3 ms·

That’s all great. I work five days a week and all. I just don’t want to be oppressed by money. Notice that all points you mentioned are economically related. Ma

by Frummy 3y ago

That’s all great. I work five days a week and all. I just don’t want to be oppressed by money. Notice that all points you mentioned are economically related. Maybe I’d use that extra day to paint and read poetry, or smoke cigs and drink beer on the porch. I actually don’t do that but either way I value the freedom to do what I want with my time more than money and power (edit: power as in over the rest, compared to with the rest back from the few). I’m just speaking for myself here, but I would predict a cultural increase for society as well. Others would love what you mention. I still think they would be shortsighted, Ive been fired and manipulated by companies, more stability could even reduce that so I admit my bias, but the second order effects of the elites disproportional capital increase is more social and political power to them which I think leads to oppression. Maybe fifteen years later the people who love your perks wont even notice that they have less rights, potentially from corporate lobbying, worse health from work, and maybe they forgot to have fun and be creative as well since theres no time for that.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Well, the good news is you can't be oppressed by money. Money is just a value intermediary. What you value might require you doing something of value to someone else. That might be employing them at a steady wage, or giving them back more money later than they gave you today, or doing some task or service for someone who contracts or employs you, or whatever it is. In terms of oppression: it's possible. I would just put the blame where it's deserved. Corporate lobbying is not bad. The government, who takes money from you to pay for itself, should be lobby-proof. That might be one of the most important things they do. If they can't just take money and spend it well without being corrupted by companies who'd like it to do things, that is a failure of government. As for being fun and creative: up until not too long ago many lives were short and almost all were hard. Some of us, especially in the West, have been able to break away from that due to various advances. That's great, but it's not something to return to as much as it is to keep improving towards, or settle for the advances we have and enjoy them.
- Frummy 3y ago
  I’ll be direct: no amount of money will buy back my time. I would like to take power from the state as well, not just corporations, so moving the goalpost to the state is a different target rather than a nullifier. I know what money is, but who has most of it in their hands and what do they value? Get it. As for your third point, time that doesn’t serve capital doesnt equal laziness and enjoyment of the spoils of previous generations. Rather it could increase the likelihood of a new renaissancelike period, for culture and reason. Tech and economy is alright but it doesn’t stop with a day less in the office, those four days become more creative and productive from the extra rest alone. I work much harder and effectively on my own projects, and detest the bureaucracy in state and capital. More time and freedom means more of what humans are supposed to be, not stagnation. There’s a reason our society is based on debt, it forces people to do what they rather wouldnt have.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > I know what money is, but who has most of it in their hands and what do they value? Get it. Sorry, I don't understand this. Who cares who has most of it? My point is money doesn't oppress. That doesn't change if other people have more or less money than me. If we revert to a pre-money society, it's unlikely we lower any levels of oppression that exist. > those four days become more creative and productive from the extra rest alone This doesn't generalise. Does it work for the service industry? Emergency services? Electricians? I get that there are a few luxury white collar jobs (e.g. tech worker) that can probably benefit from this, but I don't think it's normal at all. > There’s a reason our society is based on debt, it forces people to do what they rather wouldnt have. No, it's so that people can have things earlier in their lives. I could work for 40 years and eventually buy somewhere cash, or I could borrow some money and pay it back over years. I choose the latter, and that's why there's debt: almost everyone finds that to be their best option.
    - Frummy 3y ago
      I think you took my sentence too literally. I dont consider money as a concept oppressive. What Im saying is the wealthiest in the world don’t have the same values, they pursue different things. Where money is, and where it moves, matters because it has social and political effects. Money is power, or energy if you will. It amplifies the values of who uses it, shaping what they have under their control to their demands. Now the thing is, a few people own big stakes of companies, companies that employ the rest of the people. The owners want to profit, they want these employees to give as much as possible to increase profit. If the people at the bottom are powerless, they become batteries for the vision of the owner. And they can’t quit their job, because they wouldn’t be able to pay their mortgage that got more expensive with a higher interest rate. And when times are tough and they dont have liquid cash, they take credit with a high interest rate to get by the month. Now they’re in a bad debt cycle, they dont choose over their lives and have to stay in servitude until they can make that debt manageable again. Debt has good applications and bad applications but let’s not pretend that it’s not a tool for control. Yes, new tech can’t apply everywhere. If an improvement can be made somewhere but not everywhere, it should still be made in the place it can. The elite are pulling in their direction. The rest have to pull just as hard or the world becomes less equal.

by Frummy 3y ago

robertlagrant 3y ago

Well, the good news is you can't be oppressed by money. Money is just a value intermediary. What you value might require you doing something of value to someone else. That might be employing them at a steady wage, or giving them back more money later than they gave you today, or doing some task or service for someone who contracts or employs you, or whatever it is. In terms of oppression: it's possible. I would just put the blame where it's deserved. Corporate lobbying is not bad. The government, who takes money from you to pay for itself, should be lobby-proof. That might be one of the most important things they do. If they can't just take money and spend it well without being corrupted by companies who'd like it to do things, that is a failure of government. As for being fun and creative: up until not too long ago many lives were short and almost all were hard. Some of us, especially in the West, have been able to break away from that due to various advances. That's great, but it's not something to return to as much as it is to keep improving towards, or settle for the advances we have and enjoy them.

Frummy 3y ago
I’ll be direct: no amount of money will buy back my time. I would like to take power from the state as well, not just corporations, so moving the goalpost to the state is a different target rather than a nullifier. I know what money is, but who has most of it in their hands and what do they value? Get it. As for your third point, time that doesn’t serve capital doesnt equal laziness and enjoyment of the spoils of previous generations. Rather it could increase the likelihood of a new renaissancelike period, for culture and reason. Tech and economy is alright but it doesn’t stop with a day less in the office, those four days become more creative and productive from the extra rest alone. I work much harder and effectively on my own projects, and detest the bureaucracy in state and capital. More time and freedom means more of what humans are supposed to be, not stagnation. There’s a reason our society is based on debt, it forces people to do what they rather wouldnt have.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > I know what money is, but who has most of it in their hands and what do they value? Get it. Sorry, I don't understand this. Who cares who has most of it? My point is money doesn't oppress. That doesn't change if other people have more or less money than me. If we revert to a pre-money society, it's unlikely we lower any levels of oppression that exist. > those four days become more creative and productive from the extra rest alone This doesn't generalise. Does it work for the service industry? Emergency services? Electricians? I get that there are a few luxury white collar jobs (e.g. tech worker) that can probably benefit from this, but I don't think it's normal at all. > There’s a reason our society is based on debt, it forces people to do what they rather wouldnt have. No, it's so that people can have things earlier in their lives. I could work for 40 years and eventually buy somewhere cash, or I could borrow some money and pay it back over years. I choose the latter, and that's why there's debt: almost everyone finds that to be their best option.
  - Frummy 3y ago
    I think you took my sentence too literally. I dont consider money as a concept oppressive. What Im saying is the wealthiest in the world don’t have the same values, they pursue different things. Where money is, and where it moves, matters because it has social and political effects. Money is power, or energy if you will. It amplifies the values of who uses it, shaping what they have under their control to their demands. Now the thing is, a few people own big stakes of companies, companies that employ the rest of the people. The owners want to profit, they want these employees to give as much as possible to increase profit. If the people at the bottom are powerless, they become batteries for the vision of the owner. And they can’t quit their job, because they wouldn’t be able to pay their mortgage that got more expensive with a higher interest rate. And when times are tough and they dont have liquid cash, they take credit with a high interest rate to get by the month. Now they’re in a bad debt cycle, they dont choose over their lives and have to stay in servitude until they can make that debt manageable again. Debt has good applications and bad applications but let’s not pretend that it’s not a tool for control. Yes, new tech can’t apply everywhere. If an improvement can be made somewhere but not everywhere, it should still be made in the place it can. The elite are pulling in their direction. The rest have to pull just as hard or the world becomes less equal.