A world without money.

[Mechablob]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

So, we'd not only have to be intelligent, healthy, moral, and with ample resources, but we'd also need to be okay with the notion of everyone having the same purchasing power regardless of effort. We'd have to be okay with potential freeloaders. Alternatively, we could simply NOT desire these things and only desire things that require little effort to develop/maintain/create/etc.

We ultimately have to start invoking a lot of assumptions for our society to operate without any sort of money requirements.

I do agree with your post completely, and even share the same view (I'm sort of trying to keep impartial about the topic; trying to acknowledge both sides of the argument). I reply to your post though as to say you could argue that many people have already gained their luxuries (TV, computer, cars) with minimal time at jobs that may require little skill. Or with no jobs at all. The people with no jobs at all, some of these people are already potential freeloaders - and even though some people leech from the taxpayer's money - as frustrating as it is - we end up having to tolerate it.

Although, I see there being much of a change in this if we had a world with no money, maybe strain created from people not earning anything from hard labour and seeing these people gain such luxuries for little to no work - I guess a much larger amount of frustration would form, really.

[Reincarnate]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

Okay, then where is the government going to get this wealth from? How will the government provide?

At the end of the chain it's ALWAYS an exchange between people... you solve nothing with crap like "Well, you're being paid in the form of government-dispersed credits. There's no direct interpersonal exchange! Voila! Everything is free!" You're completely ignoring cost. I can't tell if you're trolling me or if you're a blatant moron. If you have to work in order to acquire something, then it isn't free. You're probably the kind of idiot that would try to run an infomercial offering something as being "free" under condition of purchase. Free is free. If I am giving away something for free, that means I am dispersing the outputs of my labor for nothing in return.

I did a mistake when I said that everything was essentially free. I was trying to mean something else but, seriously... Whatever.
You don't have the capacity to deal with people you disagree with without being an arrogant, obnoxious jerk. I've discussed with people who believed the same as you or me, and they weren't like this. And I'm talking about doctors and people who have read thousands of books.

There is more than one possible approach at the cost issue, and I was trying to find something. You treat the system as idiotic even though it was never experienced before.

I was trying to say that certain limitations would not necessarily exist in every economical system. Even if I was actually wrong or ignored something I shouldn't have, all of this anger was completely unnecessary.

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

I did a mistake when I said that everything was essentially free. I was trying to mean something else but, seriously... Whatever.
You don't have the capacity to deal with people you disagree with without being an arrogant, obnoxious jerk. I've discussed with people who believed the same as you or me, and they weren't like this. And I'm talking about doctors and people who have read thousands of books.

There is more than one possible approach at the cost issue, and I was trying to find something. You treat the system as idiotic even though it was never experienced before.

I was trying to say that certain limitations would not necessarily exist in every economical system. Even if I was actually wrong or ignored something I shouldn't have, all of this anger was completely unnecessary.

I'd absolutely love to meet a doctor or scientist who has read "thousands of books" claim to agree with the sort of retarded economic logic you've tried to invoke in this thread. What kind of crap are they reading -- the Bible?

Your system has already been "experienced before" and we understand the economic implications well. You simply just *do not understand the basics yet.* It makes you sound like a complete asshole when you try to defend something that is clearly flawed for a variety of reasons you either ignore or circumvent. You can't just back out and say "I made a mistake that everything was free" when that's the entire thrust of this thread and debate.

If you don't understand what you're arguing, then stop pushing misinformation so vehemently. Your system doesn't solve anything or result in any real wealth generation or cost savings.

We determine value and cost as a result of market forces and consumer demand profiles. It's called "marginal benefit," or the amount of extra utility I derive from utilizing your output. Cost is simply the utility loss (marginal cost) incurred from providing said service/item. We measure this utility in terms of money, which is our translation base between what we exchange and what we want. Market forces determine these values as an equilibrium resultant of the interplay between all the various profiles.

[mhss1992]

Only that last paragraph was actually useful.

Originally Posted by Reincarnate

I'd absolutely love to meet a doctor or scientist who has read "thousands of books" claim to agree with the sort of retarded economic logic you've tried to invoke in this thread. What kind of crap are they reading -- the Bible?

Not at all. One subject has nothing to do with the other.
Strangely, though, you compared that system to socialism and communism, which were both very "non religious" systems, as far as I'm concerned.
At least try to keep your insults coherent, otherwise you're the one who'll look like a troll.

Your system has already been "experienced before" and we understand the economic implications well. You simply just *do not understand the basics yet.* It makes you sound like a complete asshole when you try to defend something that is clearly flawed for a variety of reasons you either ignore or circumvent. You can't just back out and say "I made a mistake that everything was free" when that's the entire thrust of this thread and debate.

I can say that I made a mistake when I see I did. You clearly don't seem to have the same capacity.

No, it hasn't been experienced before, at least not in the way I suggested, because it's not the same as socialism. It's not anywhere nearly as absurd as you made it seem, either. Inflation and costs would be managed differently, that's all.

The suggested system wasn't even ready, I was trying to start building something that could be plausible, an alternative to the current system. Regardless of who's right, I know you won't accept this possibility.

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

Only that last paragraph was actually useful.

Finally, he listens.

Originally Posted by mhss1992

Not at all. One subject has nothing to do with the other.
Strangely, though, you compared that system to socialism and communism, which were both very "non religious" systems, as far as I'm concerned.
At least try to keep your insults coherent, otherwise you're the one who'll look like a troll.

Are you serious? That remark was intended to be derogatory.

Really -- are you serious?

Originally Posted by mhss1992

I can say that I made a mistake when I see I did. You clearly don't seem to have the same capacity.

No, it hasn't been experienced before, at least not in the way I suggested, because it's not the same as socialism. It's not anywhere nearly as absurd as you made it seem, either. Inflation and costs would be managed differently, that's all.

The suggested system wasn't even ready, I was trying to start building something that could be plausible, an alternative to the current system. Regardless of who's right, I know you won't accept this possibility.

I'll admit I made a mistake when I actually make one. Last I checked, you were the one trying to argue in favor of retarded economic theories.

You don't even seem to understand things like inflation -- how can you claim that your system handles it differently? We know your system fails because we understand how supply and demand operate and how costs/benefits/values are calculated.

I swear, you're either the best troll I've ever met, or you are one of the thickest, most retarded people I've ever encountered.

[Arch0wl]

Talking about who "destroyed" who in a critical discussion is really counterproductive. It's fun, but it's basically just indulging your dislike for the other person or validating your perceived intelligence. Competitive framing like that is irrelevant to critical thought, because critical arguments are about playtesting ideas.

But beyond that, very few people will read a counterargument and say "oh wow, he completely destroyed me, I have to re-evaluate my whole life perspective now..." -- more than likely they'll find a creative way to avoid admitting they're wrong about some point, especially if they have a reason to dislike the person (personality, style of argument, whatever.)

If you're calling people trolls, agreeing to disagree, getting into deep meta-discussion about logical fallacies and feeling the need to conclude your argument dramatically with the hopes that people will read it and say "wow, destroyed" then you've failed to identify the loci of disagreement. I'm not just making this term up; 'loci of disagreement' is a common term in argumentation texts.

With all of that said, I couldn't let this one go

Originally Posted by mhss

the last IQ test I've done in my life was at 2 A.M and I was half-asleep. It measured up to 200 and I scored 186 (deviation 16). It looked like a serious test, though I just did it out of curiosity. I can also multiply two numbers with more than 10 digits mentally. Unfortunately, I can't prove these here.

There are valid IQ tests online, but the test you took was probably not one of them. Also, many people can multiply two numbers with more than ten digits mentally. More importantly, the number of people who can do that far exceed the number of people with 186 IQ. The highest confirmed IQ I've ever seen anyone have on FFR was in the 160s; most "really smart" people on FFR range from the 120s to the mid 140s, with a few people (and I stress few) in the 150s. People usually overestimate their IQ by a few dozen points most of the time.

If you want, Reach (who has studied psychometrics extensively and worked with a lot of psychometric data) can take a relatively accurate measure of your IQ. I doubt you really want to, though, since it seems like you were just using this to build your ethos.

[TC_Halogen]

Read quite a bit in this thread, and my question is directed at mhss - don't have much to say:

What is the point of having a point system again when it's still essentially implied as a trade? You keep mentioning something about how a person working gaining points, or credit, but then you also mention that once they get x credits, they get y. If these points are to be exchanged, then it's essentially back to a currency again. If these points just are a measure as to what you can get, there has to be a limitation imposed -- who would decide this limitation, and how would it be deemed a fair limitation (going back to the previous argument of lack of payment v. skills)?

EDIT:

If these points just are a measure as to what you can get [...]

relating to being able to get them, rather than a specific quantity.

[Cavernio]

"Take a really, really basic example: An economy of two people. You grow apples. I grow oranges. Everything is free. But I don't like apples and have no desire to acquire them from you. However, you'd still be able to take my oranges since they're free. Why would I ever want to agree to this sort of system?"

Because if you only produced oranges, you'd have an overabundance of them, and they'd go to rot, and you would only make them rot if you wanted to punish the other person in some way or another, or if your society taught you that giving away things for free is wrong. Also, you could ask for something like...a massage instead of apples. Of course this is outside the lines of what you defined, (only oranges and apples for trade), but I think it makes a very useful point in that there's always something more to trade.
Or, another possibility, if there's not an over-abundance of fruit on either side, the other person would produce less apples, giving themselves time to start helping you with your oranges. We don't need money to figure out what people want to adjust what we do accordingly.

"How about a system where you provide apples and I provide cars -- only I put countless years of effort into educating myself into developing the technology, gathering materials, testing, etc -- and let's say it's something I really dislike doing. And say I *still* don't want apples. Still a fair trade?"
But you wouldn't make cars in the first place unless you thought it was a fair trade (like if you were impressing the hot apple grower next door or something) or if you DID enjoy it implicitly.

Speaking along the lines of what people currently DO that pays poorly yet which is integral for all society, is farming. Yet there's still thousands of farmers in Canada and the US who barely make enough to scrape by. Many farmers work for years in debt, with little hope of actually making money in any given year. Yet they still keep doing it. Most business owners work in a situation of debt for years before becoming successful. Many never become 'successful', but make just enough to about break even. These people do things despite losing money. Most people create some sort of art during their lives and make no money for it, and are happy enough if someone just LIKES what they do.

Societal values hold so much more power over us than I think most people like to think. Our country isn't in a shambles not because we have capitalism and punishment for crimes, its because we have values of hard-work, respect for others and their things, and an innate human need to fit in and be appreciated by others. I mean, everyday most of us could easily steal things if we wanted to, yet most of us choose not to, and not out of fear of being caught.

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by ~kitty~

Not only this, but what sort of "intelligence" is being measured? We can't accurately measure someones intelligence, really.

Are you very familiar with psychological modeling? By "accurately measure intelligence" I take it you mean accurately measure intelligence to correspond with intelligence as most people see it. Saying this is impossible is true, but don't take the truth of that to mean much -- it's like saying "you can't know exactly what 'good' is." This doesn't mean the model is flawed. In fact, quite the opposite: it means that most people construct extremely ambiguous, circumstantial and perhaps even hypocritical definitions of intelligence to (1) protect and/or raise their self-esteem (2) validate their own perceptions and attempt to invalidate perceptions they disagree with.

To give an example, on numerous political websites I have visited 'intelligent' is synonymous with "person who agrees with me." Most people in reaction tend to give this "it can't be measured" response like you've given to avoid clarifying the ambiguity, I suspect because doing so would force them to acknowledge ways in which they might possibly not fit their own definition. Other definitions ("what's your Gossip Girl IQ?") already have some parallel in psychometrics (in the case of gossip girl, it's knowledge) that they don't realize and haven't considered simply because they intentionally shut out any clarification of the word 'intelligence' to begin with.

All of this is a red herring though because it frames the debate as an attempt to meet some definition of intelligence to be agreed upon, which will never happen because the definition for so many people hinges on its use as a psychological defense. The most useful model of intelligence -- that is, the model with the most predictive power, is the psychometric model or 'general intelligence' or g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

Originally Posted by ~kitty~

Taking a standardized test that gives a person a number that's based on other peoples performances in certain areas, which do not cover the whole spectrum of thought, couldn't possibly give an accurate measure of intelligence.

What spectrums of thought do you think are unmeasurable? I feel like you're relying on the ambiguity of the phrase "spectrum of thought" here in expectation that I will accept it and shut up. What I think you're underestimating is just how much thought has indeed been classified by the cognitive sciences.

Again, though, you are relying on the ambiguity of 'intelligence' to coast you through this claim. Your defense here -- that intelligence does not cover the entire spectrum of thought -- suggests that intelligence should encompass something which it is not. "to cover the entire spectrum of thought" would imply that intelligence should strive to be the definition of something like 'cognition'. Intelligence, however, is a type of cognition. It occupies its own area on the spectrum of thought, to use your metaphor.

Originally Posted by ~kitty~

Using IQ tests as a way to validate one's own intelligence is a bit pathetic, in my opinion, and shows that this person is desperate.

I agree with the intent with which you probably wrote this claim but not with it as it is written. Thinking that you are so smart that you are beyond measurement is much more typical of narcissistic behavior than those who accept their intelligence is, perhaps, somewhat limited. I have interacted with several people who scored in the 30s of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and all of those people were incensed by the concept that their intelligence could be assessed by a test. In their view, it was beyond testing.

I understand where you're coming from though. There are certainly people who use IQ tests as a self-esteem booster and cling to that number like a banker clings to his money. This is not a healthy way of seeing the world, and because the premise (that smartness makes you "better") relies on a hierarchical system, the people who do this may devalue people who do not score well on tests, which is not a very happy way to live.

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

"Take a really, really basic example: An economy of two people. You grow apples. I grow oranges. Everything is free. But I don't like apples and have no desire to acquire them from you. However, you'd still be able to take my oranges since they're free. Why would I ever want to agree to this sort of system?"

Because if you only produced oranges, you'd have an overabundance of them, and they'd go to rot, and you would only make them rot if you wanted to punish the other person in some way or another, or if your society taught you that giving away things for free is wrong. Also, you could ask for something like...a massage instead of apples. Of course this is outside the lines of what you defined, (only oranges and apples for trade), but I think it makes a very useful point in that there's always something more to trade.
Or, another possibility, if there's not an over-abundance of fruit on either side, the other person would produce less apples, giving themselves time to start helping you with your oranges. We don't need money to figure out what people want to adjust what we do accordingly.

The point of the initial quote was that an economy needs mutually beneficial exchanges to function. If we didn't need to trade anything, we'd just do everything ourselves (grow our own food, make our own clothes, etc) -- which we'd all rather not do (also due to our different skill sets, we may not be ABLE to). It's easier to specialize in what we're good at, and then have everyone leverage each other's talents.

If I don't want the apples that you grow but you want my oranges, you need to give me something I want. I may not want an apple or a massage or anything of the sort. I'd rather just acquire money from you so I can spend it to acquire someone else's services. If I knew that people were going to just take my oranges for free even though I didn't need anything from them, I'd grow just enough for myself and not bother to bust my ass growing oranges for others. It's not that giving away oranges for free is "wrong" -- it's that we, as humans, generally enjoy leisure to non-leisure, and don't see the point in incurring costs if there is no offsetting benefit.

Now, if you tried to FORCE everyone to contribute, you're also wasting resources if the demand isn't there. If I am forced to make oranges and you are forced to make apples, you'll certainly eat my oranges, but there will be a ton of apples I won't touch. Those apples will be needless inventory costs gone to waste. Wasted effort, wasted resources. Not only that, but I'm STILL not going to be happy about producing more oranges than I want.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

"How about a system where you provide apples and I provide cars -- only I put countless years of effort into educating myself into developing the technology, gathering materials, testing, etc -- and let's say it's something I really dislike doing. And say I *still* don't want apples. Still a fair trade?"
But you wouldn't make cars in the first place unless you thought it was a fair trade (like if you were impressing the hot apple grower next door or something) or if you DID enjoy it implicitly.

Speaking along the lines of what people currently DO that pays poorly yet which is integral for all society, is farming. Yet there's still thousands of farmers in Canada and the US who barely make enough to scrape by. Many farmers work for years in debt, with little hope of actually making money in any given year. Yet they still keep doing it. Most business owners work in a situation of debt for years before becoming successful. Many never become 'successful', but make just enough to about break even. These people do things despite losing money. Most people create some sort of art during their lives and make no money for it, and are happy enough if someone just LIKES what they do.

Societal values hold so much more power over us than I think most people like to think. Our country isn't in a shambles not because we have capitalism and punishment for crimes, its because we have values of hard-work, respect for others and their things, and an innate human need to fit in and be appreciated by others. I mean, everyday most of us could easily steal things if we wanted to, yet most of us choose not to, and not out of fear of being caught.

Generally speaking, there are plenty of integral jobs that don't pay well. Farming is very costly. You need a lot of land, equipment, workers, etc -- much of the crop sales go right back into the farm just to keep things operating. You can't change how quickly corn or chickens grow -- you can't change a field into something else on a whim. You're at the mercy of weather and other geo-rapings. However, there are plenty of reasons why farmers farm (genuine love of farming, family/generational influence due to being born into it, lifestyle choices, self-sustenance and security, etc). You can have jobs that pay little but have high levels of utility/happiness.

The problem is that you can't force everyone to feel the same level of utility. You are right that I wouldn't bother making cars if I didn't want to. That's the point of my argument -- it's not a fair trade to me if I am doing something I hate in exchange for something I don't even want. If everything were free, I would not bother doing something I didn't want to do.

Your next point may be, "Well, if you don't like making cars, then let someone else who enjoys it do it." This is true for cars, perhaps. But what about for professions that almost nobody WANTS to do and yet is still integral? The only reason we might provide a service we hate doing is because we're good at it and it yields profit. But if there were no profit to be had due to it being free, we'd be much less willing to pursue such a line of work (massively obvious example to me is investment banking. *Extremely* value-adding, and yet it's a profession that many people hate because of the educational requirements, long hours, and stressful work. As such, ibankers are paid more money than God, normally. Tell an ibanker they're working for free and they'll foam at the mouth and laugh themselves into a coma).

As for your final point, I think you are generally correct, but perhaps right for the wrong reasons. We don't do things like murder and steal because our society wouldn't be here otherwise. We've evolved the need and desire to work together in order to gain competitive advantage, and so these inclinations are built into our neurochemical hardwiring. Plenty of us will steal if we feel it's justified -- especially if there's little risk to getting caught.

[~kitty~]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

What spectrums of thought do you think are unmeasurable? I feel like you're relying on the ambiguity of the phrase "spectrum of thought" here in expectation that I will accept it and shut up. What I think you're underestimating is just how much thought has indeed been classified by the cognitive sciences.

Again, though, you are relying on the ambiguity of 'intelligence' to coast you through this claim. Your defense here -- that intelligence does not cover the entire spectrum of thought -- suggests that intelligence should encompass something which it is not. "to cover the entire spectrum of thought" would imply that intelligence should strive to be the definition of something like 'cognition'. Intelligence, however, is a type of cognition. It occupies its own area on the spectrum of thought, to use your metaphor.

Just quoting a small portion of what you said, and I wanted to say that I truly was asking a question when I asked about what kind of "intelligence" was being measured. It's because I do not know I ask. I was trying to be ambiguous with what I said, because I feel like one process of thought, which would be considered better in society, to be discouraged. There are people who score very well on tests that measure cognition and all, but some people have abilities to do things, mentally, that those others can't. Personally, my IQ score was actually pretty high, but I do not want to rely on that to determine things such as creativity and my value of "intelligence." I don't know if I'm making this clear, I never really was good with English.

[Cavernio]

"But what about for professions that almost nobody WANTS to do and yet is still integral? The only reason we might provide a service we hate doing is because we're good at it and it yields profit. But if there were no profit to be had due to it being free, we'd be much less willing to pursue such a line of work (massively obvious example to me is investment banking. *Extremely* value-adding, and yet it's a profession that many people hate because of the educational requirements, long hours, and stressful work. As such, ibankers are paid more money than God, normally. Tell an ibanker they're working for free and they'll foam at the mouth and laugh themselves into a coma)."

Firstly, I'm not sure there's any job that no one would end up doing just because they weren't paid. Most people I know don't want to be farmers simply because farming seems odius. Secondly, I really don't know what an investment banker does, beyond inferring what the name tells me. (Decides what to invest in.) However, my immediate reaction is that an investement banker would not be necessary in a world without money to invest. Someone would still need to determine what jobs would need to be done though, and that sounds like something interesting and also something possibly analogous to investment banking? Finally, if I'm completely wrong about what an ibanker does, and that their job is the most horrendous job of all, yet is incredibly utilitarian, then I would still say that if no one wants to do the job, then abandon it and find a better way to get the same result...(which would actually be a better result because how you get the result is a part of the result.) If no other way is possible, then it's not a good idea in the first place.
On another note, long hours is hardly a necessity for most jobs.
If we're talking about jobs that require educations though, there's plenty of people out there who spend thousands of dollars at school full-well knowing they're not going to get any money out of it when they leave.

The point about stealing was that society can build expectations and value things that would be conducive to a properly-run society, and that we can 'control' what people do in that way. Biologically we're inclined to follow the group, and hence values that a group adopts are likely to be adopted by the people in the group.

" as humans, generally enjoy leisure to non-leisure, and don't see the point in incurring costs if there is no offsetting benefit."
Exactly. So why the hell do we need some sort of outward source, like money, to influence what we want to do? If you don't understand the importance of your job and stand by it, then you shouldn't be doing that job. People are educated. Besides which, a point that I was trying to make was that the line between leisure and work is by no means clear. One person's work is another person's pleasure.

"It's easier to specialize in what we're good at, and then have everyone leverage each other's talents."

And realistically, if society were to switch over to a situation where money was not used whatsoever, all the organization and specificity of skills that we currently have wouldn't just suddenly disappear. If someone has a vision for something which requires lots of smaller parts working together to make a glorious whole, outward incentive, like money, is not an integral part of making that happen.

"Now, if you tried to FORCE everyone to contribute, you're also wasting resources if the demand isn't there. If I am forced to make oranges and you are forced to make apples, you'll certainly eat my oranges, but there will be a ton of apples I won't touch. Those apples will be needless inventory costs gone to waste. Wasted effort, wasted resources. Not only that, but I'm STILL not going to be happy about producing more oranges than I want."

Well I never did say I would support forcing anyone to do anything, seeing as that's what's the 'problem' with money is, as I see it, in that it coerces people into doing things they don't want to do. Also, I think there could only be less waste in a society not driven by money. I wouldn't feel compelled to waste my time and effort doing something I know no one else appreciates.

[Reincarnate]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Firstly, I'm not sure there's any job that no one would end up doing just because they weren't paid. Most people I know don't want to be farmers simply because farming seems odius. Secondly, I really don't know what an investment banker does, beyond inferring what the name tells me. (Decides what to invest in.) However, my immediate reaction is that an investement banker would not be necessary in a world without money to invest. Someone would still need to determine what jobs would need to be done though, and that sounds like something interesting and also something possibly analogous to investment banking? Finally, if I'm completely wrong about what an ibanker does, and that their job is the most horrendous job of all, yet is incredibly utilitarian, then I would still say that if no one wants to do the job, then abandon it and find a better way to get the same result...(which would actually be a better result because how you get the result is a part of the result.) If no other way is possible, then it's not a good idea in the first place.
On another note, long hours is hardly a necessity for most jobs.

Again, this operates under the same sort of fallacy of implying that without money, we somehow make something "free" or render the concept of "investment" obsolete. An investment is simply a way of saying "If I give you resources to produce value with, you can keep some of that value and return some to me as well." We generally invest in things that have a decent return. An easy to understand example: You might be a brilliant artist but perhaps you are constantly starving and spending your time looking for food. I might "invest" in you by offering to feed you while you spend your time making paintings -- as long as I get a cut of your profits (in whatever form that payment may be). Such a situation is a win-win synergy of value assuming the art is sufficient good and the demand is sufficiently high. You get to eat at a low cost to me -- in exchange for an artistic profit that we both benefit from. Another form of investment in this example might be a purchase of better art supplies. Maybe you're pretty good with pencils but you'd be brilliant with a decent set of paints -- but you wouldn't be able to leverage your skills as much without some outside help.

I stress again: Removing money *does not change the fact that money translates to underlying goods and services of value.*

But it ultimately comes to down your statement "If nobody wants to do the job, then abandon it." The problem is that this job might provide something of great value. Even if it's a job that a few people love -- we might still need MORE of them to achieve a certain quality of life -- and this would be done by giving an incentive/further compensation.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

If we're talking about jobs that require educations though, there's plenty of people out there who spend thousands of dollars at school full-well knowing they're not going to get any money out of it when they leave.

Again, though, this is about utility. Those people spend thousands because they genuinely enjoy the subject and are willing to take on the costs. Such fields may or may not provide marketable value.

Originally Posted by Cavernio

And realistically, if society were to switch over to a situation where money was not used whatsoever, all the organization and specificity of skills that we currently have wouldn't just suddenly disappear. If someone has a vision for something which requires lots of smaller parts working together to make a glorious whole, outward incentive, like money, is not an integral part of making that happen.

This line of action leads to lots of inherent problems. You still need investment of resources to get things lifting. Vision/drive alone doesn't result in innovation and improvements. It's harder to leverage resources without a simple normalized intermediary like money. Let's say I want to build better watches. I could simply acquire the resources I want "for free," but then what's to stop how much material I can acquire? What about the suppliers of my materials and their economic positions and incentives? Who controls what? If we simply leave it up to the government, how do they justify the distribution? How do you stop that system from being gamed?

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Well I never did say I would support forcing anyone to do anything, seeing as that's what's the 'problem' with money is, as I see it, in that it coerces people into doing things they don't want to do. Also, I think there could only be less waste in a society not driven by money. I wouldn't feel compelled to waste my time and effort doing something I know no one else appreciates.

People wouldn't bother doing things they disliked unless it had a payoff. We may not *like* working a summer job in retail, but we do it because it gives us money to spend on things we want/need. Furthermore, if no one else "appreciated" your work, they wouldn't pay you, accordingly (otherwise that's being overpaid). Incomes/wages are investments. I pay a worker X dollars an hour because I know that the opportunity cost is greater by NOT hiring the worker.

[devonin]

Cleaned out all the garbage. Seriously guys, I expect better from you in here. Even if you're feeling trolled, you just PM me or whatever, and I'll have a looksee. Letting yourself get baited into a flamewar just makes you -both- look like idiots.

[Reincarnate]

not when you're right

[devonin]

Nope, even then. Winning at the special olympics and whatnot.

[Reincarnate]

Again, not really

The hilarious thing is that people with a lot of power in this country make really retarded mistakes like these in the favor of screwed incentives, lack of foresight, and moral hazard.

It's always good to remind people of the basics.

[Arch0wl]

Labeling people 'retarded' can be a powerful device when done properly because it is a negative example. It does nothing to persuade the person you're debating with, this is true. But unless this is an issue on which many people will have already made up their minds (abortion, for example) it's likely that not everyone reading you has, in fact, made up their minds. They're looking for a "side" to join. And if they see someone being called retarded, they have to face the strong possibility that if they join that side they, too, will be called retarded.

On the internet though, the dynamic is a bit different. Forums put most people on equal footing, so it usually doesn't work very well. It only works if the authority of the "retard" label is greater than any authority which might oppose it. So usually, you either need a chorus of people calling someone retarded or an extremely authoritative voice (a professor among students, for example) to deliver the "don't be like this retard" blow.

[foilman8805]

Thanks for breaking that down dude.