Money: The worst idea since murder.
- Thread starter hvitulf
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I like my filthy lucre-bucks sir. I'm off to inspect the last sweatshop I bought to ensure the standards there are less than adequate (it's an incentive to work harder).
Honestly if people would do work for the sake of helping others instead of getting some kind of reward, then this could work. Unfortunately people are very selfish and want rewards like they deserve something.
Obviously not. We're going to make everything free ie Engles people working for betterment crap
And we already have digital tender, but we need tangible money too. There's a reason 8 year olds don't have credit
EDIT: Lets not forget War, terrorism, weapons, rape, cannibalism. ect
And we already have digital tender, but we need tangible money too. There's a reason 8 year olds don't have credit
EDIT: Lets not forget War, terrorism, weapons, rape, cannibalism. ect
Because the man at the desk is making sure your freedoms are upheld, which is more important than lugging boxes. Also, would you give the same money to the guy who cleans your toilet and the guy who just saved your life by performing a heart surgery on you?Pifflestick said:
Also, offer and demand: there are plenty of people who can lug boxes, but very few who can, say, program in Python.
Socialism is a terrible idea. Of course, sleazers love it, because it means they can sit on their asses and not work, since our taxes ("our" referring to hard-working people) will be going towards supporting an unproductive population, made up of the lazy, the incompetent and the inept.
I cannot begin to point out the stupid in this post.knight56 said:
Interesting counterpoint, but can we separate the physical essence of "money" (Coins, Notes, Cards) from the exchange mechanism of "currency" (Pounds, Dollars) and have anything left?Kwil said:
Aren't the two concepts totally dependent on each other? (Even with credit, it's still measured in money)
The worst idea since murder, and yet somehow better than raping and pillaging, which I believe is option B.
Also, you can't get rid of the notion of exchange, because so few people are self-sufficient. If we all were, we'd either run out of space and resources instantly or we'd be in a system of everyone "doing their bit", which is essentially mass collective exchange of everything.
Money is awesome, without it you'd starve cold and naked at the bottom of the strongest dude's hill. Get over yourself.
Also, you can't get rid of the notion of exchange, because so few people are self-sufficient. If we all were, we'd either run out of space and resources instantly or we'd be in a system of everyone "doing their bit", which is essentially mass collective exchange of everything.
Money is awesome, without it you'd starve cold and naked at the bottom of the strongest dude's hill. Get over yourself.
Yeah but I be sure to write atleast two posts a day that pisses someone off, so.... yeah.GrinningManiac said:
Lets just call it poo.
Agreed that money brings out the worst in people.
However, it's indispensable.
Society today cannot go back to exchanging goods for other goods, since many people don't have fields to grow their own vegetables/animals, they don't own factories etc.
And even if they did, how would they pay these people? Not everyone demands the same things.
See, you can't give up on money, it's way too late for that.If the idea didn't fail at the time, it can't be undone now.
About communism... my country was communist for 50 years...it wasn't pretty. None of their ideas worked out for the best.And really, just think about it: would YOU have liked it if your TV only got colors in the late 80s and you got your 3rd TV channel in 1991?
However, it's indispensable.
Society today cannot go back to exchanging goods for other goods, since many people don't have fields to grow their own vegetables/animals, they don't own factories etc.
And even if they did, how would they pay these people? Not everyone demands the same things.
See, you can't give up on money, it's way too late for that.If the idea didn't fail at the time, it can't be undone now.
About communism... my country was communist for 50 years...it wasn't pretty. None of their ideas worked out for the best.And really, just think about it: would YOU have liked it if your TV only got colors in the late 80s and you got your 3rd TV channel in 1991?
Incorrect, according to documentation, Clinton ended his terming leaving the United States with a surplus of $559 billion dollars. At such a time there may have existed minor debt although it is not currently reported. Nevertheless the economy was at an all time high prior to Bush beginning his term.Housebroken Lunatic said:The U.S had financial debts both pre- and post-Clinton. Also from a capitalistic standpoint the war was a good thing. Just imagine how many weapons manufacturers were filled with joy once they heard that a new war had been started.Bourne said:Bill Clinton left the United States in one of the best financial states it has been in since the founding of the Country. George W. Bush took over and... here we are. Maybe going to war for eight years and spending trillions of dollars wasn't such a good idea.
They profit tremendously from war (while the rest of us don't). In a country based on capitalism, war will also be a matter of capitalism. But it will shoot everyone other than the arms manufacturers in the foot.
Oh, "boohoo"! You say you had to live without a fridge for a year? Big deal.Bourne said:
There are people way more worse of than you are. When im saying "the butt-end of capitalism" im not talking about specific inhabitants in the capitalist nation. Im talking about the people affected by said capitalism. Like child labourers in third world countries having to fuel the capitalistic corporations in your country.
The african peasants being paid way too little for their goods, which are sold off at a much higher price in capitalistic countries.
The very fact that you can enjoy the boons of capitalism, comes from socialistic endavours (or did you pay for your schooling all by yourself? I hardly think so), and the fact that you stand on the shoulders of others who aren't as well off as you are.
-"I had to live without a fridge for a year. Man I was truly at the bottom then!" *facepalm*
Im sorry, I don't mean to offend you or to be condescending. It's just that you don't seem to see the bigger picture of capitalism or that your wealth is dependant on the continued poverty of others. Poverty which is way worse than having to live without a fridge for a year.
And this is a behaviour very common amongst capitalists. Some have just been misinformed. Others just callously don't care about the fact that people are dying of starvation because of capitalism.
Which of those are you?
War is only beneficial if something is acquired during it. We know in all intending purposes the reason for the invasion of Irac was to control the oil supply, which would have enormously benefited the United States for obvious reasons. The results were a tremendous negative primarily because the tactics used in this war were beyond pitiful. Having studied war for some time, how this was handled would embarrass many past geniuses, although if their strategies were to be used I imagine people such as yourself would scream in horror because what is most effective for the ultimate goal usually results in a massive casualty listing for the opposing side.
Nevertheless you are woefully mistaken. Weapon manufacturers may have benefited but look at the Country now, who else has? Companies are bleeding themselves dry, despite the large amount of wealth they had, the economy is in shambles. This war was a disaster and did not serve to benefit any. Also I said may because we do not truly know if they had, considering designing weapons for your Country?s protective might not be as profitable as believed. It is the Government that is paying you ever all.
And socialism would rectify this how? With socialism you would encourage overall human laziness because there is neither passion nor any reason to in fact work harder. Why would construction workers continue manual labor, which admittedly is a grueling job when they are no better off than someone who sits and does nothing as under the ideal of socialism everyone is an equal and entitled to equal pay. Even better, why be a police officer or a doctor? You again are paid the same for ten times the work.
A primary reason those countries suffer is because of their own decisions. Half of them should not even possess the population that they do because their country cannot maintain it and yet has such never been halted? No. It is unfortunate the mistreatment many receive, I will not deny that however not all companies established in high modernized countries such as United States, Canada and England use child labor; the decline in recent decades has become highly noted. Your malice should be directed towards those which do if you harbor such a dislike of the method.
Ultimately there is another factor; companies who do outsource for their employees yet do not enforce abusive labor laws do so because they are not required to pay the equivalent they would in well advanced. If such was altered you run the risk of the following. One, forcing them to pay the equivalent of minimum wage of Canada (US is too low, so I am using Canada) which amounts to $10 would beg the question of "why don't we simply employ more Canadians?" Leaving these countries with no income; furthermore our currency is vastly superior in value to theirs, resulting in a better sum.
Regardless it is not the responsibility of other Countries to rectify the errors and misgivings of other Countries. As noted many companies do not look for workers out of Country and few even support child labor. Thus those Countries should seek to better themselves and it is a possibility, an exceptionally long term possibility but than again even the United States was not built in ten years.
In reference to what you stated no I did not pay my way for schooling; up until grade nine it was handled by the Government and my mother, from ten to twelve by my mother and that is where it stands. If you mean those who work at that school as your relation to socialistic endeavors, no it is their chosen profession and thus their requirement to teach students, albeit poorly as schools today are worthless but that is another debate. It has nothing to do with socialism.
Perhaps not, however you put words in my mouth as I never stated I was truly at the bottom. I was insinuating that I am not starting off with an abundance of wealth and that is how I will become successful, as many believe it is impossible to be born at the or below the poverty line in this Country (Canada) and change the outcome.
Capitalism encourages productivity, some remain at the poverty, and others do not. The reality is life is not always fair and we deal with the cards we are dealt. People in this country, in the United States and the UK are all equally capable of being a success in life. You are as capable as I am perhaps, it depends on if your effort to become a success is corresponding to mine. Evidently I am currently only speaking of already advanced countries but I immensely disagree with the notion "you have to be born rich to be rich" and felt such was being insinuated.
Ultimately this will be viewed by socialists as callous and so be it. I prefer to live in a world were the availability to become successful; for those who strive, who have passion and drive to be something can achieve that aspiration and I will fight and defend that right without a second consideration. Socialism as it stands serves to eliminate the aforementioned, thus I am forever against it.
Sigh I entered into a debate I was hoping to avoid... may leave it at this.
