3 ms·
I think I'll skip the debate over "the size of things" and just suggest there's a significant problem with our current rate of utilization and fair distribution
by whyme 13y ago
I think I'll skip the debate over "the size of things" and just suggest there's a significant problem with our current rate of utilization and fair distribution. If your argument is simply that we have room for optimizing the worlds resources, then sure I can agree with that, but frankly I doubt that's going to work very well under a model that's really dog eat dog and has a hoarding, power hungry society that uses money as the means to manage the distribution and ownership of things.
- pdonis 13y agoa hoarding, power hungry society that uses money as the means to manage the distribution and ownership of things. Actually, I think the problem is that we don't use money enough to manage distribution and ownership; too much distribution and ownership is controlled by factors other than money. But it's true that there is a problem with money as a control mechanism, though it isn't what you appear to think it is: the problem with money as a control mechanism is that governments manipulate the money supply for political reasons.
- whyme 13y ago"...is that governments manipulate the money supply for political reasons." That's the power hungry part I'm talking about. The government is not some machine that is broken, it's a select group of people within our society running around trying to balance appeasing the public horde while trying to amass as much power as possible. The behaviour of the people within government is a reflection of the state and quality of our society as a whole.
- pdonis 13y agoSo how would you fix this problem?
- whyme 13y agoHow is not relevant. What's relevant is that society has to change to the point where it becomes possible and also a priority. I do believe, unfortunately[1], that the money system has to collapse first. 1. unfortunately in the sense that some hardship will follow suit.
- pdonis 13y agoHow is not relevant. In other words, you're punting. You say "society has to change" but you refuse to give any information about how it has to change. Other than saying you think the money system has to collapse first, which doesn't inspire confidence; to say that "some hardship will follow suit" is a massive understatement.
- whyme 13y agoI don't see the how part as something worth getting into. It's also dependant on the technological advancements and makeup of society at the time change starts to happen. It took centuries for the monetary systems to develop with many bumps a long the way. That will also need to happen in a resource managed economy.
- pdonis 13y agoI don't see the how part as something worth getting into. In other words, you advocate a "resource managed economy" but you conveniently exempt yourself from having to explain how you are going to avoid having it suck the way the Soviet Union sucked. Pardon me for not getting all excited about society spending centuries in that quagmire. For all the problems our current money economies have, they are still way better than the Soviet Union.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]