No silva, it really really hasn't been shown that money is necessary. Because it isn't.

What has been shown is that you believe it is necessary.

You can flog the pony all you like but if it aint got legs it aint gonna run...

I know we don't need money to mainatain ourselves. What we need are things. I know it because unlike yohrself i have taken the time to go through it logically in my mind. It fucking hurt i can tell you. Actually took me a few weeks to address every objection that came up. But i got there.

The issue is as we all know, transitions. I agree with a lot you say on that. Eg moving money away from corporate banks etc.
I also agree with andy about anarcho syndicalism being a good step.

Thing is, you can't put your finger on one thing and say, that will fix it. We have to address literally all areas of life. Education being a desperate one. We need a whole new way of thinking that isn't based in the competitive caveman model we have today.

You could still have loans in a full reserve banking system. It just wouldn't be banks giving them out.

Fr is inarguably taking the piss. There is currently no defined minimum reserve in britain that i am aware if for example. Merely guidelines. That really is abused to the max. Transitions. One wohld be the introduction of a sensible and enforced minimum holdings requirement.

Barnfish wrote:
Thats up to the people involved in whatever system they choose.
I'm not the NaN type so I'm not the perfect benevolent dictator

NB: I should add that FR needn't exist at all as part of the monetary system. Banks needn't be anything like as major an aspect as they are today. Only loaning occasionally for business purposes with self risk. If that happened prices would plummet as credit would not be available generally. Wages would not need to keep pace with inflation because there would be no inflation.
Again such an economy is difficult to bring about and maintain within any single nation unless its quite self reliant and not corrupt and so on and so forth. We have had it in the past and it worked just fine, the example is ofc the wild west but back then homesteads are what kept that working.
Today you cannot walk out into the countryside and build your own house, the land is owned. There might be some countries where it is still allowed somewhere, personally I don't know of any offhand. Given the amount of empty wild land it 'ought' to be something forced upon the landowners but again thats not going to happen either.

.........
G'day Barnfish.

A sensible discussion eh ... okie dokie.

Firstly, I will sensibly discuss the statement that you made immediately after stating that you "would prefer a sensible discussion" ...

" A slave has no freedom whatsoever. "

You are using an absolute in your description when you state "no freedom whatsoever". Therefore, using your description, we are to assume that a slave doesn't have the freedom to scratch an itch ... remember, "no freedom whatsoever".

non sequitur: Latin for "It does not follow." An inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence.
www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

You have not established that a slave has "no freedom whatsoever", yet you attempt to use this as if it an established fact to differentiate between modalities of slavery and make claim of one being superior to the other, which appears to be based on your unwillingness to recognise that the societal structure is one of enslavement.

Now, to have a "sensible discussion", all that is required is for you to make sensible statements.

While I await your sensible reply, here's a short video clip for you to contemplate ...

..........

No silva, it really really hasn't been shown that money is necessary. Because it isn't.

What has been shown is that you believe it is necessary.

You can flog the pony all you like but if it aint got legs it aint gonna run...

I know we don't need money to mainatain ourselves. What we need are things. I know it because unlike yohrself i have taken the time to go through it logically in my mind. It fucking hurt i can tell you. Actually took me a few weeks to address every objection that came up. But i got there.

The issue is as we all know, transitions. I agree with a lot you say on that. Eg moving money away from corporate banks etc.
I also agree with andy about anarcho syndicalism being a good step.

Thing is, you can't put your finger on one thing and say, that will fix it. We have to address literally all areas of life. Education being a desperate one. We need a whole new way of thinking that isn't based in the competitive caveman model we have today.

You could still have loans in a full reserve banking system. It just wouldn't be banks giving them out.

Fr is inarguably taking the piss. There is currently no defined minimum reserve in britain that i am aware if for example. Merely guidelines. That really is abused to the max. Transitions. One wohld be the introduction of a sensible and enforced minimum holdings requirement.

Money is a universally accepted form of trade beneficial to everyone, it is necessary to facilitate fairer trade.

Have you been reading the thread at all?

andyh wrote:
I usually go with the interactionist theory on this one. Language development depends on constructivism and emergentism to take place, innate biological influences do need environmental stimulus to discover it's potential and limitation, but then there is the whole issue with biological psychopaths, no amount of environmental nurturing can change their hardwired biology to develop conscience, empathy etc. The R-complex and lack of frontal lobe development renders them in predator mode, their personality is fixed non mutable (unless they are developing new personas for targeting purposes, but personas are not a representation of their core personality and don't count). Many stories of loving families with a good quality of life report their child whose unresponsiveness to nurture concludes itself on the cluster B axis II spectrum. For the vast majority, the interaction of biology and environment shapes our lives.

Space Bandit wrote:
FFS. Money isn't the problem. People are the problem.

The monetary system is a mathematical machine based on timing. If used correctly it works. Well it works-ish. Its problem is that it redistributes wealth among the top 10% only. If taken over by a pscho, it can be abused to destroy people. This is the same problem for any other replacement system I've seen thus far.

I get the feeling this is all brought about by the financial shenanigans of a few years ago and portrayal of bankers as the new bogeymen.

In reality it was governments, acting in our name, which removed regulations which kept the bankers in check.

If you let a small child loose in a sweetshop without supervision, it will very likely eat itself sick!

The blame is squarely on our political puppets and those who control them. The banking crisis was not only foreseeable, it was meant to happen.

The only reason why there was not a complete collapse is because enough of the financial system remained regulated and enough people did not go borrowing mental and enough politicians spoke out against what was going on. But it was only a just enough and it is ONLY those people who honesty have a right to criticise. Others who stuck their nose in the trough and fed like pigs and then moan only have themselves to blame.

I wonder how many people who hate the bankers were previously feeding like pigs and cannot face up to their own involvement.

SilvaRizla wrote:
What I've written indicates that it is money that is perpetuating an unhealthy human condition. How do you expect greed to end or at least be minimised in a system of money? It won't..... ever, it is self perpetuating. Money is inequality.
If human needs are met consistently including a good environment to live in there is less likelihood for the propensity to greed and other undesirable traits. Do you think there aren't enough resources in the world to share that would take care of all of life's basic needs at a minimum? Why aren't things like that even been looked at?

A crash is just a symptom of a much bigger problem.

A crash is just a symptom of a much bigger problem.

Space Bandit wrote:
Yeah, usually the prick behind the wheel

andyh wrote:


Sorry, that is a totally ill thought out, unrealistic, cop out of an answer.