfair. An agreement involves both parties.

Who forced those in your parable to agree to those wages? If your cited parable is inherently unfair because people are "forced to agree" then why cite it as exemplary of justice and fairness as well as your "Kingdom of Haven"?

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by The Man

No you aren't, I've turned down plenty of job offers. You can't agree "to be paid one million of dollar an hour to wash dishes" if no one is making such an offer. Similar I've had my requested pay turned down by plenty of perspective employers. No one is forced to hire me at a pay they consider unfair and I'm not force to work for anyone at a wage I consider unfair. An agreement involves both parties.

Who forced those in your parable to agree to those wages? If your cited parable is inherently unfair because people are "forced to agree" then why cite it as exemplary of justice and fairness as well as your "Kingdom of Haven"?

In the real life you are forced to agree with what is offer if you would have the real choice you would choose to be paid one million dollar an hour like Gates. In haven it is like in the parable what you do you do it because you agree to do it.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

In the real life you are forced to agree with what is offer if you would have the real choice you would choose to be paid one million dollar an hour like Gates. In haven it is like in the parable what you do you do it because you agree to do it.

Again, you seem to be confused about what constitutes an agreement. Both side have to agree. While you can't agree to something that is not offered, like "one million dollar an hour". You also aren't forced to agree to just any offer. So you have a choice, the alternatives my not be appealing but it is a choice none the less. They agree to pay you some amount and you agree to be paid that amount. Exactly as in the parable.


Who forced those in your parable to agree to those wages? If your cited parable is inherently unfair because people are "forced to agree" then why cite it as exemplary of justice and fairness as well as your "Kingdom of Haven"?

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by The Man

Again, you seem to be confused about what constitutes an agreement. Both side have to agree. While you can't agree to something that is not offered, like "one million dollar an hour". You also aren't forced to agree to just any offer. So you have a choice, the alternatives my not be appealing but it is a choice none the less. They agree to pay you some amount and you agree to be paid that amount. Exactly as in the parable.


Who forced those in your parable to agree to those wages? If your cited parable is inherently unfair because people are "forced to agree" then why cite it as exemplary of justice and fairness as well as your "Kingdom of Haven"?

The parable says:

Mt 20 “The kingdom of heaven is like

In your world it is not like, you are forced to agree with what is paid, what you want is to be paid one million of dollars an hour for your work as Bill Gates. In a gift society you do the labor you want and agree as everything is free of charge. That's the difference between a word of justice and freedom and a world of slavery like yours.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

The parable says:

Mt 20 “The kingdom of heaven is like

In your world it is not like, you are forced to agree with what is paid, what you want is to be paid one million of dollars an hour for your work as Bill Gates. In a gift society you do the labor you want and agree as everything is free of charge. That's the difference between a word of justice and freedom and a world of slavery like yours.

That was a parable, not an actual description of the kingdom of Heaven.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

No one starve in the kingdom of Haven and you are better off over there than here, i don't want to keep that slavery system, you do.

The kingdom of Haven is just pretend.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

In the real life you are forced to agree with what is offer if you would have the real choice you would choose to be paid one million dollar an hour...

In the real life, if the work does not get done there is no food.

You keep telling us people want to work as little as they can and take as much they can. And you want that to happen. Why?

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

The parable says:

Mt 20 “The kingdom of heaven is like

It also says they agreed to the payment they received.

Originally Posted by Gaetan

In your world it is not like, you are forced to agree with what is paid, what you want is to be paid one million of dollars an hour for your work as Bill Gates. In a gift society you do the labor you want and agree as everything is free of charge. That's the difference between a word of justice and freedom and a world of slavery like yours.

The parable isn't about a gift society, being forced to agree to anything or even simply wanting what no one has offered. It is about getting paid what you agreed to, exactly as it works today, the world we both live in. Again if this parable is an example of "a word of justice and freedom" or even "The kingdom of heaven" then that's what we already have since people generally get paid what they agreed to.

Did you agree to what you get paid? Were you somehow forced to take that job as opposed to some other?

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by The Man

It also says they agreed to the payment they received.

Off course they agree because they have to get money but in Haven you agree without being paid. In Haven it is like that work is not done by you if you don't agree as in a gift society.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Off course they agree because they have to get money but in Haven you agree without being paid. In Haven it is like that work is not done by you if you don't agree as in a gift society.

The work is not done by anyone, unless someone agrees to do it, in any society.


Your assertion was that the parable was just and fair because the people agreed to the wages they received. So a money society is just and fair if people likewise agree to the wages they receive, as they do. Your "gift society" would likewise only be just and fair (by your asserted standard) if those workers agree to receive nothing for their labor.

If they instead expect to receive both the fruits of their labor and the labor of others, an expectation you often cite and depend upon for actual functionality, then they clearly don't agree to receive nothing. Again, by your own standards and assertions a money society can be just and fair while your "gift society" can not. As it explicitly relies upon people getting what they need to survive while having agreed instead to receive nothing.

To put it in terms of the parable you cite, that would be like one of the workers receiving mores wages then they agreed to while the others received just what they agree to. Clearly unfair by the standard expressed in the parable.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by The Man

The work is not done by anyone, unless someone agrees to do it, in any society.

No one agree the salary they got, even if i would be paid 1 million of dollar an hour as Bill Gates i wouldn't agree unless i get more. People who decide their salary award themselves millions of dollars.

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

No one agree the salary they got, even if i would be paid 1 million of dollar an hour as Bill Gates i wouldn't agree unless i get more. People who decide their salary award themselves millions of dollars.

Citation? Proof? Example? Anything?

ETA: Nevermind, I'd forgotten which thread this was.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

No one agree the salary they got, even if i would be paid 1 million of dollar an hour as Bill Gates i wouldn't agree unless i get more. People who decide their salary award themselves millions of dollars.

Everyone agreed to the salary they get otherwise they couldn't be doing the work. If you are employed by a company you were offered a wage and agreed to both that and their employment terms. Otherwise they simply wouldn't hire you and allow you to do work for them. Even a day laborer agrees to the work and the pay or they are not picked up for the job. Again that's a specific point of the parable you cite, that the workers got the pay they agreed to receive for the work they did. Again you can't agree to something no one has offered you, while you may want more, if you are in fact paid for your work, you have agreed to take something that was offered. People who own their own companies can pay themselves and others whatever is mutually agreed. However, without economic viability it won't be sustainable.

Go ahead, start your own company and agree to pay yourself more than "1 million of dollar an hour" see how long that lasts. If you are currently paid for your work, how long has it been since you agreed to work for someone for less than "1 million of dollar an hour"? If you have agreed to work for someone else and to take less than what you'd want, it may be because that situation is more economically sustainable. The various reasons why you agreed doesn't change the fact that you agreed.

[The Man]

I am replying to this in the appropriate thread.

Originally Posted by Gaetan

If i wash dishes there is benifit for me as i eat in clean dishes and others, if others do some work as well there is benifit for them and me somewhere.

If you wash dishes others don't benefit unless they use the dishes you washed. Similarly, if others do work, there is no reason it has to benefit you at all. How many dishes will you wash? How good will you be at it? What value of the labor of others do you think that is worth.


Oh and having been a dishwasher I can tell you that the advantage of commercial dishwashing machines make a big difference in both throughput and sanitizing capability. People might just not want to use dishes washed by you, if you don't know how to do it professionally, adequately and safely..

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by The Man

Everyone agreed to the salary they get otherwise they couldn't be doing the work.

Take things in other way, if you are offer a salary of 25$ an hour and a salary of one million an hour for the same job, what salary would you agree to take?

Quote:

Again that's a specific point of the parable you cite, that the workers got the pay they agreed to receive for the work they did.

The same as in Haven means they agree to get nothing.

Quote:

People who own their own companies can pay themselves and others whatever is mutually agreed. However, without economic viability it won't be sustainable.

If they wouldn't be restricted by the economic viability what they would paid themself for their work is never enough.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Take things in other way, if you are offer a salary of 25$ an hour and a salary of one million an hour for the same job, what salary would you agree to take?

Sure, and if pigs flew we could hitch a ride to the lemonade lake. Most real people are offered one salary for a job.

Quote:

The same as in Haven means they agree to get nothing.

Last I checked, this wasn't heaven, and though proof is not abundant, I am informed that the people who are in heaven might not need to get anything, because they're stone cold dead. Oh wait, that's Heaven, not Haven. Vermont has two Havens, and it's true that the last time I drove through the Fair one, I agreed to contribute nothing to the Prom party coin drop. So there's that. There's also a New one in Connecticut, and I hope they also agree to get nothing, because they will get nothing from me. It's the ******* of creation. So, yeah, I guess however you spell it, they'd better agree to get nothing.

Quote:

If they wouldn't be restricted by the economic viability what they would paid themself for their work is never enough.

Now there's a steaming pile of sense. It sounds as if the more money there is the more we'd want. Whodathunkit?

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Take things in other way, if you are offer a salary of 25$ an hour and a salary of one million an hour for the same job, what salary would you agree to take?

The realistic one, no one has ever offered me or you "one million an hour", because, as you know, it would be an unrealistic offer. Just what is it you imagine you could do that would be worth "one million an hour" to anyone? Again you can't agree to something that no one is offering and you certainly shouldn't agree to what you would know to be an unrealistic offer.

Now having your own company that would be different. You can value your own labor as you please. However, again such an unrealistic valuation of your own labor may not be economically sustainable.

Originally Posted by Gaetan

The same as in Haven means they agree to get nothing.

The parable wasn't about working in heaven. Heck, why would people even need to work there. Certainly the people in the parable didn't "agree to get nothing". Again the parable was about receiving the pay that one agreed to receive for the work they agreed to do, as most people already do.

People can't survive on nothing, so in the real world they must get more than was agreed to, just to survive. How is that fair to anyone?

Originally Posted by Gaetan

If they wouldn't be restricted by the economic viability what they would paid themself for their work is never enough.

And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon. Since they are restricted by "the economic viability" they are going to have to pay themselves a sustainable and reasonable amount.

Further, that simply a lack of restrictions means it will never be enough for you, doesn't mean the same holds for everyone. Heck, given your stated pretense, others should be glad there are such restrictions to keep your unbridled greed and desire to screw over your neighbors, as per your own assertions, in check.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by The Man

The realistic one, no one has ever offered me or you "one million an hour", because, as you know, it would be an unrealistic offer. Just what is it you imagine you could do that would be worth "one million an hour" to anyone? Again you can't agree to something that no one is offering and you certainly shouldn't agree to what you would know to be an unrealistic offer.

Now having your own company that would be different. You can value your own labor as you please. However, again such an unrealistic valuation of your own labor may not be economically sustainable.

The parable wasn't about working in heaven. Heck, why would people even need to work there. Certainly the people in the parable didn't "agree to get nothing". Again the parable was about receiving the pay that one agreed to receive for the work they agreed to do, as most people already do.

People can't survive on nothing, so in the real world they must get more than was agreed to, just to survive. How is that fair to anyone?

And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon. Since they are restricted by "the economic viability" they are going to have to pay themselves a sustainable and reasonable amount.

Further, that simply a lack of restrictions means it will never be enough for you, doesn't mean the same holds for everyone. Heck, given your stated pretense, others should be glad there are such restrictions to keep your unbridled greed and desire to screw over your neighbors, as per your own assertions, in check.

You don't agree to do work for a salary, you have no choice, you can only agree if money is not involve.