ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
View Poll Results: Are you willing to work for free if the goods and services are free?
Yes 17 35.42%
No 22 45.83%
I don't know 9 18.75%
Voters: 48. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old Yesterday, 01:52 PM   #1201
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,615
Originally Posted by Gaetan View Post

Under the money system conservation has no goal, just exploitation for profit has a goal.

They aren't mutually exclusive, exploitation for profit requires something exploitable which is, by that aspect, conducive to conservation.

Quote:
Nikita Khrushchev

When you are skinning your customers, you should leave some skin on to heal, so that you can skin them again.

From logging to fishing and water to wildlife conservation for sustainable future profit is just a natural consideration.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:48 PM   #1202
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,276
Originally Posted by Gaetan View Post
Under the money system conservation has no goal, just exploitation for profit has a goal.
You might ask OPEC or DeBeers about that. They worked out long, long ago that restricting the supply of a limited resource, like oil or diamonds, raises its price and increases their profits.

From the customer's point of view, high prices stop them using as much of a resource as they might like. Make it free and they'll use more.

Your plan does nothing whatsoever to encourage conservation.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:17 PM   #1203
Gaetan
Illuminator
 
Gaetan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,573
Under the system of money the goal of conservation is profit, they create scarcity to rise the price and they plant trees for more profit. If you stop it you have a différent point of view like making goods repairable or recyclable, to use different products to save what is rare, money profit is not an issue considered under the no money system. under the system of money these things can only be done if profitable if no by law.
Gaetan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:39 AM   #1204
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,315
Originally Posted by Gaetan View Post
Under the system of money the goal of conservation is profit, they create scarcity to rise the price and they plant trees for more profit.
Actually in the real world the "goal" of conservation is not necessarily profit since clearly a lot of conservation programs are extremely unprofitable.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:42 AM   #1205
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,276
Originally Posted by Gaetan View Post
Under the system of money the goal of conservation is profit, they create scarcity to rise the price and they plant trees for more profit. If you stop it you have a différent point of view like making goods repairable or recyclable, to use different products to save what is rare, money profit is not an issue considered under the no money system. under the system of money these things can only be done if profitable if no by law.
No.

Firstly, money is not the system. Trade is the system. Money is just a tool for making trade easier and more efficient.

Secondly, profit can be *one* motivation to conserve a limited resource. Nobody (except you) is pretending we live, or want to live, in a world of unfettered capitalism where profit is the only motivation.

Thirdly, there is nothing to prevent sensible and intelligent conservation measures being enacted in the current system. You might like to ask any of the current conservation groups, campaigners or experts whether they think life would be transformed for the better if we simply abolish money. At best, they might find a gentle way to say the notion is naive and not of any obvious benefit.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:55 AM   #1206
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,276
Here's a proposal: let's abolish questions.

Children find exams stressful and not everyone passes, causing real anguish to some. By abolishing questions, all this heartache is swept away at a stroke.

"Ask no questions, I'll tell no lies" goes the famous saying. By abolishing questions the amount of lying in the world is hugely diminished.

By abolishing questions, we can prevent anyone from asking awkward questions about the obvious flaws in radical proposals such as, for example, creating a better world simply by banning money.

I think everyone will agree that banning questions is a brilliant plan without flaws.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:09 AM   #1207
Leftus
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,748
Originally Posted by Gaetan View Post

Under the money system conservation has no goal, just exploitation for profit has a goal.
Under your system, resource conservation is actively discouraged. Waste is an intended byproduct. A feature, not a bug.

Also, you once again trollishly avoided the discussion on how no money would somehow create more product when resources are limited.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:06 PM   #1208
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 26,079
I have no doubt that there are plenty of examples of economic greed leading to shortages and conservation disasters - the decline of great whales and some edible fish, for example. But it's not clear that this would be lessened if the resources were simply made available to anyone who wanted them, without economic penalty. As it is now, when a resource becomes too scarce for economic exploitation, the exploitation often stops. Money or not, if people wanted whale oil, and whales were there, what, other than cost, would have stopped them from wiping out the last of them?

Aside from this, there have been some notable conservation efforts made within the monetary framework, when it was discovered (in parts of Africa and in Baja California, for example) that conservation and eco-tourism actually provided more profit along with making life more pleasant. Large portions of Baja California are now among the best protected nature preserves in the world, with good records of abundant species recovery. This is an effort that requires both governmental action and the cooperation of inhabitants who have traditionally exploited the resources. It's based on a realistic assessment of value.

In addition, though I have no doubt the efforts have been less than they ought to be, there is a public relations aspect to some conservation, which leads at least some profit-making corporations to promote it as a way of improving their public image. It's fashionable to be green these days. If there were no motive for added profit, there would be no motive to waste energy on such efforts.

And finally, we ought not to forget that (again, perhaps not enough in the world, but something for sure) there are profit making corporations which, in order to insure their smooth and continued operation, operate with sustainable conservation in mind. While in the Amazon basin, the need for agriculture is destroying huge amounts of forest, one of the great biomass successes of North America has long been the sustainable forests maintained by United States paper manufacturers. Paper requires wood, of course, and while the earth may see trees as a vital part of the cycle of life, to paper manufacturers a tree is just a big vegetable. They plant them, grow them, tend them, cut them down, and re-plant them. They take up a lot of space, and take time to grow to useful size, and in the mean time they provide the world with a whole lot of what the world needs. Not just in the carbon cycle, but clean water, habitat for wild animals, and unsettled space.

Paper companies do this, in part, because they own the land, and sustainable tree farming is economically more profitable than marching across the country clearcutting and laying waste to the forests. Gaetan has made it clear that owning property simply for profit would be impermissible. What would keep potential homesteaders and subsistence farmers from taking over those woodlands and duplicating the disaster of the Amazon?

The answer, I suspect, is government. I think the only way Gaetan's pipe dream could hope to survive would be under a strict government with totalitarian power to regulate who does what and where.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)

Last edited by bruto; Today at 02:10 PM.
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:19 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.