politics, movements, global concerns and other things i've never had any interest in.

[Guest Ricky Downtown]

Being unemployed is actually a huge part of the movement.

 

false

 

 

actually that's true.

[Dale]

dont base an entire economy off of debt you motherfuckers.

just to clarify: all money is created as a debt

[Hautlle]

Being unemployed is actually a huge part of the movement.

 

false

 

 

actually that's true.

 

data or source?

 

4. Employment: Are you employed, underemployed, or unemployed?

53% Employed

18% Part-time employed/ underemployed

14% Students

15% Unemployed

 

That's data from #OWS in Zuccotti Park The national unemployment rate is 9%, so there's not a huge difference between the protesters and the general population.

 

http://www.douglassc...glas_Schoen.pdf

 

more data here http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/most-occupy-protesters-have-jobs.html

[Guest A/D]

thank you Chen, that was very helpful.

[chenGOD]

Bread - that's not true at all. In a fractional reserve system, the money created by chartered banks is created as debt that is true. However, if the money is printed by the Bank of Canada it's not debt, since the Canadian government owns the Bank of Canada. It is inflationary (and only slightly), but inflation is not necessarily a bad thing - it allows for expansion of the money supply as an economy expands.

[Atop]

Sorry for the length on this one folks but I feel Luke's frustration and I also respect the crap out of him so here is my response:

 

Rural dwellers, usually, don't see homeless people and excessively rich people all walking pass one another every day. City dwellers are bombarded with the iniquities of human society so we feel the need to fix what we have misguidedly created.

 

Those of us whom work our asses off and live in cities where that hard work is never really worth the effort, because of it all going to rent/bills. This can lead a life in which we want to be more connected to nature, without consciously knowing it. The urban dwellers propagate endless amounts of trash and we have trouble finding a place to put the trash. We want to be more connected to nature but most US cities do not plan towns with enough parks and activities for us to participate in. This keeps us disconnected from our life source. In my opinion, this disconnection breeds most psychological neurosis and psychosis in the human condition.

 

So if you are not feeling like being a part of these protests because you are happy with your life then do not worry about it Luke. There is enough of us concentrated in cities that need a more human way of life that is not provided for us, that we do not provide for ourselves. We would all do better to get out of the city every now and then to realize what matters most and what is more powerful then our society and that is nature. I think this whole movement is a reaction to man trying to control nature and not live with it.

 

The best way to protest is to move out to the rural areas and to not support this broken world economic system. To support the local economies would show where humanity should focus their attention. The bigger picture and working with it correctly usually involves simplification of one's life in order to not be a part of the problem. Our massive broken worldwide system of trying to be united under one monetary system is not working. Humans work better in small groups. We fuck everything up when we get into large groups and try to do something as one unit, e.g. Nazis, the inquisition, post revolution Soviet Union, China, US foreign policy, etc. We would do better to simplify our lives.

 

So now that I have come off as a complete hippy I would like to say that I love technology and think it should be used wisely. I love comic books. I love machines. I love electronic music. I love life in general. I just think the city dwellers have a diseased mindset. This is why I support the protests. Ending corporate greed/influence on society will do humanity a lot of good. Then we can get back to more simple/less stressful way of living. Then we can focus on ourselves and our minds to make a better society for those in the future. At the current rate of trash creation, there will be no future for mankind. We have moved into a new era. Hopefully, one that includes a more peaceful and loving way of life, where we can stop worrying about nuclear fallout and oceans ruined by oil spills and the world being ruined by giant corporations raping the earth and our minds. The earth will mend its wounds if we allow it to do so and not do any further damage.

 

I want to keep the hippy ideals and leave the hippy Pollyanna attitudes. We need to be held accountable for our actions. We can only blame ourselves for the amount of influence corporations have had on our lives. The urban peoples are to blame so we have to fix it. We will fix it.

[Dale]

Bread - that's not true at all. In a fractional reserve system, the money created by chartered banks is created as debt that is true. However, if the money is printed by the Bank of Canada it's not debt, since the Canadian government owns the Bank of Canada. It is inflationary (and only slightly), but inflation is not necessarily a bad thing - it allows for expansion of the money supply as an economy expands.

I guess things aren't as problematic if, for example, the central bank is owned by the government. However, in some instances, central banks are private entities.

Money is printed and loaned out to the government. The government owe the money for the loan plus interest. Where does the interest come from? This is why the very nature of the banking system is a joke. You're forgetting commercial banks - they are not owned by government. They also create/expand the money supply.

 

Inflation is a constant in the economy for new money is always needed to help cover the perpetual deficit built into the system caused by the need to pay the interest. So, mathematically, defaults and bankruptcies are literally built into the system - which means there will ALWAYS be poor people in society.

 

Anyway - I see discussions over money a waste of time because I think it's time we outgrow such an old notion. People holding onto the monetary paradigm are not aware of what we can achieve on a scientific/technological level for everyone.

[luke viia]

That was a very nice post, Atop, but I must add that rural dwellers are not exempt from encouraging the economic/social problems that OWS is fighting. Having grown up in a small midwestern town, I can tell you that the people who inhabit my corner of the rural world are just as much at fault for allowing this economic system to flourish as any city-dweller. There are often less options for rural folks, and that makes being 'responsible' difficult - for instance, my home-town has no system in place for recycling, and the only department store in town is Walmart. I have encouraged my family numerous times to petition their city council for a recycling plan - it can actually generate a lot of revenue - but they refuse and contend that such things are not important, and that they are "happy the way they are." Much like Luke's sentiments. I completely understand this attitude and do not think it is the cause of any of the Occupy-related issues, but it's clear that that attitude certainly doesn't lend itself to any good solution.

 

Luke, I think you're a great person - and by and large, I sympathize with your viewpoints in this thread. I am also not protesting in public, though I can no longer count the number of conversations I've had w/ my peers about Occupy - and I've argued for and against it [devils advocate/double-checking that my friends know what they're talking about, etc]. What's important, IMO, is that you understand the goals and issues that underlie the Occupy movement, and that if you find you take issue with the way things are being run (and I think you will, at least in some respect), then it is important that you do not stay silent.

 

The main benefit that the protests have had, IMO, is to raise general awareness, and eloquently spoken folks like chen, hautlle, and Atop (among others here) are just the kind of public outreach that will help folks like you and I the most. Physical bodies in the street is helpful, but it often feels like preaching to the choir while, literally, you are poked with sticks. Like you (again, @luke), I am generally busy with my own goals and have no interest in protesting downtown in large groups of people that have many entirely different reasons for being there than I do.

 

So please, read up on what this whole thing is about, and if it moves you in any way, find your own way to participate - it doesn't have to be going to protests w/ your mooching friend.

[chenGOD]

Bread - that's not true at all. In a fractional reserve system, the money created by chartered banks is created as debt that is true. However, if the money is printed by the Bank of Canada it's not debt, since the Canadian government owns the Bank of Canada. It is inflationary (and only slightly), but inflation is not necessarily a bad thing - it allows for expansion of the money supply as an economy expands.

I guess things aren't as problematic if, for example, the central bank is owned by the government. However, in some instances, central banks are private entities.

Money is printed and loaned out to the government. The government owe the money for the loan plus interest. Where does the interest come from? This is why the very nature of the banking system is a joke. You're forgetting commercial banks - they are not owned by government. They also create/expand the money supply.

 

Inflation is a constant in the economy for new money is always needed to help cover the perpetual deficit built into the system caused by the need to pay the interest. So, mathematically, defaults and bankruptcies are literally built into the system - which means there will ALWAYS be poor people in society.

 

Anyway - I see discussions over money a waste of time because I think it's time we outgrow such an old notion. People holding onto the monetary paradigm are not aware of what we can achieve on a scientific/technological level for everyone.

 

I'm not forgetting private banks - I'm simply saying that not all money is based on debt.

Yes of course in there are central banks which are private - i don't agree with that concept. Here's something for you - when was the last time Canada had a banking crisis? What were the rules regarding reserves then vs. the rules regarding reserves now? (It's not what you think)

 

Ah yes - you can't argue your way out so just dismiss it. I'm just not aware of the alternatives. That's some good debating.

[Atop]

Yeah Mr Viia. Thank you for the insight. I know about corporations overrunning small towns. I just figured that either the people who work at these places are okay with their lives, don't know any better, or don't have any other options for making money. This does bother me. All people in the US will hopefully benefit from any positive outcomes from the protests. They can hopefully begin to make their own money and not have to rely on any corporations. Back to farming everyone. Local everything.

[Dale]

Bread - that's not true at all. In a fractional reserve system, the money created by chartered banks is created as debt that is true. However, if the money is printed by the Bank of Canada it's not debt, since the Canadian government owns the Bank of Canada. It is inflationary (and only slightly), but inflation is not necessarily a bad thing - it allows for expansion of the money supply as an economy expands.

I guess things aren't as problematic if, for example, the central bank is owned by the government. However, in some instances, central banks are private entities.

Money is printed and loaned out to the government. The government owe the money for the loan plus interest. Where does the interest come from? This is why the very nature of the banking system is a joke. You're forgetting commercial banks - they are not owned by government. They also create/expand the money supply.

 

Inflation is a constant in the economy for new money is always needed to help cover the perpetual deficit built into the system caused by the need to pay the interest. So, mathematically, defaults and bankruptcies are literally built into the system - which means there will ALWAYS be poor people in society.

 

Anyway - I see discussions over money a waste of time because I think it's time we outgrow such an old notion. People holding onto the monetary paradigm are not aware of what we can achieve on a scientific/technological level for everyone.

 

I'm not forgetting private banks - I'm simply saying that not all money is based on debt.

Yes of course in there are central banks which are private - i don't agree with that concept. Here's something for you - when was the last time Canada had a banking crisis? What were the rules regarding reserves then vs. the rules regarding reserves now? (It's not what you think)

 

Ah yes - you can't argue your way out so just dismiss it. I'm just not aware of the alternatives. That's some good debating.

Persuade me that we still need money.

[chenGOD]

LOL that's some quality debate - usually the onus to prove positions is on the person that is arguing to change, but ok.

 

Money is a simple medium of exchange, it is a relatively good store of value (and most people are willing to accept the problems that come with liquidity due to the fact that it's such an excellent medium of exchange), and it functions well as a unit of account.

 

The fact that it's such an excellent medium of exchange and that functions well as a unit of account is very important for trade. Some might counter with a barter system - which worked fine for some period of time - but we run into the problem called "double coincidence of wants". That is for barter to occur, both parties must have something the other party wants, and in sufficient quantity to meet each parties utility (how much happiness one derives from obtaining a product). Additionally, money eliminates the need to carry around the stuff you might want to barter. As our ability to produce a wider variety of goods increased, the complexity of carrying around exactly what another party wants for a particular good also increased. Money solves that problem by being a medium of exchange. By being a unit of account, it lets us know how much particular goods are worth.

 

Now, I know you are going to argue for a resource based economy. I've discussed that particular idea with you a few times - each time you haven't been able to come up with any answers to these simple problems:

1. There is a scarcity of resources, and all the wishing in the world won't change that.

2. There is no such thing as free energy, and everything has a tradeoff.

3. There are numerous examples of what happens to an economy when distribution of goods is determined by a central authority, and none of the outcomes are good.

4. The idea of re-educating people as per the doctrine of the Zeitgeist philosophy is frankly speaking, quite horrific and very authoritarian (not to mention unrealistic)

[SR4]

ive been hearing reports of "anarchist attacks" in a few hours against the occupy crowds...so police are issuing ultimatums...anyone have more information on this?

[chenGOD]

Dunno. Hey Smetty - wanna write my history paper for me? lol

[SR4]

God no.

 

 

No offense, I'm just finishing up the final revisions on my thesis..If I hear someone mention grammar one more time Im going to throw them down to the lowest point in the ocean.

 

Whats the paper on?

[chenGOD]

I was just joking anyways - I would never get anyone to write a paper for me.

 

It's on the triangular relationship between China, Japan and the US during the interwar period of 1918-1939. Primarily why relations shifted between the three shifted so much.

[SR4]

sounds pretty interesting. You look into the Naval Powers Conference in the 1920s? Some good stuff there.

 

 

and the 5:5:3 agreement, can't remember the real name for that.

 

 

though i cant quite remember how much China was involved in those talks.

[chenGOD]

yeah I've got the 5 power treaty (5:5:3 treaty), the 9 power treaty from the Washington Naval conference. I'm gonna sneak in the 21 demands. But there's things like the rise of Chinese nationalism, Japanese imperialism, Roosevelt's shift from isolationism to interventionism, and so on. Plenty to write about. Just organization as usual. And motivation lol.

Plus i have to write another paper that's also due next week for my security studies class. guh.

[Dale]

1. There is a scarcity of resources, and all the wishing in the world won't change that.

Some resources are more scarce than others. Before we can even consider a new economic system, we have to a survey of all the Earth's available resources (using technology to aid with this pursuit). I agree the planet is a closed-system - I don't think I've ever said that this is not the case. If we can live in accordance with what we have available, then something like a RBE is self-evident providing we have enough to go around. I think we could see in the future various technological inventions that can help us overcome the scarcity of certain resources - for example, chemical substitutes being created at a molecular level. The World Health Organisation and the UN have already declared in various literatures that there is enough food to go around many times over at the moment. So I'm assuming that through the method of resources surveys, we can gain more information in this area.

 

2. There is no such thing as free energy, and everything has a tradeoff.

The production of wind turbines depends on how much oil is available to make the plastics for such a device as well as transporting the components etc. We can head towards (technically speaking) an abundance of energy through various methods such as geothermal, solar, wind, wave and tidal energies. Many scientists advocate this direction - unfortunately abundance is an enemy of profit therefore the remaining oil supplies we have left-over will be profitted on first before we go into any new areas of renewable energy when in fact we could be utilising some of the remaining oil supplies to help build and transport these new energy methods. I'm not sure what else I can elaborate on here - the aim of any successful society is to try and accomplish an abundance of energy. I'm not saying infinite energy - just an "abundant level" - meaning enough to power society and then some. The aim is to put in as little energy as possible for the manufacturing of such technologies (automation).

 

3. There are numerous examples of what happens to an economy when distribution of goods is determined by a central authority, and none of the outcomes are good.

As far as centrality goes in a RBE - resource surveys, planning of infrastructure and resource availability statistics could be held on a central, electronic database that all citizens can access online to show, with full transparency, what we have available. Localisation is what is most important in the functioning of an RBE. For instance, localities would be in a position to grow their own food using whichever method is most appropriate e.g. vertical farming, hydroponics etc. Same goes for renewable energy sources - e.g. only a given area can allow for certain renewables to be implemented - somewhere that isn't windy of course would not be a very good place for wind energy. They wouldn't have to necessarily drive all the way to a central place for their needs to be taken care of. The whole idea of a RBE is to find the most efficient methods possible when it comes to resource allocation. There is no force or coercion involved. People can either stay or leave in such a system. Decisions are arrived at by scientific findings with optimisation and social concern in mind. Communities will still exist as will culture - the aim is not to remove "cultural norms" but to emphasise what we all have in common and what we all need (clean air, food, shelter, a relevant education) etc.

 

4. The idea of re-educating people as per the doctrine of the Zeitgeist philosophy is frankly speaking, quite horrific and very authoritarian (not to mention unrealistic)

There is of course none such thing as "re-education" - there is only "education". Knowledge is accumulated on top of pre-existing information.

People are free to choose whichever educational pursuits interest them the most - education would have to begin at birth. You have to remember that everyone is conditioned into a certain frame of mind. You could argue that both you and I are "brainwashed" into a given frame of mind for instance. This is undeniable - we are constantly influenced by our society/ideas. What matters though is whether those ideas are actually socially sustainable. This is the difference when it comes to education - and a socially sustainable education can be measured scientifically.

[chenGOD]

1. By the time we finished a survey of all the Earth's available resources (if that's even possible - which I don't believe it is), the results would have changed due to usage, new discoveries, waste.

2. While I am very much in favour of renewable sources of energy, it is simply not a viable replacement for traditional forms at present. Manufacturing costs are too high (in terms of resources expended to obtain required energy production) and it is still not efficient enough to meet our energy needs.

3. Resource surveys, city planning and so on are already available online. And yes, areas should grow what they produce well. This is what we do in a system of trade. Specialization and economies of scale enable locales to produce surpluses of goods so that they can trade for other goods they do not produce as efficiently. If the RBE allows people to enter and leave the system at will, people will do so to their own advantage. You mention farming - vertical farming is prohibitively expensive: Link 1 Link 2 (note that these are not people opposed to better farming practices, the first one is a guy named Michael Bomford - he does sustainable farming stuff at some university in the states, the second is George Monbiot).

4. You say "People are free to choose whichever educational pursuits interest them the most - education would have to begin at birth." Do you not see the contradiction in terms there? Brainwashing is not the same as being influenced by social and cultural factors. Like I said, we've already seen what happens when you have central resource allocation - none of the outcomes have been socially sustainable.

[Dale]

1. By the time we finished a survey of all the Earth's available resources (if that's even possible - which I don't believe it is), the results would have changed due to usage, new discoveries, waste.

2. While I am very much in favour of renewable sources of energy, it is simply not a viable replacement for traditional forms at present. Manufacturing costs are too high (in terms of resources expended to obtain required energy production) and it is still not efficient enough to meet our energy needs.

3. Resource surveys, city planning and so on are already available online. And yes, areas should grow what they produce well. This is what we do in a system of trade. Specialization and economies of scale enable locales to produce surpluses of goods so that they can trade for other goods they do not produce as efficiently. If the RBE allows people to enter and leave the system at will, people will do so to their own advantage. You mention farming - vertical farming is prohibitively expensive: Link 2 (note that these are not people opposed to better farming practices, the first one is a guy named Michael Bomford - he does sustainable farming stuff at some university in the states, the second is George Monbiot).

4. You say "People are free to choose whichever educational pursuits interest them the most - education would have to begin at birth." Do you not see the contradiction in terms there? Brainwashing is not the same as being influenced by social and cultural factors. Like I said, we've already seen what happens when you have central resource allocation - none of the outcomes have been socially sustainable.

You're responses are rooted in the need for money. It's the wrong question to I ask I think. A more relevant question would be, do we have the resources to attain a RBE? Not - 'do we have the money?' Of course a transition would have to occur whereby people's needs are taken care of by the government - this would have to be a smooth, as "moneyless" as possible transition. Think hunter-gatherer tribe mentalities whereby money doesn't intercept their way of life because it's irrelevant - but place this on a macro-scale so that people are fed/clothed/accommodated for. My response here answers no. 2 and 3

 

You haven't explained why global resource surveys cannot be carried out so I can't do anything with your response for no. 1. The aim would be to gather as much current data as possible and to track resources as efficiently/quickly as possible so that the results collated are as up-to-date as possible. We can at least attempt to do this. This isn't an impossible task.

 

Response to no. 4 - Examples of central resource allocation have been experiments within the confines of a monetary system.

I'm placing a larger emphasis of resource allocation on a localised level here. Centralised planning of infrastructure/resource statistics and availability would be a given however. Whichever is the most scientifically viable process, society would head towards it.

 

I'd be interested to hear what is socially sustainable about our current economic system?

[Dale]

Also - when it comes to education, I think a relevant education is one which encompasses crtitical thinking skills. The likes of Hitler wouldn't have rose to power if the German population had the tools to critically analyse what they saw before them. Do you condone critical thought being implemented as a key factor within education? This is what a RBE idea looks to implement.

[chenGOD]

1. By the time we finished a survey of all the Earth's available resources (if that's even possible - which I don't believe it is), the results would have changed due to usage, new discoveries, waste.

2. While I am very much in favour of renewable sources of energy, it is simply not a viable replacement for traditional forms at present. Manufacturing costs are too high (in terms of resources expended to obtain required energy production) and it is still not efficient enough to meet our energy needs.

3. Resource surveys, city planning and so on are already available online. And yes, areas should grow what they produce well. This is what we do in a system of trade. Specialization and economies of scale enable locales to produce surpluses of goods so that they can trade for other goods they do not produce as efficiently. If the RBE allows people to enter and leave the system at will, people will do so to their own advantage. You mention farming - vertical farming is prohibitively expensive: Link 2 (note that these are not people opposed to better farming practices, the first one is a guy named Michael Bomford - he does sustainable farming stuff at some university in the states, the second is George Monbiot).

4. You say "People are free to choose whichever educational pursuits interest them the most - education would have to begin at birth." Do you not see the contradiction in terms there? Brainwashing is not the same as being influenced by social and cultural factors. Like I said, we've already seen what happens when you have central resource allocation - none of the outcomes have been socially sustainable.

You're responses are rooted in the need for money. It's the wrong question to I ask I think. A more relevant question would be, do we have the resources to attain a RBE? Not - 'do we have the money?' Of course a transition would have to occur whereby people's needs are taken care of by the government - this would have to be a smooth, as "moneyless" as possible transition. Think hunter-gatherer tribe mentalities whereby money doesn't intercept their way of life because it's irrelevant - but place this on a macro-scale so that people are fed/clothed/accommodated for. My response here answers no. 2 and 3

 

You haven't explained why global resource surveys cannot be carried out so I can't do anything with your response for no. 1. The aim would be to gather as much current data as possible and to track resources as efficiently/quickly as possible so that the results collated are as up-to-date as possible. We can at least attempt to do this. This isn't an impossible task.

 

Response to no. 4 - Examples of central resource allocation have been experiments within the confines of a monetary system.

I'm placing a larger emphasis of resource allocation on a localised level here. Centralised planning of infrastructure/resource statistics and availability would be a given however. Whichever is the most scientifically viable process, society would head towards it.

 

I'd be interested to hear what is socially sustainable about our current economic system?

Also - when it comes to education, I think a relevant education is one which encompasses crtitical thinking skills. The likes of Hitler wouldn't have rose to power if the German population had the tools to critically analyse what they saw before them. Do you condone critical thought being implemented as a key factor within education? This is what a RBE idea looks to implement.

 

My responses are not rooted in the need for money - money is simply a medium of exchange. As well as being a medium of exchange it is also a unit of account which tells us how much of one thing another thing is worth. Think of energy trade-offs (in the case of vertical farming) not in terms of money - but in actual trade-offs. It costs more energy to farm vertically per unit of output than it does via traditional means.

I certainly did explain why carrying out global resource surveys (as you originally posited the idea that is: "we have to do a survey of all the Earth's available resources") is an exercise in futility - by the time any meaningful study has been conducted the availability of resources will have changed, in some cases dramatically. We do this in many cases anyways. There are estimates on resource availability done all the time and you can find the information quite simply by searching on the internet.

 

How does thinking in terms of "hunter-gatherer" mentality answer the question of renewable resources being a viable alternative? Hunter-gatherer tribes by definition cannot work on a macro-scale. When they came into contact with one another, they fought each other for available scarce resources.

Your statement "Think hunter-gatherer tribe mentalities whereby money doesn't intercept their way of life because it's irrelevant - but place this on a macro-scale so that people are fed/clothed/accommodated for." directly contradicts your later statement - "I'm placing a larger emphasis of resource allocation on a localised level". Is it macro or is it micro?

 

You keep getting hung up on the notion of a monetary system - remember money is simply a medium of exchange. Let's say that we implement the system of local resource allocation. Take for example the mineral coltan (used in the production of capacitors which feature heavily in our modern day tech - cell phones, laptops, playstations etc). This is obviously a very useful resource. Its availability is limited to a few countries. These countries should therefore focus on extraction of that mineral. However, as we know, capital is limited (there are only a set number of workers for example). There is a choice to make - countries with coltan could either extract that resource and manufacture computers, or they could send the coltan to another country who happens to be more proficient at producing computers, thereby freeing up more capital to extract the coltan. Which approach do you see as being more efficient? The one where we get some coltan and some computers all from the same place, or more coltan and more computers as a result of specialization? If you claim to be about efficiency, the latter is the correct approach. This necessitates trade. Now instead of one country lugging coltan all over the world and saying "hey, we have some coltan, what can we get in exchange" we use money as a medium of exchange because it solves the problem of the double coincidence of wants (explained upthread).

 

There are certainly problems with our system but they are not as large as you make them out to be. Note that in Canada income inequality is much less than in the US. the same holds true for several other developed nations. You make the mistake of conflating US problems with global problems. Your approach throws out the baby with the bathwater.

 

As for the critical thinking ability of the Germans comment, I will not dignify that with a response, as that statement is an example of reductio ad absurdum. You should be ashamed of yourself.