 |
|
|
|
|
|
I like #13.
Kool-aid good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I personally liked No.3, and yes, yes I was 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I think we should just abandon hard currency all together.
loctrice:
I'm for no money at all. People just doing what they want/like to do. Everyone has a job [or attends school (etc) to be trained for a job]. Would be nice, unfortunately people [and government] would screw it up.
I put this off to a friend of mine once, and he was very abrasive about it. The notion that people would just go to work and nothing would cost any money was not something he could grasp. So people can just go to the market during the open operating hours and pick up some groceries.. stopping to check out only because it would be necessary for inventory. Things like that. He "what if'ed" me to death worried over details and explaining how it wouldn't work, and never even got the concept.
BobJanova: In brief it wouldn't work because no-one would do the unfun things – fixing the sewers, taking your rubbish away, cleaning toilets, farming to the level that it would feed everyone – and you wouldn't be able to get people to work on large scale infrastructure projects.
I don't think that is true. First, it's hard to tell because money is a motivating factor for many people. This makes it very hard to find the actual truth.
Also, I know many people who really enjoy physical labor. Some to feel honest, some to keep fit, etc. That may also be dishonest due to money being behind motivation.I also know people who feel it's a responsibility to do things (in reference to cleaning the garbage, etc.)
Another thing we would have, is different solutions to problems. Who is to say, when corporations, money, etc.. don't run things that we find an entirely different solution to problems like hauling away the garbage and cleaning the sewer? Things like our electrical grids in the US would likely change by people who enjoy solving these types of problems... and probably in a way that wouldn't require the electricity to go out until the change was made.
It is hard to say what would/could come about in these different circumstances because everything is engineered around the money situation. Some people really love to teach, others to research, others to work hard. There are people for everything and I believe it would work well.
If it moves, compile it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i agree with you, and for the hard work, for this we make robots. money is the only reason why we're not on the moon nor have full function robots to do all sorts of hard work.
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Someday it may be possible. After our technological ramping. Right now though that is what drives the technological ramp and as far as I can tell is quite required.
The reason is simple. The world is not yet automated. We need people to do many tasks they do not "want" to do. They do it for the money. They earn their money and then spend it on devices that then fund the next generation of devices.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think out technology is not ramping because of the money. We have potential engineers and scientists who do not make it into the field because they cannot afford to go to get the degrees, and in the end get overlooked entirely.
As a simple example, I know a friend who was very much into circuitry. He could build breadboards, iron on circuits, and stuff that was way out of my league. He said he always wanted to do it, but in the end was a carpenter because that was what was necessary (money) at the time. I almost had him talked into pursuing it, because he really was gifted, but he died in a car crash.
How many of those types of people are we overlooking? How many great artists will we never see because of the lack of adobe? etc...
If it moves, compile it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree there are people that are overlooked but in the end it is sometimes irrelevent. Someone else will develop the tech if there is a demand for it.
Someone else will do it because they wanted to make money. Not because they simply had a passion or nack for doing it.
Granted I said 'sometimes' irrelevent. Some people are entirely overlooked because they could not afford it etc.
I think in the end it balances though. I know a lot of people that are very smart in tech fields doing what they do because the money is good. They are also very good at it. However it is not their 'passion'. If you take away the money drive for it they would likely sit around all day playing video games or something.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but along with taking away the money for it you will be offering the opportunity to find (and then do) what they are actually passionate about.
In some ways I agree with your points. I think, however, that it would still balance out if money was done away with. I also understand that some people will just do nothing because they can get away with it. That will also balance out though.
If it moves, compile it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Someday it will. Not today though. We have only a fraction of our society automated. So many things to do and really there is not enough people.
I know I know. You are going to say but unemployement is at double digits etc.
That is not because there is a lack of work. That is more likely because people are not trained for the work that is needed. For every field that is laying off there is multiple fields that can not hire fast enough because the candidates simply are not there.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collin Jasnoch wrote: That is not because there is a lack of work. That is more likely because people are not trained for the work that is needed. For every field that is laying off there is multiple fields that can not hire fast enough because the candidates simply are not there.
I would have made this argument  but you did it for me. I would have only followed with the availability of training and the means to do so.
I think everyone is definately right about automation/robots. That seems to be a common agreement. Too bad I won't see significant automation in my lifetime.
If it moves, compile it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ya never know. Technology is crazy like that. Small break throughs trigger intense changes that society rides the tidal waves on for decades and then starts new large waves off the ripples even after things seem to settle.
Look at the digital computer and how it developed and has driven us into a mobile era. I stand in line at Chipolte and look around and atleast 50% of the people are doing something online with smart phones. Augmented reality will like improve the efficiency of what they are doing and also increase that number.
And that is just around the corner.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
loctrice wrote: I think out technology is not ramping because of the money.
I can't speak about you but money pays my bills. That money comes from sales.
No innovation in the above. And certainly no innovation in the day to day realities of the market.
loctrice wrote: How many great artists will we never see because of the lack of {fill in any term here}
Certainly far less than the average number of artists and certainly no more than the below average number of artists that any such statement would lead to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your system: I collect trash but want to live in a 10000 square foot mansion overlooking the ocean. I'm a doctor and want the same thing. There is only 1 house available: who get's it?
Bottom line: money is a really good way to effect a fair system where you take the money you earn and use it to barter for the goods and services you need to live. The more effort you put in the more you will earn, the more things you can buy. Of course the system isn't fair: why should some dopey short ass actor earn millions and a nurse is barely able to survive? That is life: regardless of the system used there will always be inequalities.
The system you propose is, essentially, communism and even with that there are the haves and have-nots. Until we have a society in which replicators can freely produce what we need and there are robots to do the heavy lifting we have the best system that money can buy.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mark merrens wrote: There is only 1 house available: who get's it?
The gun owner!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure there are nowhere near enough people who love taking rubbish away, cleaning up after the lazy and so on to have those things actually done without getting some people who don't want to do it to do so, which is what money does. There are alternatives, like slavery or compulsion, but those are fairly self-evidently (I hope!) worse than a monetary incentive.
Most of your post is 'well maybe if we tried it it would all be fine' and frankly that's not a good way to promote an idea.
And as already stated, there's the issue of how you solve competition for scarce resources. In an imaginary utopia you can forget about that, but in the real world there is only one perfect site for a house on the bend in the river, there probably isn't enough food for everyone to eat exactly what they want, and if you want to apply that to the modern world, there certainly aren't enough Lambos and Learjets for everyone. How do you determine who gets the best things? I agree that unfettered capitalism and using money to determine that has problems, but you have to provide a credible alternative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BobJanova wrote: I'm pretty sure there are nowhere near enough people who love taking rubbish away, cleaning up after the lazy and so on
I'm pretty sure that other ways would be brought about to do this (as I mentioned before).
BobJanova wrote: there certainly aren't enough Lambos and Learjets for everyone.
But there could be. Economically it wouldn't make sense to make only Lambos right now because it would bankrupt you. Not everyone wants a Lambo either, and not everyone would because with the abolishment of money then status quos would change and it wouldn't be the "cool thing" then. Also, for [our current economy] and our earth it doesn't make a lot of sense to keep producing the lambo's, jets, and fuel/gas guzzlers. This is already in the process of changing, it just hasn't happened yet.
BobJanova wrote: in the real world there is only one perfect site for a house on the bend in the river,
You are correct, and I have no solution for this. In history tribes have warred over the same things. Warring isn't really a valid solution, but that is likely what would happen, and then rise another government leading back through the pages to where we are today. I agree, this is a tough problem and a solution would have to be brought about. I don't have it though.
All good points.
If it moves, compile it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
loctrice wrote: But there could be.
Where exactly is one going to fly a Lear Jet when there are 250 million other Lear Jets in the air at the same time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I could keep my same standard of living and length of work day, I'd rather be farming in a second!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, I agree with you on something. Believe it or not, that is what I am in the process of doing. It is very doable, but you can't compete with the 1000 acre farms. Small, sustainable farming. I bought some land and now we are building a house. The potential is actually much greater than what I earn as a dev. Anyway, don't give up on your dreams.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We found a farm (organic for lat 7 years, self powered) within commutable distance to my office, but it's just too much money to purchase. I'd probably open it as a B&B and/or wedding venue, too, but just can't raise the capital for a down payment even ($1m asking price). I know I could go way outside the city and pull it off (make the purchase), but I wouldn't try it without being able to keep my day job.
What region is your farm in?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Metro Atlanta. Still lots of cheap land for sale but in the middle of populated areas so there are plenty of buyers. The organic market continues to grow every year and people continue to realize how much junk is in the food we eat and are looking for alternatives so I think it will always be a very good market.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I bet the land down there is 1/10 the cost of what I'm looking at. Best of luck, it's humid subtropical down there with a long growing season, great for growing all kinds of stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ryanb31 wrote: and people continue to realize how much junk is in the food we eat
People keep making emotional decisions based on marketing claims and provably wrong assertions from the current flavor of the week reality star.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Rant 
Admin